W912HN-15-R-0016-0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SOLICITATION NUMBER W912HN-15-R-0016, ENTITLED SAS HYDROPOWER SATOC is amended as follow s:

A. The Time and Date for Proposals is extended to 05 October 2015 at 2:00 PM ET.

B. All other terms and conditions of the solicitiaton remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 22

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-Sep-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912HN-15-R-0016

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Aug-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

23-Sep-2015

CODE

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401-3640

W912HN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN-15-R-0016

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 25-Sep-2015 11:00 AM to 05-Oct-2015 02:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

NOTES TO OFFERORS

SAS HYDROPOWER SATOC

W912HN‐15‐R‐0016

SECTION B – NOTES TO OFFERORS

This is a Single Award Task Order Contract for Savannah District (SAS) Hydropower Power plants.

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE WEBSITE LISTED BELOW. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION SENT VIA EMAIL OR FACSIMILE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. HAND CARRIED PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format. The price proposal and technical proposal shall be submitted as “separate” single files. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN‐15‐R‐0016_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME I

W912HN‐15‐R‐0016_COMPANY NAME_VOLUME II

Submit the Price and Technical proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website at:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/. At the AMRDEC SAFE website select the link: I do not have a CAC or this machine is not configured to read my CAC and I would like to access SAFE as a Guest User, to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s). [Note: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.]

When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to enter e‐mail addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The contract specialist for this project is Ms. Kosha Jones, whose e‐mail address is kosha.k.jones@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Mr. Bruce A. Helms, whose e‐mail address is Bruce.A.Helms@usace.army.mil. These e‐mail addresses are the ones you will enter as recipients.

In addition, after uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your e‐mail address before AMRDEC will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the Government until you verify your e‐mail address, which may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and confirmation e‐mails you receive from AMRDEC.

Proposal Due Date and Time:

October 05, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. ET

Request For Proposal No: W912HN‐15‐R‐0016 Title of Project: SAS Hydropower SATOC

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the e‐mail notification to the contract specialist and contracting officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, not by the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ e‐mail inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late.

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any locations or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposal on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the information provided.

WAGE DETERMINATIONS: The appropriate wage determination will be incorporated on a task order by task order basis.

TECHNICAL MATTERS: Submit technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org) at least 10 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to receipt of proposals.

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in the Request for Proposal contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound; immediately notify the contract specialist in writing with supporting rationale.

The Government reserves the right to award this Request for Proposal based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

To submit and review inquiry items, prospective vendors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective vendor who submits a comment or question will receive an acknowledgement via e‐mail, followed by an answer after it has been processed by our technical team. All timely questions and approved answers will be made available through ProjNet. Approved answers to all timely questions will also be posted on FedBizOps in the form of a report generated from ProjNet as soon as the comment/question entering period is over and answers are all finalized.

W912HN‐15‐R‐0016

SAS Hydropower SATOC Bidder Inquiry Key: T69XEI‐7E88PM

Specific Instructions for Initial ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen

2. Identify the Agency as USACE

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. E‐mail. Enter the e‐mail address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, E‐mail, Secret Question, Secret

Answer and Time Zone. Remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged in the system.

Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

Steps 1 through 3: same as above

4. E‐mail. Enter the e‐mail address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open asking for the answer to your Secret Question.

6. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed, you are logged into the system.

Offerors may schedule a site visit between 9‐10 September 2015. The POC to schedule a site visit is Mr.

James Payne. Mr. Payne’s contact information is listed below:

E‐mail: James.D.Payne@usace.army.mil Phone: (706) 856‐0369 Mobile: (706) 717‐0048

Address: Hartwell Powerplant 6961 Anderson Hwy Hartwell, GA 30643

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. OFFERORS WHO CAN SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

The Savannah District (SAS) Turbine-Generator Repair and Rehabilitation SATOC ID/IQ solicitation will be procured using a full and open competition. The System for Award Management (www.sam.gov) website will be checked to assure that contractor’ status is current.

2. PROPOSAL INFORMATION

Copies of the solicitation are available on or about August 26, 2015. All documents will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website https://www.fbo.gov.

All amendments will also be posted to this website. It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments. The offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposal received as a result of this solicitation.

2.1. Point of Contact:

Contractual: Ms. Kosha Jones US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District Phone: (912) 652-5108 E-mail: kosha.k.jones@usace.army.mil

NOTE: All written questions and/or comments should reach the above referenced Contracting Office no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for receiving proposals in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers. A pre-proposal conference will not be held.

2.2 Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

2.3 Method of Procurement

2.3.1 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, intends to conduct this acquisition by use of competitive source selection procedures in accordance with the provisions set forth in the RFP.

From this solicitation, one (1) SATOC IDIQ contract will be awarded to a firm using a firm-fixed price contract for SAS Turbine-Generator Repair and Rehabilitation. The contract is scheduled for award on or about November 6, 2015. Award will be made to the offeror submitting a proposal determined to be most advantageous to the Government; price, and other factors considered. It is strongly suggested that the provisions stated in the proposal information be fully studied prior to assembly of the proposal.

2.3.2 Note specifically that the offeror will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

2.3.3 Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP (including attachments). The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

2.3.4 The Government reserves the right to discuss aspects of proposals with offerors in the competitive range and to award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the lowest priced offer.

Offerors are advised that the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications or any contact concerning the proposals received. Therefore, proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms and price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposals.

2.4 Proposal Submittals

All proposals shall be submitted electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website per SECTION B – NOTES TO OFFERORS. No hardcopy proposals will be accepted, including mailed and handcarried proposals.

Table 1

FACTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION

RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 1 Volume 1, Tabs A1, A2, and A3 Corporate Recent Relevant Experience

Equal to Factor 2 and Most Important Factor

Subfactor 1 Tab A1 Generators And Large Pump Motors

Equally important with subfactor 3 and less important than subfactor 2.

Subfactor 2 Tab A2 Testing, FEA Analysis and Reduction of Generator Stator Vibration

Most important subfactor

Subfactor 3 Tab A3 Turbines, Large Pumps, Water Passage, and Closure Devices

Equally important with subfactor 1 and less important than subfactor 2.

IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 2 Volume 1, Tabs B1 and B2 Past Performance Equal to Factor 1 and Most Important Factor

Subfactor 1 Tab B1 Completed or On-going Contracts

Equally important with subfactor 2

Subfactor 2 Tab B2 Customer Satisfaction (PPQ) Equally important with subfactor 1

FACTOR 3 Volume 1, Tabs C1, C2 and C3 Technical Approach Less Important than

Factors 1 & 2 Subfactor 1 Tab C1 Pricing Scenario1 Equally important with subfactors 2 and 3 Subfactor 2 Tab C2 Pricing Scenario 2 Equally important with subfactors 1 and 3 Subfactor 3 Tab C3 Pricing Scenario 3 Equally important with subfactors 1 and 2

NON-TECHNICAL

(PRICE) VOLUME

Volume 2, Tabs A to C

Tab A Completed and Signed SF33 Not rated Tab B Fully Burdened Labor Rate

Schedule Not rated

Tab C Completed Representations and Certifications

Not rated

3. VOLUME CONTENT

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall consist of the contents required in the sub-paragraphs described below:

3.1 Volume 1, TECHNICAL, TAB A: Factor 1: Corporate Recent Relevant Experience

3.1.1, Tab A1: Experience with Equipment Type 1: Repair and Rewind of Generators And Large Pump Motors

The offeror shall demonstrate recent (on-going work or completed within the past 5 years) experience performing inspections, rewedging stator windings, repairing field and stator windings including partial rewinds, and supplying and installing single and multi-turn coil windings for generators of different designs with ratings of 30 MVA or larger. The offeror shall submit the following information for 5-10 unique projects:

1. Customer Organization, primary point of contact and position held, address, phone, and email;

2. Contract Number, if applicable;

3. Location (powerhouse name) and State or Country;

4. Date contract and/or Work began;

5. Date item of equipment was delivered or repairs, refurbishment, or rehabilitation were substantially completed

6. Indicate if prime or subcontractor on project;

7. A brief explanation of what was manufactured or what repairs were performed including the rating, size, or type of equipment applicable to this experience criterion

Note: To qualify as ongoing work, the contract must be at least 25% complete.

3.1.2, Tab A2: Experience with Equipment Type 2: Testing, FEA Analysis, and Reduction of Generator Stator Vibration

The offeror shall demonstrate recent (on-going work or completed within the past 20 years) experience diagnosing through inspections, testing, and computer simulations the cause of excessive stator core vibration, and with developing and successfully implementing solutions to the vibration problems for generators of different design with a rating of 30 MVA or larger. The offeror shall submit the following information for 2-4 unique projects:

1. Customer Organization, primary point of contact and position held, address, phone, and email;

2. Contract Number, if applicable;

3. Location (powerhouse name) and State or Country;

4. Date contract and/or Work began;

5. Date item that analysis and solution implementation were substantially completed

6. Indicate if prime or subcontractor on project;

7. A brief explanation of what analysis and testing was performed, what repairs were developed, and the results of post repair testing confirming a reduction in vibration levels, including the rating, size, or type of equipment applicable to this experience criterion

Note: To qualify as ongoing work, the contract must be at least 75% complete.

3.1.3, Tab A3: Experience with Equipment Type 3: Turbines, and Large Pumps

The offeror shall demonstrate recent, (on-going work completed within the past 5 years) experience for supplying and installing new turbine runners, repairing existing runners of different design for turbines with a size of at least the following: 110-inch diameter runner for Francis turbines. For runner repair work, the scope of the project shall include complete unit disassembly and reassembly. The offeror shall submit the following information for 3-10 unique projects:

1. Customer Organization, primary point of contact and position held, address, phone, and email;

2. Contract Number, if applicable;

3. Location (powerhouse name) and State or Country;

4. Date contract and/or Work began;

5. Date item of equipment was delivered or repairs, refurbishment, or rehabilitation were substantially completed

6. Indicate if prime or subcontractor on project;

7. A brief explanation of what was manufactured or what repairs were performed including the rating, size, or type of equipment applicable to this experience criterion

Note: To qualify as ongoing work, the contract must be at least 25% complete.

3.2 Volume 1, TECHNICAL, TAB B: Factor 2: Past Performance

3.2.1, Tab B1: List of Contracts: The offeror shall provide a list contracts submitted in response to Factor 1, Recent Relevant Experience, which are similar in size, scope and complexity, for projects currently on-going or completed within the last 5 years. This list shall include:

1. Contract Number

2. Contract Value

3. Contracting Office

4. Contracting Officer (or Point of Contact) – include phone number and e-mail address

5. Indication if a past performance evaluation exists in the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System

(PPIRS)

The offeror shall ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact for each contract submitted.

3.2.2, Tab B2: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): Each offeror shall provide at least seven (7) PPQ’s. A minimum of four PPQ’s shall be for projects representing Type 1 equipment and a minimum of three PPQ’s shall be for projects representing Type 2 equipment. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the Contracting Officer has received the minimum stated PPQ’s for Equipment Type 1 and 2 prior to the date/time stated in the solicitation

1. Complete Part I of the Contractor Performance Questionnaire and forward to the seven (7) references and have them returned as specified on the form. The references used for Past Performance must be among those listed in List of Recent and On-going Contracts, above. There is also a sample Transmittal Letter you may use for the Past Performance Questionnaire.

2. During past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to consider information outside of the proposals for past performance of the offeror. The Government will consider information submitted by the offeror, as well as any other relevant and reliable information obtained from any other source (including information from Government personnel and databases). The Government will evaluate the currency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and general trends in performance, along with any other information, which may help the Government, assess performance risk. Information on significant problems encountered, customer dissatisfactions, and corrective actions taken should be provided. This evaluation of past performance is separate from the responsibility determination.

3. A significant achievement, unexplained or unresolved problem, or lack of relevant data may significantly impact the risk rating by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

4. In addition to the project information requested in this section, the offeror shall also provide notification and information concerning any projects where its right to proceed was terminated for default during the last three years, or so state that there were none.

5. In rating past performance, the SSEB may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project.

3.3 Volume 1, Tabs C1-C3: Pricing Scenarios

The RFP provides that Factor 3 is less important than Factors 1 and 2. It may also include verification of an offeror’s price, and exchanges with the offeror to determine whether it has an acceptable understanding of the difficulties that may be encountered in performing the work described.

3.3.2 Volume 1, Tab C1 – PRICING SCENARIO 1:

The Offeror shall provide a price proposal for this scenario. Price proposal shall include a first tier cost breakdown for direct labor, direct material, direct other, overhead, and profit. A price proposal shall also include a work breakdown structure for direct labor applying the rates proposed in the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule. For major equipment items, include manufacturing and factory locations with proposed costs.

GENERATOR INSPECTION AND REHABILITATION SUPPORT SERVICES

A generator in a Powerhouse has failed. Investigation by the project indicates that extensive damage exists in the stator winding and core requiring complete replacement of both. No soleplate work or stator frame modifications are anticipated. The rotor winding is intact with no repairs required. The unit needs to be fully repaired and returned to reliable service. The generator is rated 131,759 kVA, 0.95 power factor, three-phase, 60 Hz, 90 rpm and 13,800 volts. The generator is guaranteed for continuous operation at 115% of nameplate kVA. The generator was manufactured by General Electric Corporation and began operation in 1975. The generator is designed for star connection of the stator winding with each phase consisting of three parallel paths of 52 single turn coils with Roebel transposition. There are 468 slots in the stator core.

The work will consist of the following:

Perform all work to completely repair the stator. This includes performing all factory and field work associated with replacing the stator core and winding, including disassembly and reassembly of the unit.

Special field testing is also included. For site work, the Contractor shall employ qualified personnel (to include crane operators, riggers, skilled craftsmen) and provide dedicated individuals for site supervision, quality control and safety and health compliance for all shifts worked. Lifting devices for major parts will be furnished by the Government. Corps personnel will un-water the unit, maintain the unit in an un-watered condition during work, and re-water the unit after completion of work. Oil handling (draining and filling) will be performed by Corps personnel. Clean-up and disposal of residual oil shall be performed by the Contractor.

Work shall be completed within or less than 13 calendar month duration for this scenario. The Contractor's work schedule shall not exceed two ten (10) hour shifts per day, six (6) days per week.

The work in this Scenario shall meet the following Performance Objectives:

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

PRICING SCENARIO 1:

GENERATOR INSPECTION AND REHABILITATION SUPPORT SERVICES

Performance Objective

Standard

Allowed Number of

Discrepancies

Surveillance

Field Work and Special Field Testing

Completion of all field work to completely repair the unit. Special field testing results meet or exceed guarantee efficiency requirements

100% Review of testing results

100% inspection

Supply COR/ Windings

Contractor passes all necessary required material and performance testing required to completely repair the unit

3.3.3 Volume 1, Tab C2 – PRICING SCENARIO 2:

The Offeror shall provide a price proposal for this scenario. Price proposal shall include a first tier cost breakdown for direct labor, direct material, direct other, overhead, and profit. A price proposal shall also include a work breakdown structure for direct labor applying the rates proposed in the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule. For major equipment items, include manufacturing and factory locations with proposed costs.

GENERATOR INSPECTION AND STATOR VIBRATION REDUCTION SERVICES

A generator is suffering from severe core vibration. Previous attempts to reduce the core vibration levels have been unsuccessful. The unit needs to be fully repaired and returned to reliable service. The generator is rated 131,759 kVA, 0.95 power factor, three-phase, 60 Hz, 90 rpm and 13,800 volts. The generator is guaranteed for continuous operation at 115% of nameplate kVA. The generator was manufactured by General Electric Corporation and began operation in 1975. The generator is designed for star connection of the stator winding with each phase consisting of three parallel paths of 52 single turn coils with Roebel transposition. There are 468 slots in the stator core.

The work will consist of the following:

Perform all work to substantially reduce the vibration of the stator. This includes performing all required reviews of existing drawings and test reports, development of models necessary for the mechanical and electromagnetic analysis of the generator, special testing to determine the resonant response of the stator core to both field mmf and stator mmf excitation of vibration, analysis of test results, development of proposed solutions, the estimated costs to implement the solutions. For the purposes of this scenario, assume the repair solution requires the reconnection of 18 pole group jumpers in the stator winding. For site work, the Contractor shall employ qualified personnel (to include crane operators, riggers, skilled craftsmen) and provide dedicated individuals for site supervision, quality control and safety and health compliance for all shifts worked. Lifting devices for major parts will be furnished by the Government.

Corps personnel will support the special testing of the generator and will un-water the unit, maintain the unit in an un-watered condition during repair work, and re-water the unit after completion of work. Oil handling (draining and filling) will be performed by Corps personnel. Clean-up and disposal of residual oil shall be performed by the Contractor.

Work shall be completed within or less than 6 calendar month duration for this scenario. The Contractor's work schedule shall not exceed two ten (10) hour shifts per day, six (6) days per week.

PRICING SCENARIO 2:

GENERATOR INSPECTION AND STATOR VIBRATION REDUCTION

SERVICES

Allowed

Analysis and Special Field Testing

Completion of all analysis, testing, and repair option development work to reduce stator vibration of the unit.

testing and analysis results

Field Work and Post-repair Testing

Completion of all field work to completely repair the unit. Successful completion of post-repair testing.

3.3.4 Volume 1, Tab C3 – PRICING SCENARIO 3:

The Offeror shall provide a price proposal for this scenario. Price proposal shall include a first tier cost labor, direct material, direct other, overhead, and profit. A price proposal shall also include a work breakdown structure for direct labor applying the rates proposed in the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule.

FRANCIS TURBINE RUNNER REPAIR, REHABILITATION, AND REPLACEMENT SERVICES

A 165” diameter Francis type turbine in a Powerhouse has previously had cracks on the blades that have been repaired on site. During normal maintenance outages, it was noticed that the cracks have returned and are in an area of the crown that requires complete unit disassembly. Units 1 and 2 are vertical shaft Francis turbines designed and manufactured by S. Morgan Smith and installed in the early 1950’s. The unit is to be returned to service as quickly as possible to minimize impacts to region.

The Contractor shall perform the following work using qualified personnel (to include crane operators, riggers, skilled craftsmen) and provide dedicated individuals for site supervision, quality control and safety and health compliance for all shifts worked. To following specific work is to be performed:

Pre-disassembly checks of unit operation and alignment.

Disassembly of turbine and generator.

Inspect thrust bearing, generator guide bearings, and turbine guide bearing. Spare bearings (thrust, generator and turbine guide) may be installed in-place of operating bearings. Bearing refurbishment is not part of this work.

Complete thorough examination of all disassembled turbine parts for wear, physical damage, or other abnormal conditions.

Perform NDT on 17 blades.

Submitting weld design and calculations to address the blade repair in accordance with ASME.

Performing weld repair.

Non-destructive examination of all repaired areas by certified CWI in accordance with ASME.

Visually inspect and clean all components before reassembly.

Reassemble turbine and generator to include touch up painting of parts.

Provide all new expendable or consumable and miscellaneous parts such as, but not limited to, keys, dowels, shims, o-rings, gaskets, and packing.

Perform post-assembly alignment checks; alignment efforts will be limited to rotating component movement, adjustment of bearing shoes, shimming, and relocating/redoweling bearing brackets. Efforts outside of the scope include component machining, stator movement, or moving stationary components outside existing clearances.

Replace disturbed piping and conduit.

Point-to-point check of all disturbed electrical connections.

Commission the unit after reassembly. This will be a limited commissioning effort focused on making sure the unit has been reassembled properly and is operating properly.

All water, power (120V & 480V), general lighting (in scroll case), ventilation fans over the intake gate slots, usage of the bridge crane, and compressed air (20 SCFM @ 100psig) will be made available for the contractors use. Lifting devices for major parts will be furnished by the Government. Corps personnel will un-water the unit, maintain the unit in an un-watered condition during work, and re-water the unit after completion of work. Oil handling (draining and filling) will be performed by Corps personnel. Clean-up and disposal of residual oil shall be performed by the Contractor. No major electrical work is to be performed.

The Offeror shall provide a schedule that shows the work completed in less than 10 calendar month duration for this scenario. The Contractor's work schedule shall not exceed two ten (10) hour shifts per day, six (6) days per week.

PRICING SCENARIO 3:

FRANCIS TURBINE RUNNER REPAIR, REHABILITATION, AND REPLACEMENT SERVICES

Allowed

Repair of 165” diameter Francis Type Turbine Runner

Restore Francis Turbine Runner back to full operational functionality

0 discrepancies allowed

100% inspection

Schedule

Contractor has completed the work in less than 6 calendar month duration

0 discrepancies allowed

100% inspection

3.3.1 Volume 2, Tab A – Signed SF33Solicitation, Offer, and Award

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or Line 14 of Standard Form 33. IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(3), we’re using cost realism analysis on this competitve fixed-price-type contract to ensure this new requirement is fully understood by competing offers and because there has been quality concerns or past experience indicates that the contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls. The results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

Proposals shall be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices shall be adjusted as a result of the analysis.

3.3.2 Volume 2, Tab B– FULLY BURDENED LABOR RATE SCHEDULE

Pricing proposals shall include a labor rate schedule. The offeror shall prepare a table substantially similar to the tables shown within this section to show how the offeror reached their Direct Labor rate.

Should the offeror’s proposal be accepted for award, the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule shall be incorporated into the contract and shall reflect the maximum rate the offeror may use to price future Task Orders under this contract.

3.3.3 Volume 2, Tab C – Representations and Certifications

The offeror shall fill out in its entirety all of Section K that applies to the offeror. The offeror’s responsibility will be reviewed in accordance with FAR Part 9. The offeror shall complete all representations and certifications in Section K and also complete the required Annual Representations and Certifications through the On-line Representation and Certification Application (ORCA) at http://orca.bpn.gov.

4.0 QUALITY CONTROL

4.1 ISO 9000 Certification

The Prime contractor will be required to hold a current ISO 9001:2008 certification. It means that a Certification Body, often called a Registrar, accredited by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) has closely audited the ISO 9001 Quality Management System (QMS) and found that the contractor meets all the requirements of the ISO 9001:2008 QMS Standard.

This means the contractor is committed to total quality management; a customer focus, a continually improving process approach implemented throughout the organization, critical processes and their interactions are understood and documented, and a strong management commitment to all these facets of the ISO 9001 QMS. A current ISO 9001:2008 certification is required to be provided by the offeror in their proposal.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. INITIAL REVIEW OF PROPOSALS

Proposals will be reviewed for general conformance with the solicitation requirements. Proposals that do not generally conform to the solicitation requirements may be considered to have a “critical defect”, i.e. a defect that cannot be remedied by exchanges and/or permitted proposal revisions. If a proposal is suspected of having a critical defect, it will be brought to the immediate attention of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). If the SSA determines that there is a critical defect, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will be eliminated from further consideration. The affected offeror shall be promptly notified of the decision.

2. SOURCE SELECTION

All proposals conforming to the solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Sections “L,” “M,” and the Source Selection Plan. The principal objective of the evaluation process is to make award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be the “best value” to the Government, price and other factors considered. Should the Government determine that the award of a contract is not in the best interest of the Government, the contract award will not take place.

3. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions required, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. The identities of the SSEB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the offerors to contact these individuals is prohibited.

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA

An initial proposal screening process will be applied to each proposal received to establish if the offer meets the minimum technical requirements of the specifications. Failure to receive a “Pass” for each of these criteria may disqualify the offeror from further consideration for award.

As established in Sections L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors” and M, “Evaluation Factors for Award” of the solicitation, the following criteria will form the basis of proposal evaluation. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal is divided into three (3) factors. Volume 2 – Non technical proposal will be subjectively evaluated. The following table reflects the proposal format and relative importance of areas that the SSEB shall thoroughly review and evaluate.

IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 1 Volume 1, Tabs A1, A2, and A3 Corporate Recent Relevant Experience

Equal to Factor 2 and Most Important Factor

Subfactor 1 Tab A1 Generators And Large Pump Motors

Equally important with subfactor 3 and less important than subfactor 2.

Subfactor 2 Tab A2 Testing, FEA Analysis and Reduction of Generator Stator Vibration

Most important subfactor

Subfactor 3 Tab A3 Turbines, Large Pumps, Water Passage, and Closure Devices

Equally important with subfactor 1 and less important than subfactor 2.

IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 2 Volume 1, Tabs B1 and B2 Past Performance Equal to Factor 1 and Most Important Factor

Subfactor 1 Tab B1 Completed or On-going Contracts

Equally important with subfactor 2

Subfactor 2 Tab B2 Customer Satisfaction (PPQ) Equally important with subfactor 1 FACTOR 3 Volume 1, Tabs C1, C2 and C3 Technical Approach Less Important than

Factors 1 & 2 Subfactor 1 Tab C1 Pricing Scenario1 Equally important with subfactors 2 and 3 Subfactor 2 Tab C2 Pricing Scenario 2 Equally important with subfactors 1 and 3 Subfactor 3 Tab C3 Pricing Scenario 3 Equally important with subfactors 1 and 2

NON-TECHNICAL

(PRICE) VOLUME

Volume 2, Tabs A to C

Tab A Completed and Signed SF33 Not rated Tab B Fully Burdened Labor Rate

Schedule Not rated

Tab C Completed Representations and Certifications

Not rated

4.1 Technical merit shall be evaluated for each major factor and sub-factor contained in Volume 1.

Technical merit, which reflects the Government’s confidence in each offeror’s ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP, shall be evaluated based on the following:

4.1.1 Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates numerous examples of directly applicable and successful experience and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

4.1.2 Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates more than the minimum number of examples of directly applicable and successful experience a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

4.1.3 Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates the minimum number of examples of directly applicable and successful experience and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

4.1.4 Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not indicated the minimum number of examples of directly applicable and successful experience and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

4.1.5 Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

4.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings shall be done for each major factor and sub-factor contained in Volume I, Past Performance Past Performance Relevancy Ratings assess the risks associated with each offeror’s likelihood of success in performing requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent contracts for relevant work. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral rating for these factors. The rating criteria are as follows:

4.2.1 Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.2 Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.3 Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.4 Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.5 Unknown Relevance (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful relevance assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.3 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts, and determine the relevance of the information by considering the age of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance and technical approach on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance and technical approach confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance.

At the conclusion of this process of evaluating past performance, an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is assigned to each offeror. The possible ratings, along with their descriptions, are as follows:

4.3.1 Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.3.2 Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.3.3 Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

4.3.4 No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.3.5 Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.3 The cost/price portion of the proposal will be subjectively evaluated allowing for a “best value” analysis of the proposal as a whole using a trade-off process. Total evaluation price will be computed by adding the fully burden rates for each discpline listed in each of the five years listed to arrive at a total final price for evaluation purposes. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

4.4 Overall, evaluators will assess whether the proposal meets the requirements of the RFP. If a technical factor/sub-factor is not addressed, it may be rated as Unacceptable. If a performance capability factor/sub-factor is not addressed, it may be rated as Unknown Confidence (Neutral). Should the proposal contain a critical defect, the proposal shall be rejected.

5. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate the information submitted in Section M of the RFP in accordance with the Source Selection Plan. The Government will use the following evaluation criteria which were established in the Source Selection Plan.

5.1 Volume 1, Tab A1, Experience with Repair and Rewind of Generators and Large Pump Motors

The proposal shall document at least five (5) examples of recent examples of relevant (on-going work or completed within the past 5 years) experience performing inspections, rewedging stator windings, repairing field and stator windings including partial rewinds, and supplying and installing single and multi-turn coil windings for generators of different designs with ratings of 50 MVA or larger. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors whose proposal documents more than the minimum number of examples of recent relevant experience.

5.2 Volume 1, Tab A2, Experience with Testing, FEA Analysis, and Reduction of Generator Stator

Vibration

The proposal shall document at least two (2) recent examples of relevant (on-going work or completed within the past 10 years) experience diagnosing through inspections, testing, and computer simulations the cause of excessive stator core vibration, and with developing and successfully implementing solutions to the vibration problems for generators of different design with a rating of 50 MVA or larger. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors whose proposal documents more than the minimum number of examples of recent relevant experience.

5.3 Volume 1, Tab A3, Experience with Turbines, and Large Pumps

The proposal shall document at least three (3) recent examples of relevant, (on-going work completed within the past 5 years) experience for supplying and installing new turbine runners, repairing existing runners of different design for turbines with a size of at least the following: 110-inch diameter runner for Francis turbines. For runner repair work, the scope of the project shall include complete unit disassembly and reassembly. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors whose proposal documents more than the minimum number of examples of recent relevant experience.

5.4 Volume 1, Tab B1, Completed or On-going Projects

The proposal shall include the list contracts submitted in response to Factor 1, Recent Relevant Experience, which are similar in size, scope and complexity, for projects currently on-going or completed within the last 5 years. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors whose proposal documents more experience or more directly comparable experience than the minimum required above.

5.5 Volume 1, Tab B2, Performance Capability

Offerors will be evaluated on past performance based on a review of the past performance questionnaires, with the option of contacting end users using the contact information provided. In addition, the Contractors Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Construction

Administration Support System (CCASS) databases will be queried to determine the past performance of the offerors for similar projects. T he Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or Private Sector work to verify the offeror’s past performance. Offerors without any evaluations in CPARS or CCASS, or for which no Past Performance Questionnaires were returned will be assigned an Unknown Confidence rating (Neutral).

5.6 Volume 1, Tab C – Contractor Information and Certification

5.6.1 Volume 1, Tab C1 to C3 – Pricing Scenarios 1, 2 and 3

The RFP provides their technical approach will be evaluated as less important than their corporate relevant experience and past performance. It may also include verification of an offeror’s price, and exchanges with the offeror to determine whether it has an acceptable understanding of the difficulties that may be encountered in performing the work described.

5.6.2 Volume 2, Tab A – SF33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 or Line 14 of Standard Form 33. The criteria used to evaluate cost/price include cost realism. Cost realism will be evaluated on the basis of whether pricing information reflects a clear understanding of the costs and risks associated with the project. Ordinarily, this will include a comparison of the proposed price with the Government Estimate and other proposed prices.

5.6.3 Volume 2, Tab B – Fully Burdened…