W912HN-15-R-0016-0004.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

W912HN-15-R-0016

SAS Hydropow er SATOC

This solicitation is amended as follow s:

A. Revisions are being made to Pg. 83 of 88 in the solicitation, Section M, Evaluation of proposals paragraphs 5.1 & 5.2.

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

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 10

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-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 is extended, X 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 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

29-Sep-2015

CODE

US 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 M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

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.

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.

FACTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION

RELATIVE

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 30 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 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. 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 Labor Rate Schedule

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule shall be filled out completely by the offeror.

5.6.4 Volume 2, Tab C, – Representations and Certifications

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness and completeness. 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.

6. IMPORTANCE OF VOLUMES

The evaluation process uses adjectival rating for each factor.

Note: All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

7. PROPOSAL REVISIONS

At the conclusion of discussions, if required, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (See Paragraph 10.1). These proposal revisions shall be received, in writing, at a time and place established by the Contracting Officer.

8. SSEB EVALUATION REPORT

The final SSEB evaluation report will be prepared and briefed to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) and the Contracting Officer. This report will include the final consensus rating for each criterion of each offer and documented facts and findings, which support the SSEB ratings. The report will include an assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the requirement.

9. FINAL EVALUATION

The successful offeror will be selected from the combined results of the evaluation process. The SSA shall ensure the proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

10. AWARD OF CONTRACT

10.1 The Government will evaluate proposals and may award without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

10.2 The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed Price SATOC IDIQ contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the criteria established in this solicitation and the Source Selection Plan, and is considered most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

10.3 The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

11. DEBRIEFING

11.1 The debriefing of offerors, successful or unsuccessful, will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.505 – Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506 – Post-award Debriefing Offerors. A summary of the debriefing shall be included in the official contract file. Offerors shall be permitted only one (1) debriefing.

11.1.1 In accordance with FAR 15.505 – Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors – Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award, may have a pre-award debriefing, upon written request for debriefing to the contracting officer within three days after receipt of notice of exclusion from the competition.

11.1.2 Debriefings will be conducted in writing. An offeror’s debriefing request should include any debriefing questions. The Contracting Officer with assistance from individuals that performed the evaluations will provide written responses to questions. At a minimum, the pre-award debriefing information shall include:

11.1.2.1 The agency’s evaluation of significant elements of the offeror’s proposal;

11.1.2.2 A summary of the rational for eliminating the offeror from the completion

11.1.2.3 Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed in the process of eliminating the offeror from the Competition.

11.1.3 The pre-award debriefings shall not disclose:

11.1.3.1 The number of offerors;

11.1.3.2 The identity of other offerors;

11.1.3.3 The content of other offerors proposals

11.1.3.4 The ranking of other offerors

11.1.3.5 The evaluation of other offerors

11.1.3.6 Any of the information prohibited in FAR 15.506(e).

11.2 In accordance with FAR 15.506 – Post-award Debriefing of Offerors – Offerors, upon written request received by the Contracting Officer within three days after receipt of notification of contract award, shall be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award.

11.3 Because of the number of anticipated responses, debriefings will be conducted in writing. An offeror’s debriefing request should include any debriefing questions. The Contracting Officer with assistance from individuals that performed the evaluations will provide written responses to questions. At a minimum, the post-award debriefing information shall include:

11.3.1 The Government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal, if applicable;

11.3.2 The overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating, if applicable, of the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror;

11.3.3 The overall ranking of all offerors when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;

11.3.4 A summary of the rationale for award;

11.3.5 Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.

11.4 The debriefings shall not:

11.4.1 Allow a point-by-point comparison of the debriefed offeror’s proposal with those of other offerors

11.4.2 Reveal any information prohibited from disclosure or exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act to include:

11.4.2.1.1 Trade Secrets

11.4.2.1.2 Privileged or Confidential manufacturing processes or techniques;

11.4.2.1.3 Commercial and financial information that is privileged or confidential, including cost breakdowns, profit, indirect cost rates, and similar information;

11.4.2.1.4 The names of individuals providing information about an offeror’s past performance.

11.5 When practicable, debriefing requests received more than three days after the offeror receives notice of contract award shall be accommodated. A Contracting Representative and the Chairperson of the SSEB will schedule the debriefing(s). Release of source selection information after award will be the responsibility of the Contracting Division in conjunction with the Office of Counsel.

(End of Summary of Changes)