W912HN-15-R-0016_AMD_0006.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

SAS HYDROPOWER SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (SATOC)

a. The required response date provided in Amendment 0005 for this solicitation has been changed from 08 January 2016 02:00 PM to 21 January 2016 02:00 PM.

b. This amendment w ill also correct the labeling for Section M Attachment Tab E Small Business Participation Plan to Attachment Tab D Small Business Participation Plan. Paragraph 5.11 is also being corrected from Volume 2, Tab E - Small Business Subcontracting Plan to Volume 2, Tab F - Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

All other items remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 23

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 31-Dec-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

31-Dec-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 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 (See Amendment 0005):

W912HN‐15‐R‐0016_COMPANYNAME_AMENDMENTRESPONSE

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 Whittni Wright, whose e‐mail address is kosha.k.jones@usace.army.mil whittni.c.wright@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:

January 21, 2016 at 2:00 P.M. ET 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) and will be re‐opened for inquiries regarding Amendment 0005 changes and will close at least 10 2 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFP for receipt of revised 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 M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

ATTACHMENT VOLUME 1

TAB B

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

1. 7. Date

Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yyyy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO

SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE

SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC

INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL

INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner.

A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort

E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)?

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues? (Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

ATTACHMENT VOLUME 1

TAB D

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

(1) All offerors, both small and large businesses, are required to submit Small Business Participation Plan information in accordance with DFARS 215.304 that shall include the following:

(a) Type of Business of Prime Contractor: Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large { } Small (also check type of Small Business below) { } Small Disadvantaged Business { } Woman Owned Small Business { } HUB Zone Small Business { } Veteran Owned Small Business { } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(b) Total Contract Value: (Include options, etc) $___________

(c) Dollar Value of your participation as a Prime Contractor: $__________

(d) Dollar Value and Percentage of Total Contract Value of Subcontracts Planned:

For:

Dollar Percentage of Total Value Contract Value

Large $________ %_________

Total Small $________ %_________

Small Disadvantaged $________ %_________

Woman Owned Small $________ %_________

HUB Zone Small $________ %_________

Veteran Owned Small $________ %_________

Service Disabled Veteran $________ %_________

Owned Small

Each participation percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments. Detailed explanations shall also be provided when the percentages fall short of the DOD goals.

NOTE: The sum of the dollar values and percentages of Small and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for Total Small. However, the sum of all the percentages under Paragraph (d) need not equal 100% since the prime (regardless of size) is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category. Paragraph (d) is only for the planned subcontracts for this acquisition. However, all percentages should use TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE as a baseline.

(e) List principal supplies/services (be specific) to be subcontracted to:

Name of Company Type of Service/Supply

Large:

Small:

Small Disadvantaged:

Woman-Owned Small:

HUB Zone Small:

Veteran Owned Small Business:

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small:

NOTE: For purpose of subcontracting, Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCUs/MIs) are considered as disadvantaged and should be broken out separately.

(f) Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts. For Large Business: include ACO rating and SF 295 Information. For Large and Small businesses: provide descriptive information for all small business categories. Any information concerning long-term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as mentor-protégé relationships, should be provided.

(g) Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any Small Business category, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors.

(2) Each Large Business offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Plan information required above, which applies to both large and small businesses. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to a large business and will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

ATTACHMENT VOLUME 2

TAB E

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

PROJECT TITLE: Savannah Hydropower SATOC

PROJECT LOCATION: Hartwell, Russell and Thurmond Lakes

1. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing PPIRS)

If a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association and provide a DUNS number for each firm.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

2. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

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 four (34) 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, but more important than Factor 4

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

FACTOR 4 Volume 1, Tab D Small Business

Participation Plan Less Important than Factors 1, 2 & 3

NON-

TECHNICAL

(PRICE)

VOLUME

Volume 2, Tabs A to CG

Tab A Completed and Signed

SF33

Not rated

Tab B Fully Burdened Labor Rate Schedule

Not rated

Tab C Sample Project Not rated Tab CD Completed

Representations and Certifications

Not rated

Tab E Proposal Data Sheet Not rated Tab F Small Business

Subcontracting Plan Not rated

Tab G Financial Information Not rated

4.1 Technical merit shall be evaluated for each major factor and sub-factor Factor 1, 3, and 4 and each Subfactor under Factor 1 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 Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance Confidence ratings will be assigned to Factor 2 in Volume 1, Past Performance.

4.2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings shall be done for each major factor and sub-factor contained in Volume I, Past Performance. Relevancy Evaluation. 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:

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

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

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

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

4.2.1.5 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.

4.2.2 Confidence Assessment. 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 under Factor 2, Volume 1. The possible ratings, along with their descriptions, are as follows:

4. 32.2.1 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. 32.2.2 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. 32.2.3 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. 32.2.4 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. 32.2.5 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 determined computed by utilizing the Volume 2, Tab C Sample Project Price Proposal provided by each offeror.

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 two five (25) 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 one three (13) 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.

5.4 Volume 1, Tab B2, Performance Capability

Offerors Offerors will be evaluated on past performance based on a review of the past performance questionnaires for all projects submitted in response to Factor 1 Recent Relevant Experience, with the option of contacting end users using the contact information provided. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors whose proposal documents more successful experience or more directly comparable successful experience than the minimum required above. 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. The 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.

5.5 Volume 1, Tab D – Small Business Participation Plan

The Government will evaluate the narrative provided as part of Section L Volume 1, Tab D, in conjunction with the information submitted on the Attachment Volume 1 – Tab D Small Business Participation Plan. Those narratives with greater detail and specificity will be given greater credit than general statements and commitments provided said details clearly demonstrate Offeror’s historical achievement of proposed goals.

5.6 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.

5.7 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. Substitute disciplines will not be accepted.

5.8 Volume 2, Tab C – Sample Project Price Proposal

This tab will not be rated, but will be utilized to perform a price evaluation for the SATOC and thus used as part of the trade-off process.

5.96.4 Volume 2, Tab D 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 System for Award Management at https://www.sam.govOn-line Representation and Certification Application (ORCA) at http://orca.bpn.gov.

5.10 Volume 2, Tab E – Proposal Data Sheet

This tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness. The Attachment Volume 2, Tab E: Proposal Data Sheet shall be filled out completely by the offeror.

5.11 Volume 2, Tab F - Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The tab will not be rated, but will be evaluated for responsiveness and completeness. The Offeror shall provide all required information as identified in 52.219-9 and Section L Volume 2, Tab F.

6. IMPORTANCE OF VOLUMES

The evaluation process uses adjectival rating for each f Factors 1, 3, and 4 and confidence rating for Factor 2.

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)