W912P518R00070002_9Mar2018.pdf

W912P518R0007

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 W912P518R0007 for the Design, Manufacture, Factory Testing and Delivery of Tw o (2) Generators for the Barkley Pow er Plant, Kuttaw a, KY is hereby amended as follow s:

SEE SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 31

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 09-Mar-2018

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 W912P518R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Jan-2018

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 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

09-Mar-2018

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION (SSW)

STACY.S.WIGGINS@USACE.ARMY.MIL

PHONE: (615) 736-7944

FAX: (615) 736-7124

NASHVILLE TN 37202-1070

W912P5 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0002

A) Contractor Questions and Government Answers as of 6 March 2018 are hereby incorporated and made a part of this solicitation.

B) Delivery Date for this requirement is hereby changed from 365 calendar days after award to 480 calendar days after award.

C) Section M – Proposal Content is hereby amended as follows:

a. Part 2.1 is hereby amended

b. Part 2.2 is hereby amended

D) Section M – Proposal Evaluation is hereby amended as follows:

a. Part 4, Paragraph 4.1.1 is hereby amended

E) Requirement Reference Drawings are hereby re-issued with as high a resolution as possible for offeror convenience.

F) Site Visit Minutes and Sign-In Sheet are hereby incorporated as part of this solicitation.

G) Due date for proposals remains the same at no later than 11:00 AM Local Time (Central Time) 11

April 2018.

H) FAR Clause 52.232-13; Notice of Progress Payments is hereby incorporated and made a part of this solicitation.

I) FAR 52.252-3, Alterations in Solicitation is hereby updated.

CONTRACTOR Q & A

W912P518R0007 Contractor Questions:

1) Can payment be made based on milestones or the following suggestion:

a. 20% with PO; Net 30 days

b. 30% with drg submission; Net 30 days

c. 50% upon shipment; Net 30 days

Government Response: Progress payments are authorized and will be used based on percent expenditure of a given CLIN. Reference FAR 52.232-13; Notice of Progress Payments.

2) Confirm delivery date as 365 days ANP?

Government Response: Reference Amendment 0002. The delivery date is hereby revised to 480 calendar days after award.

3) According to the specification, the transformers need a seismic calculations report (Section 48 19 23.04 Page 15).

a. Please provide the performance level of seismic qualification requirement in this case.

Government Response: Seismic design requirement spectral acceleration and IEEE qualification level are listed in Paragraph 2.2.1.c.

4) Any preference on delivery, whether you need both transformers to be delivered at the same time or not?

Government Response: The Government does not require both transformers onsite at the same time.

5) According to Section 48 20 00 (Page 31.2 Description of Work) of the specification, “all site work for removal of the xisting transformers, modifications to the power plant for acceptance of the new transformers, interconnection of the new transformers, […] will be performed by a separate installation contractor.” It is our understanding that the above-mentioned scopes will be handled by another installation contractor in a separate contract, not from this contract that we’re bidding for. Please confirm.

Government Response: Confirmed.

6) Request to extend the performance criteria in Section M Part 2.1 to last 7 years. Our company has successfully supplied and installed 18 GSU units for the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation during this period.

Government Response: Reference Amendment 0002. Section M, Proposal Content, Part 2.1, and Section M, Proposal Evaluation, Paragraph 4.1.1 are hereby revised to provide for projects completed within the last seven (7) years.

7) Request to lower the transformer size in Section M Part 2.2 to equal to or greater than 50 MVA. Our company has successfully supplied 7 GSU units for the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation rated 50MVA and above, with values well above the required $1MM threshold. There isn’t a large disparity in performance requirements of the purchaser/prime contractor between a 50MVA unit and 75MVA unit, as long as the manufacturer has the documented experience at the higher rating.

Government Response: Reference Amendment 0002. Section M, Proposal Content, Part 2.1, and Section M, Proposal Evaluation, Paragraph 4.1.1 are hereby revised to provide for projects for Class II GSU transformers rated greater than 50MVA and 115kV.

8) Please provide the following at the earliest:

a. Nameplate drawing of the existing transformer.

b. Outline drawing (including limiting dimensions) of the existing transformer.

i. Drawings from your reference drawings file are a bit illegible.

Government Response:

a) The existing transformer is not being replaced in kind, therefore this information cannot be provided. Modifications have been made to the power rating, impedance, nominal tap, and tap ratios to integrate with future powertrain increases and transmission system operation.

b) Due to placement in the switchyard, there are no limiting dimensions or weights provided to give maximum flexibility to the transformer designer. Given the voltage class, BIL, and power rating, any reasonably designed transformer will easily fit in the area. Features interfacing with the transformer will be built by the install contractor according to design drawings from the transformer manufacturer.

i. Reference Amendment 0002. Required Reference Drawings were re-issued with maximum allowable resolution for the convenience of the offerors.

9) Is it possible to get a nameplate drawing of the existing transformers?

Government Response: See the Government’s Response to Question #8a.

10) Is there some limitation of the total transformer weight?

Government Response: The transformers will be placed on to new pads designed for the stated weight in the design review meeting with the successful offeror.

11) The transformer spec requires the transformer impedances as following:

a. H-X 9% @37.5 MVA, H-Y 9% @37.5MVA, X-Y 18% minimum @37.5MVA

b. X-Y impedance of the transformer with double secondary is always a little lower than doubled H-

X (or H-Y) impedance. We estimate X-Y impedance to be about 16.5-17% and suppose the correct wording should be : Impedance X-Y 18% maximum @37.5MVA. Please confirm.

Government Response: The correct wording is “minimum” as a higher impedance favorably “flattens” the voltage vs. VAR profile of the connected generators. This allows the generating units to absorb more reactive power from the system prior to hitting any of the various voltage limitations inherent to the generator design and operation.

USACE Hydropower fleet records of three-winding, three-phase GSUs do not reflect X-Y impedance always being lower than H-X or H-Y.

As-tested impedance still follows IEEE standards of +/- 7.5% of design

12) Per specification Section 48 19 23.04 paragraph 2.1.2, the transformer limiting dimensions and configuration are to be as indicated on the contract drawing; however, we note that no limiting dimensions or weights are provided on the drawings. Please provide these maximum transformer dimensions and weights.

Government Response: See the Government’s Response to Questions #8b and #10.

13) We note the inclusion of DFAR provision 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense

Information and Cyber Incident Reporting as a requirement of the RFP. However, we did not observe any document control markings on any of the issued RFP bid documents. Please clarify if this project anticipates the inclusion of Controlled Technical Information and/or Covered Defense Information such as: Critical Information (Operations Security), Export-Controlled Information or any other information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to law, regulations, and government-wide policies and confirm that all prime bidders must be compliant with NIST 800-171 IT network and cyber incident reporting requirements.

Government Response: The prescription for DFARS Provision 252.204‐7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, located at DFARS 204.7304(c) states that “Use the clause at 252.204‐7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS (commercial off the shelf) items.” This solicitation uses FAR Part 15, which is covered under this prescription. It is up to the contractor to ensure that the requirements are being followed, should they apply. The Government package does not currently contain, and is not anticipated to require, any technial information that is “For Official Use Only” (FOUO).

14) Will any technical information that is expected to be provided or created in response to this solicitation be considered “covered defense information” or “controlled technical information” as it relates to clause 252.204-7012 “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting”?

Government Response: See the Government’s Response to Question #13.

SITE VISIT MINUTES AND SIGN IN

Project: Barkley Main Power Transformer Activity: Pre-Bid Site Visit – Transformer Supply Date: 2018-2-6 Participants

See sign-in sheet

Main Points

1. Introduction – David Bishop, Project Manager, welcomed the group, identified the project being discussed and asked all present to introduce themselves.

2. Solicitation - Stephen Hutchens, Contract Specialist, presented the significant points associated with the solicitation. In addition, he requested that all questions be submitted electronically to him in order to obtain an official response.

3. Plans & Specifications – Allan Steele, Electrical Engineer, briefly discussed the technical requirements of the requirement (new transformers)

4. Site Walk – Jamie Holt, Project Superintendent, took the group out to the switchyard and identified (using a drawing) the site laydown areas available to the winning contractor.

5. Summary – following the site walk the group returned to the power plant lobby and discussed:

a. The drawing identifying the laydown area.

b. A separate contract being awarded to accomplish installation of the supplied transformers.

c. The installation contractor will also be construction new spill containment.

d. The group was reminded that discussions during the site visit are to help the vendors understand the Government requirement however, if there are any sections of the plans and specifications that are not clearly understood, they need to submit their questions in writing to the contract specialist.

Only written questions will receive an official response to be published in FedBizOps.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

365 dys. ANP 2 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159 FOB: Destination

W912P5

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

480 dys. ANP 2 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

CAGE

365 dys. ANP 2 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

CAGE

480 dys. ANP 2 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0003 has been changed from:

CAGE

365 dys. ANP 2 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

CAGE

480 dys. ANP 2 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0004 has been changed from:

CAGE

365 dys. ANP 1 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

CAGE

480 dys. ANP 1 WEST KY AREA OFC, BARKLEY P/P

JAMIE HOLT

8439 US HWY 62 WEST

KUTTAWA KY 42055

270-362-8159

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

52.232-13

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR QUOTERS

The following have been modified:

52.252-3 ALTERATIONS IN SOLICITATION (APR 1984)

Portions of this solicitation are altered as follows:

AMENDMENT 0001

A) Due date for proposals is hereby extended from 11:00 AM Local Time (CST) 28 February 2018 to no later than 11:00 AM Local Time (CST) 11 April 2018.

B) Section L, Instructions to Offerors paragraph 1.10 Questions and Clarifications: the due date for questions is hereby changed from 9 February 2018 to 6 March 2018.

C) FAR 52.246-17 – Warranty of Supplies of a Noncomplex Nature is hereby added to this solicitation.

AMENDMENT 0002

A) Contractor Questions and Government Answers as of 6 March 2018 are hereby incorporated and made a part of this solicitation.

B) Delivery Date for this requirement is hereby changed from 365 calendar days after award to 480 calendar days after award.

C) Section M – Proposal Content is hereby amended as follows:

a. Part 2.1 is hereby amended

b. Part 2.2 is hereby amended

D) Section M – Proposal Evaluation is hereby amended as follows:

a. Part 4, Paragraph 4.1.1 is hereby amended

E) Requirement Reference Drawings are hereby re-issued with as high a resolution as possible for offeror convenience.

F) Site Visit Minutes and Sign-In Sheet are hereby incorporated as part of this solicitation.

G) Due date for proposals remains the same at no later than 11:00 AM Local Time (Central Time) 11

April 2018.

H) FAR Clause 52.232-13; Notice of Progress Payments is hereby incorporated and made a part of this solicitation.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

PROPOSAL CONTENT

SECTION M

PROPOSAL CONTENT

PART 1 ORGANIZATION

Proposal information shall be organized as shown below.

VOLUME 1: Past Performance Proposal

Factor I – Performance Confidence Assessment

VOLUME 1: Technical Proposal

Factor II – Drawings and Descriptive Data Factor III – Efficiency Factor IV – Manufacturer Experience

VOLUME 1: Small Business Participation Proposal

Factor V - Small Business Participation Plan

VOLUME 2: Price Proposal

Factor VI – Price

Tab VI-A – Proposal Data Sheet (Form enclosed at the end of this section) Tab VI-B – SF 33 and acknowledged amendments (if any) Tab VI-C – Section B Tab VI-D – Section K (unless available at SAM.GOV) Tab VI-E – Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable Tab VI-F – Proof of Financial Capability

PART 2 CONTENT OF VOLUME 1, Factor I, Performance Confidence Assessment

2.1 Provide a minimum of three (3) but not more than five (5) of the Offeror’s past or current supply projects completed or significantly completed (50% or more) within the last seven (7) years (from issuance of the solicitation) for projects which are similar to this project in scope and magnitude. Projects shall be summarized in tabular form using the table format given in paragraph 2.4. Detailed project information shall be provided using the Project Detail Sheet format described in paragraph 2.4.

2.2 Similar in scope is defined as the design, manufacture and/or delivery of similar Class II GSU transformers greater than 50 MVA and 115kV rating performed as a prime contractor.

2.3 Similar in magnitude is defined as transformer supply contracts valued greater than or equal to $1 million.

2.4 Include a description of each past project as outlined in the Project Detail Sheet form at the end of this section. Offerors may use any format necessary to meet the criteria. Identify any scope features listed in paragraph 2.2 in the description. If you elect not to use the form, all information identified on the form is still required for evaluation of this item and recommended they be in the same order.

2.5 Provide two (2) references (Owner’s representative and a Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Project Engineer or equivalent) for all past performance submitted on a Project Detail Sheet or its equivalent.

2.6 Past Performance Questionnaires on Form PPQ-0 (“PPQ”) are included at the end of this section. USACE requests the Offeror’s client completes this questionnaire and submits directly back to the Offeror. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mr. Steve Hutchens at Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date.

2.7 Offerors shall not reference a PPQ from a previous RFP. Resubmit the PPQ.

However, this does not preclude the Government from using previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Offerors shall submit CPARS in lieu of past performance references, if applicable.

2.8 In addition to the above, the Government is required to use CPARS and PPIRS as sources for past performance, when available. If not available and when necessary, the Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner and engineer satisfaction in regards to qualifications and past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. The Government may not contact all of the identified client references/ points of contact. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the supplies outlined in the solicitation requirements. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work. Information gathered from these sources, if any, must evidence at least “Satisfactory” performance in the past ten (10) years.

2.9 Note: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in block 15 of the SF 33. If more than one (1)contractor is listed in block 15, then a signed joint venture (JV) agreement must be submitted (with Factor V information) with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the JV mailto:Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil must submit their own Unique Identity Identifier (known as DUNS) number with the JV proposal. The legal document for the JV agreement shall address the breakout of duties and responsibilities each company in the JV will perform in this requirement. If the JV partners have never worked together on similar jobs, so indicate. However, if the firms have worked together on other type jobs, include these and address the working relationships on those jobs. Projects performed by contractors other than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies teaming or as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed five (5).

PROJECT DETAIL SHEET FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

Your firm’s name _______________________________________________________________

Name of Project/Location____________________________________________

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work your company self-performed________________________________________________________

Percentage of Work completed by Offeror’s Personnel: ___________________________%

Project Cost:

At Award: $_______________

Final Cost $_____________

Reason for the cost growth: ___________________________________

Award Date: ____________

Scheduled Completion: _____________ (% complete as of proposal due date)

Actual Comp________________________

Reason for the time growth:___________________________________

Extent and type of work you subcontracted out

Owner’s Representative Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number) ______________________________________________________________________ Owner’s Representative Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number) ______________________________________________________________________

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: Unique Entity Identifier (known as 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/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

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:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

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.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE 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

Continued on the next page

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.

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

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. E VG S M U N

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

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):

PART 3 CONTENT OF VOLUME 1, Factor II, Drawings and Descriptive Data

3.1 Submit up to six (6) sheets showing the following information. Outline views may be combined on a sheet:

Proposed transformer outline: Plan View Proposed transformer outline: Segment One Elevation View

Proposed transformer outline: Segment Two Elevation View Proposed transformer outline: Segment Three Elevation View Proposed transformer outline: Segment Four Elevation View Proposed transformer nameplate, including design impedance, and a winding diagram with taps

3.2 Submit a detailed description of the proposed construction for the core, lamination thickness, high voltage coil construction, and low voltage coil construction.

PART 4 CONTENT OF VOLUME 1, Factor III, Efficiency

4.1 Submit a single sheet noting:

Proposed no-load losses, in kW Proposed load losses, in kW Proposed sound level, in dB

4.2 The values submitted on this sheet shall become the Offeror’s guarantees as tested during the factory acceptance tests. Failure to meet the proposed guarantees during the factory acceptance tests may result in a Termination for Default.

PART 5 CONTENT OF VOLUME 1, Factor IV, Manufacturer Experience

5.1. Provide documentation that demonstrates that the manufacturer of the proposed transformer has been engaged in the design and fabrication of GSU-type transformers, rated greater than or equal to 115 kV and 75 MVA three phase for at least five (5) years.

At a minimum, the documentation shall consist of a list at least 10 of previously supplied transformers of which at least three (3) are GSU-type transformers and include the following information:

(a) Customer / Project Name

(b) Year Manufactured

(c) Voltage Class

(d) MVA Rating

(e) Single or Three Phase

(f) Type (GSU, Auto, 3-winding, etc.)

5.2. Provide documentation that demonstrates the transformer manufacturing facility has current ISO 9001 Certification.

5.3 Provide the Unique Entity Identifier (known as DUNS) Number (if available) of the proposed manufacturer. The manufacturer and facility, as proposed by the prime contractor, must be the same manufacturer and facility utilized in the course of contract performance. Any deviation from this requirement may result in a Termination for Default by the Government.

PART 6 CONTENT OF VOLUME 1, Factor V, Small Business Participation Plan

6.1 All Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) 215.304. The SBPP will be incorporated into any resultant prime contract as the basis for a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan the successful Offeror (if a large business) will be required to submit upon contract award. The SBPP shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort; however, it must meet the minimum total Small Business Participation goal of 25% of the total contract value. Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 25% shall provide an explanation of why this target cannot be met with their proposal. Address each of the following areas individually:

• The extent in which the small business programs listed in FAR 19

(small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HubZone, service disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the Small Business Participation Plan;

• The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition in percentages; the extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments, i.e. teaming agreements signed, are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

• The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform on this acquisition; and

• The realism of the SBPP (i.e., aggressive goals).

6.2 The intent of the Offeror’s SBPP is for the Offeror to articulate how small businesses will participate in this award performance through small business subcontracting. The SBPP shall be organized as follows:

(1) Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman-Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran Owned Small Business ( ) Service Disabled, Veteran Owned Small Business

(2) Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor: ___________ %

(3) Percentage of total contract value of subcontracts planned for:

% of Total Contract Value Large % Total Small % Small Non-Disadvantaged % Small Disadvantaged % Small Woman Owned % Small HUB Zone % Small Veteran Owned % Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned %

6.3 Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments.

6.4 NOTE: The sum of the percentages of Small Non-Disadvantaged and Small Disadvantaged should equal the entries for the Total Small; however, the sum of all of the percentages need not equal 100% since the prime is not included and individual subcontractors may be counted towards more than one category.

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

Company Name

Type of Service/Supply

Large Small Non-Disadvantaged Small Disadvantaged Small Woman Owned Small HUB Zone Small Veteran Owned Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned

2. Prior Performance Information: Provide any information substantiating the Offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts.

3. 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.

4. Extent of Commitment: Provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize any small business category as defined in FAR Part 19 as subcontractors.

5. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: If the intended awardee is a Large Business Offeror, they shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all of the elements required by FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. This Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation 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.

The approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract(s).

PART 7 CONTENT OF VOLUME 2 – Factor VI – Price Proposal (Submit in a separate envelope).

Tab VI-A – Proposal Data Sheet (Form enclosed) Tab VI-B – SF 33 and acknowledged amendments (if any) Tab VI-C – Section B Price Proposal Tab VI-D – Section K (unless available at SAM.GOV) Tab VI-E – Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable Tab VI-F – Proof of Financial Capability

7.1 Tab VI-A:

The Offeror shall submit a completed Offeror’s Proposal Data Sheet in the format provided at the end of this section.

7.2 Tab VI-B:

The Offeror shall submit SF 33. If any Amendments are issued against this Solicitation, the Offeror shall include its acknowledgment of those Amendments by returning the signed amendments with its proposal and/or filling in block 14 of the SF 33 and submitting the signed document with its proposal. The SF 33, block numbers 16, 17 and 18 must be completed by an authorized person from the company.

7.3 Tab VI-C:

Section B shall be completed for the Price Proposal. The Offeror shall enter a price for each item listed in the proposal price breakout schedule.

7.4 Tab VI-D:

Unless available at SAM.GOV, the offeror shall submit all representations and certifications at Section K, including those incorporated by reference See FAR 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference, for instructions on how to obtain the full-text provisions.

7.5 Tab VI-E:

If the company is a joint venture (JV), then all members of the JV must sign, including all amendments. Also, the offeror shall submit a copy of the signed JV agreement.

7.6 Tab VI-F:

Proof of Financial Capability: The Offeror shall submit proof of financial capability consisting of the most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities. The firm’s banking institution name, address, point of contact (POC) name, POC email and telephone number shall also be provided. Recent audits and financial statements are examples of documents that can be submitted as proof of financial capability.

OFFEROR’s PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

PROJECT: BARKLEY POWER PLANT GSU TRANSFORMER SUPPLY

1. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR

Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Unique Entity Identifier (known as DUNS#):

CAGE Code:

2. IDENTIFICATION OF JOINT VENTURE PARTICIPANTS

Provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the CPARS database. If a separate Unique Entity Identifier (known as DUNS#) has been created for a Joint Venture, it must also be submitted. Provide a Unique Entity Identifier (known as DUNS#) for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a Joint Venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide Unique Entity Identifier (known as DUNS#) for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS

Reference FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition. The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

Name of Negotiator:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

SECTION M

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Proposal Evaluation. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), comprised of representatives of the USACE will evaluate all proposals. In accordance with FAR 15.305, the proposal evaluation is an assessment of both the proposal and the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The SSEB will review and rate each proposal without knowledge of the price offered. The number of offers and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process, or to other offerors. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and material unbalancing. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors described herein, utilizing the tradeoff process to obtain the best value for the Government.

1.2 Definitions of key evaluation terms:

Adverse Past Performance is past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPIIS.”

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is a written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost of degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

PART 2 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 The evaluation process consists of four parts: 1) proposal compliance review,

2) non-cost/price factors evaluation, 3) price evaluation and 4) best value determination.

2.2 Proposal Compliance Review. Compliance review is an initial check to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and Past Performance Proposal, Technical Proposal, Small Business Participation Proposal, and Price Proposal were received. Specifically, the initial review will verify that the Past

Performance Proposal, Technical Proposal, and Small Business Participation Proposal address Factors I, II, III, IV, V. Further, the initial review will verify the Factor VI, Price Proposal is in a separate, sealed and marked envelope. Pages in the Past Performance Section, Technical Proposal, the Small Business Participation Proposal, and the Price Proposal exceeding the total page limit will be removed prior to the evaluation and not evaluated.

2.3 SSEB Evaluation. The SSEB will evaluate and rate those proposals passing the Proposal Compliance Review. The SSEB will review and rate each proposal without knowledge of the price offered. The SSEB will review and rate the content and quality of each evaluation factor against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation.

2.3.1 Factor I will be rated based on relevance and confidence.

2.3.2 Factors II, III, IV, and V will be rated using an adjectival-based system.

2.3.3 Factor VI will be rated independently. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

2.3.4 Evaluation Documentation. The Government will support each rating with narrative statements, describing proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

2.4 SSEB Ratings

2.4.1 Ratings for Factor I-Performance Confidence Assessment. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The SSEB shall assign one of the following ratings to the past performance information evaluated:

RATING DEFINITION

VERY RELEVANT

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

RELEVANT

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

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

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort…