W912P519R0004-0003.pdf

CONTRACTING BRANCH (EJC)

EUGENIA.J.CORDER@USACE.ARMY.MIL

110 NINTH AVE SOUTH, ROOM A405

NASHVILLE TN 37203-3817

W38XDD91919314

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

Project: Old Hickory Pow er Plant, GSU Transformers The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise Technical Specification Section 48 19 23.04 26, Paragraph 2.1.5, items k., l., and m. listed as text change in this Amendment, by replacing pages 15 and 16 of the previous Technical Specification w ith the attached document(Section 48 19 23.04 26 Paragraph 2.1.5 - Amendment 3.pdf);

2. Revise Section M. Proposal Content and Evaluation, Section 7.1, w ith listed changes marked in bold red in this Amendment;

3. Revise Draw ing G-003 (REV Draw ing G-003.pdf);

4. Extend due date from 22 May 2020 to 29 May 2020;

5. SAFE Upload Codes w ill be sent on 26 May 2020, and

6. Update FAR Clause 52.252-3.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-May-2020

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 W912P519R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-Apr-2020

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

18-May-2020

CODE

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CELRN-RC-N

DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING

110 9TH AVENUE SOUTH, RM A680

NASHVILLE TN 37203

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W912P5

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912P519R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 22-May-2020 10:00 AM to 29-May-2020 10:00 AM.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

REV TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Tech Specification Section 48 19 23.04

Revise Technical Specification Section 48 19 23.04 26 Paragraph 2.1.5 items k., l., and m. listed with the following changes:

k. Maximum no-load losses at 69 kV and rated frequency, kW: 90

l. Maximum load losses at maximum ONAF rated kVA, 69 kV, and 1.0 power factor, kW: 180

m. Maximum average sound level at 69 kV and rated frequency, with all cooling groups in operation, dB: 68

Replace Technical Specification pages 15 and 16 with attached document (Section 48 19 23.04 26 Paragraph 2.1.5 - Amendment 3.pdf).

The following have been modified:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Specifications and Drawings will be provided as separate files and are available on https://beta.sam.gov/ . The following Specifications and Drawings are part of the solicitation/contract and shall be considered in that respect.

The work shall conform to the specifications identified below:

W912P519R0004_Solicitation.pdf W912P519R0004_ReferenceDrawings.pdf W912P519R0004_Tplans.pdf W912P519R0004_Tspecs.pdf

Documents added with Amendment 0002:

OLD HICKORY GSU PREPROPOSAL PRESENTATION.pdf Site Visit Attendees.pdf Drawing G-003.pdf (Technical Plans)(Replace G-003 Drawing) Section 48 19 23_04 26 Page 16.pdf (Class II GSU Power Transformer)(Technical Specifciations)(Remove Section 48 19 23.04 26 page 16 and replace with revised Section 48 19 23.04 26 page 16.)

Documents added with Amendment 0003:

REV Drawing G-003.pdf (Technical Plans)(Replace G-003 Drawing) Section 48 19 23.04 Page 15 and 16 (Technical Specifications)(Replace pages 15 and 16 with Section 48 19 23.04 26 Paragraph 2.1.5 - Amendment 3.pdf.)

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

52.252-3 ALTERATIONS IN SOLICITATION (APR 1984)

Portions of this solicitation are altered as follows:

Amendment 0001 The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 descriptions;

2. Add CLIN 0004 and CLIN 0005;

3. Update FAR Clause 52.252-3.

Amendment 0002 The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Post Questions and Answers;

2. Post Site Visit Presentation (OLD HICKORY GSU PREPROPOSAL PRESENTATION.pdf);

3. Post List of Site Visit Attendees (Site Visit Attendees.pdf);

4. Revise Technical Plans, Drawing G-003 (Drawing G-003.pdf);

5. Revise Technical Specifications, Section 48 19 23_04 26 Page 16 (Section 48 19 23_04 26 Page 16.pdf)

6. Add DFAR Clauses 252.225-7001, Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program and 252.225-7002, Qualifying Country Sources as Subcontractors;

7. Extend due date from 14 May 2020 to 22 May 2020; and

8. Update FAR Clause 52.252-3.

Amendment 0003 The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Revise Technical Specification Section 48 19 23.04 26, Paragraph 2.1.5, items k., l., and m. listed as text change in this Amendment, by replacing pages 15 and 16 of the previous Technical Specification with the attached document (Section 48 19 23.04 26 Paragraph 2.1.5 - Amendment 3.pdf);

2. Revise Section M. Proposal Content and Evaluation, Section 7.1, with listed changes marked in bold red in this Amendment;

3. Revise Drawing G-003 (REV Drawing G-003.pdf);

4. Extend due date from 22 May 2020 to 29 May 2020;

5. SAFE Upload Codes will be sent on 26 May 2020, and

6. Update FAR Clause 52.252-3.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PROPOSAL CONTENT & EVALUATION

SECTION M - PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one (1) contractor for the design, manufacture, factory test, transport to the facility, and onsite reassembly/test of two (2) GSU main power transformers for the Old Hickory Power Plant, Hendersonville, TN. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm-fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government, all factors considered.

1.2 The basis of award is the best-value tradeoff process. The Contracting Officer will award one (1) firm-fixed price supply contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA), which is the Contracting Officer assigned to this solicitation, determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein.

However, in order to be effectively and equitably be evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's past performance, drawings and descriptive data, efficiencies, manufacturer’s experience and small business participation plan necessary for successful completion of the project.

Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements are encouraged and will be rated accordingly.

2.2 The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below. The RFP will provide proposal submission instructions and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via SAFE online submission. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS (EMAIL, FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall email their proposals using the following link:

https://safe.apps.mil/

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Eugenia J. Corder at Eugenia.J.Corder@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer Stephen Hutchens at Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil. Proposals for this procurement shall be submitted via the above link.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through the SAFE site.

Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. You are limited to twenty-five (25) maximum files per upload (total size cannot exceed 8GB). If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading to the SAFE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Eugenia J. Corder at Eugenia.J.Corder@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer Stephen Hutchens at Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil no later than five (5) working days prior to the proposal due date to receive a request code which will allow for file uploads via the SAFE site. Offerors that fail to email for request a code five

(5) working days before proposal submission date may not be able to receive a request code in time to upload their submission. THIS MUST BE DONE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personal Identification Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE:

Once at the SAFE website select the “Drop-off” icon. This allows users without a CAC or users whose computer is not configured to read a CAC the option to access the SAFE site as a guest.

After selecting the “Click Here” link you will be prompted to add your personal information, file information, recipient (Government representative) information and email settings.

When completing your file information for transmittal via the SAFE website, you will be required to enter the email address for all recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients are the Contract Specialist, Eugenia Corder, at Eugenia.J.Corder@usace.army.mil, and the Contracting Officer, Stephen Hutchens, at Stephen.P.Hutchens@usace.army.mil. The email address of the Government Employee who initiated the request code will be automatically entered. The Proposer must enter the email address for both the Contracting Officer and Specialist. The Proposer can enter an additional email address if desired. After entering the email address, click the ADD button to add the person(s) email to the “Recipients List” of your response. When your proposal is submitted, a notification will be sent to the recipients you added.

NOTE: Do NOT send the SAFE site packages to group email accounts.

Even if you successfully upload your proposal to the SAFE site, notification will not be sent to the government recipients until you verify your email address. Entering an incorrect email may result in the rejection of your submission for lateness. A Proposer can confirm proper submission by the ‘Drop-Off Completed” screen which generates based on proper file submission.

NOTE: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the 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.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. For proposals larger than the 8GB capacity of the SAFE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or even hours in some cases.

The government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

2.3 Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of Performance Confidence (Past Performance), Drawings and Descriptive Data, Efficiency, Manufacturer Experience, Small Business Participation Plan, and Price and Pro Forma. All proposal materials shall be submitted via the SAFE website with a bookmarked table of contents and/or a standard electronic Tab Index. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below.

Volume I shall be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF) and shall be either tabbed or bookmarked to reflect the division of Factors in accordance with Paragraph 4. Volume II shall be submitted as a separate PDF file and shall also be tabbed or bookmarked in accordance with Paragraph 4.

*NOTE: Provide the complete Volume I proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc.

on SAFE site. Provide the complete Volume II proposal submittal on SAFE site with the final price breakout schedule electronically.

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of USACE, User/Customer, and/or other required personnel will evaluate the proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Technical proposals will be reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is the best-value tradeoff process.

3.2 The evaluation process consists of four (4) parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical evaluation, price evaluation, and cost/technical trade-off analysis.

3.2.1 Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

3.2.2 Technical Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the RFP requirements. Some factors will be rated using an adjectival-based system. Others will be rated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis.

Past Performance will be rated based on recency/relevancy and performance confidence.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The SSEB, Cost Engineering, and Contracting Officer/SSA will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

3.2.4 Cost/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. The SSA will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4. Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed in relative order of importance. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined are considered approximately equal to cost or price. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume I – Past Performance Proposal

4.2.1 Volume I – Factor I – Performance Confidence Assessment 1st

4.3 Volume I – Technical Proposal

4.3.1 Volume I – Factor II – Drawings and Descriptive Data 2nd

4.3.2 Volume I – Factor III – Efficiency 3rd

4.3.3 Volume I – Factor IV – Manufacturer Experience 4th

4.4 Volume I – Small Business Participation Proposal

4.4.1 Volume I – Factor V – Small Business Participation Plan 5th

4.5 Volume II - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Proposal Data Sheet Not Rated Tab B SF33 and Acknowledged Amendments (if any) Not Rated Tab C Section B Not Rated

Tab D Section K (Unless Available at SAM) Not Rated Tab E Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable Not Rated Tab F Proof of Financial Capability Not Rated

4.6 NOTE: Offeror is responsible for ensuring the SAFE site documents submitted are consistent throughout the proposal.

4.7 Ratings

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

Performance Confidence Relevancy Ratings 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 involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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.

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.

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

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Technical Proposal Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Small Business Ratings

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

4.8 Definitions

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

2. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

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

4. Competitive Range. See FAR 15.306(c)

5. Deficiency. 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.

6. Discussions. Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

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

8. Performance Confidence Assessment. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Significant Strength. 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.

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

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

15. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price 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).

16. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

5.0 Volume I – Factor I – Performance Confidence

5.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide descriptions of three (3) but not more than five (5) projects of the Offeror’s past or current supply projects complete or substantially 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 at the end of this section. Detailed project information shall be provided using the Project Detail Sheet format described at the end of this section.

Similar in scope is defined as the design, manufacture and delivery of similar Class II generator step-up (GSU) transformers greater than 75MVA and 69kV rating performed as a prime contractor.

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

Format for Project Details are included for you at the end of this section. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the formats, all information identified on the formats is still required for evaluation of this item.

Provide two (2) references (Owner’s representative and a Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Project Engineer or equivalent) for all of the projects identified in paragraph 5.1. Reference information must include project name, location, owner's name, point of contact, telephone number, and email address. Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects. A sample Past Performance Questionnaire is attached for your convenience. 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 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, Mrs. Genia Corder, via email at Eugenia.J.Corder@usace.army.mil prior to the proposal closing date. 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.

In addition to the above, the Government is required to use CPARS 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.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. If more than one contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed joint venture must be submitted with the proposal and the joint venture shall be registered as such in the System for Award Management (SAM). However, each party of the Joint Venture must submit their own DUNS number with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a joint venture for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the joint venture may submit project examples, but the total submitted by the joint venture will not exceed five (5) examples.

5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate both the extent and quality of the Offeror’s experience as described in the proposal and assign a single confidence rating to each Offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal. Well-documented performance and completion or significant completion (50% or more complete) of project within the past five (5) years (from issuance of the solicitation) that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project will be rated more relevant. Project performed by contractors other than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated as prime contractor current/past experience, unless those other contractors are part of a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two (2) or more companies (JV) for the purpose of this RFP, the JV will be evaluated as a single Offeror. The experience of each JV partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work and in the proposed JV role for this project.

The SSEB will assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal in response to paragraph 5.1. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references.

The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, FAPIIS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

The SSEB will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each Offeror’s proposal. 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

NOTE: The Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal, shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”, printed double sided. Charts, tables, drawings and illustrations should be limited to 11” by 17” folded and bound into the three-ring binder. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for drawings and tables may be 10-point) Any Past Performance Questionnaires or Evaluations will not be counted toward the overall page limit. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

6.0 Volume I – Factor II – Drawings and Descriptive Data

6.1. Submission Requirements:

Offeror shall 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.

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

6.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The proposal will be rated on whether or not the drawings and descriptive data provided comply with the requirements of the technical specifications. Missing or unclear data will have a negative impact on the rating as will data indicating non-compliance with the technical specification. Offerors providing drawings and descriptive data indicating a more complete and thorough design in compliance with the specifications will be given a better assigned rating. Proposals that demonstrate clear layout drawings matching the requirements of a) Contract Drawings E-101 through E-105 and b) Specification Section 48 19 23.04, paragraph 2.1.5 “Ratings and Electrical Characteristics” will be assigned an acceptable rating.

7.0 Volume I – Factor III - Efficiency

7.1 Submission Requirements:

Offeror’s shall submit a single sheet noting:

Proposed no-load losses at 69 kV rated voltage and frequency, in kW Proposed load losses at maximum ONAF rated kVA, 69 kV voltage, and 1.0 power factor, kW Proposed sound level at rated 69 kV voltage and frequency with all cooling groups in operation, dB.

The values submitted on this sheet shall become the manufacturer’s guarantees as tested during the factory acceptance tests.

7.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Load Loss – The load losses for the transformer shall not exceed 180 kW. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors who propose a transformer with lower than the maximum allowable load losses. Offerors proposing guaranteed load losses of 180 kW will be assigned an acceptable rating. If the Offeror’s proposed load losses are below 180 kW, a credit will be applied to the offeror’s price proposal during the proposal evaluation process. The credit will be applied to the offeror’s proposed price for evaluation purposes only:

* Load Loss Credit = (180 kW – Proposed Guaranteed Load Loss) x $4,665.00

* Load Loss Adjusted Proposed Price = Proposed Price – Load Loss Credit.

* Where the Total Adjusted Proposed Price is used for purposes of comparison when the Government is evaluating the price of the offers that meet all technical requirements.

No-Load Loss – The no-load losses for the transformer shall not exceed 90 kW. A better assigned rating will be given to offerors who propose a transformer with lower than the maximum allowable no-load losses.

Offerors proposing guaranteed no load loss of 90 kW will be assigned an acceptable rating. If the offeror’s proposed guaranteed no-load losses are below 90 kW, a credit will be applied to the offeror’s price proposal during the proposal evaluation process. This credit will be applied to the offeror’s proposed price for evaluation purposes only:

* No-Load Loss Credit = (90 kW – Proposed Guaranteed No-Load Loss) x $16,085.00

* Total Adjusted Proposed Price = Load Loss Adjusted Proposed Price – No-Load Loss Credit.

* Where the Total Adjusted Proposed Price is used for purposes of comparison when the Government is evaluating the price of the offers that meet all technical requirements.

Audible Sound Level – The audible sound level as measured during the design tests shall not exceed 68 dB.

Offerors proposing guaranteed audible sound levels of 68 dB will be assigned an acceptable rating. A better assigned rating will be given to offeror’s who propose a transformer with lower than the maximum allowable audible sound level.

NOTE: Incorporation into technical requirements. Proposed values for load loss, no-load loss, and audible sound level will be incorporated into the technical requirements as the guaranteed values per factory acceptance tests performed after manufacturing.

8.0 Volume I – Factor IV – Manufacturer’s Experience

8.1 Submission Requirements:

Provide documentation that demonstrates that the manufacturer of the proposed transformer has been engaged in the design and fabrication of generator step-up transformers, rated greater than or equal to 69 kV and 75 MVA three phase for the last five (5) or more years. At a minimum, the documentation shall consist of a list of previously supplied transformers and include the following information in tabular format:

Customer/Project Name Year Manufactured Voltage Class MVA Rating Single or Three Phase Type (GSU, Auto, 3-winding, etc.)

Provide documentation that demonstrates the transformer manufacturer facility has current ISO 9001 Certification. 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. The facility submitted must be used for execution of transformer manufacturing and cannot be changed or substituted after award. Any deviation from this requirement may result in a Termination for Default by the Government.

8.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The transformer manufacturer’s experience will be rated with consideration given to the following.

Offerors clearly demonstrating experience of five (5) consecutive years of manufacturing experience of Class II transformers greater than 75 MVA and 69kV, with ten (10) completed and commercially operational and at least three for GSU application will be rated acceptable. The more experience that is relevant to the scope of work, the better the assigned rating.

Years of Manufacturing and Design Experience Number of Power Transformers in Commercial Operation Experience in the Manufacture of three-phase power transformers Experience in the manufacture of generator step-up transformers

NOTE: The offeror’s entire Technical Proposal (consisting of Factors II, III, and IV) shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”, printed double sided. Drawings, charts, tables, and illustrations should be limited to 11” by 17” folded and bound into the three-ring binder and shall be counted toward the 50 page limit.

Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for tables may be 10-point.) Pages exceeding the page limit will be removed and not evaluated. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

9.0 Volume I – Factor V – Small Business Participation Plan

9.1 Submission Requirements:

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 Small Business Participation Plan shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort; however, it must meet the minimum total Small Business Participation goal of 10% of the total contract value. Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 10% 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;

The realism of the Small Business Participation Plan, i.e. aggressive goals.

The intent of the Offerors Small Business Participation Plan 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 %

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

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 Alt. II (Dev), 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).

9.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The Small Business Participation Proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror’s best efforts and the level of small business commitment that is being demonstrated for the proposed acquisition and the prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The SB Participation Proposal must meet the minimum Total Small Business Participation goal of 10% of the total contract value (through collective small business participation from any type of small business or sub-category small business).

Pursuant to DFARS PGI 215.304(c) the following elements will be considered in evaluating an Offeror’s Participation Proposal:

The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

The complexity and variety of the work such firms are to perform;

The realism of the proposal;

Past performance of Offerors in complying with the requirements of the Subcontracting Plan Goals for such firms and monetary targets for participation;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the proposed subcontracted value; and The extent to which the Offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participations percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

NOTE: Small Business Participation Plan Proposal shall be limited to no more than 50 pages, 8-1/2” by 11”, printed double sided. Charts, tables, and illustrations should be limited to 11” by 17” folded and bound into the three-ring binder and shall be counted toward the 50 page limit. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman. (Captions for tables may be 10-point.) Pages exceeding the page limit will be removed and not evaluated. Pages exceeding the page limits will be removed and not evaluated.

Volume II – Price and Pro-forma Information (Submit in a separate envelope).

10.1 Tab A – Proposal Data Sheet (Form Enclosed).

10.1.1 Submission Requirements:

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

10.2 Tab B – SF33 and acknowledged amendments (if any)

10.2.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the SF33. If any amendments are issued against this Solicitation, the Offeror shall include its acknowledgement of those Amendments by returning the signed amendments with its proposal and/or filling in Block 14 of the SF33 and submitting the signed document with its proposal. The SF33, block numbers 16, 17, and 18 must be completed by an authorized person from the company.

10.3 Tab C- Section B Price Proposal

10.3.1 Submission Requirements:

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.

10.4 Tab D – Section K (unless available at SAM.gov)

10.4.1 Submission Requirements:

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.

10.5 Tab E – Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

10.5.1 Submission Requirements:

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.

10.6 Tab F – Proof of Financial Capability

10.6.1 Submission Requirements:

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.

10.7 Evaluation Criteria:

Price proposals will be evaluated by a cost engineer (separate from the SSEB) for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and for material unbalancing through the use of price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Should certified cost and pricing data be required, then cost analysis may be performed to determine realism and reasonableness.

The Proposal Data Sheet, the SF33 and acknowledged amendments, JV Agreements, and Proof of Financial Capability will be used for the initial source selection review and will not be rated.

NOTE: The Price Proposal shall be limited to no more than the information necessary for evaluation purposes, printed double sided. Pages should have a one-inch margin on all sides. Text should be 12-point, Times New Roman.

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: ____________

Schedul…