W912P522R0003 0005 Amendment 5.pdf

W912P522R0003

W38XDD13220819

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 Turbine Generator Rehabilitation, Hendersonville, Tennessee

Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Provide remaining responses to questions submitted to vendors through Projnet;

2) Update the Price Schedule by combining CLINs and adding CLINS;

3) Add clause in Section 00 21 00;

4) Update Contract Specialist and Source Selection Factor in Section 00 22 16;

5) Replace and add provisions in Section 00 45 00;

6) Add Section 00 61 00 Bond Requirements;

7) Update and add clauses in Section 00 70 00 Conditions of Contract; and

8) Update technical specif ication sections: 01 22 00.00, 01 30 00, 01 35 26, 01 78 00, 26 05 00.00, 48 13 13.01, and 48 13 16.00.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 47

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Jul-2022

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 W912P522R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

19-Apr-2022

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

11-Jul-2022

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION (JWP)

110 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH, ROOM A405

JAMES.W.PURCELL@USACE.ARMY.MIL

NASHVILLE TN 37203

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

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been modified:

TECHNICAL CHANGES

W912P522R0003 Old Hickory Turbine Generator Rehabilitation

Amendment 5 Summary of Changes

1) Provide remaining responses to questions submitted to vendors through Projnet;

2) Updates the Price Schedule as follows:

a. Removes CLIN 0020 “Demobilization”;

b. Revises CLIN 0001 to include Demobilization, consistent with DFARS clause 252.236-

7004 “Payment for Mobilization and Demobilization”; and

c. Adds CLINs 1093, 1094, 2093, 2094, 3093, and 3094.

1) In Section 00 21 00, adds provision 52.211-6 “Brand Name or Equal”;

2) In Section 00 22 16, updates:

a. Procedures for Submittal of Offers and Proposal Evaluation Criteria, to replace the Contract Specialist from Kristal R. Jones at Kristal.R.Jones@usace.army.mil to Sara T.

King at Sara.T.King@usace.army.mil; and

b. Source Selection Factors, paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.

3) In Section 00 45 00:

a. Adds FAR 52.223-1 “Bio-based Product Certification,” and

b. Replaces provision DFARS 252.225-7494 (Dev.) “Representation Regarding Business

Operations with the Maduro Regime.” With 252.225-7055 “Representation Regarding Business Operations with Maduro Regime,”; and

c. Updates FAR 52.252-3, "Alternations in Solicitation."

4) Adds 00 61 00 Bond Requirements to include performance and payment bond language;

5) In Section 00 70 00 Conditions of Contract:

a. Update clause FAR 52.211-10 “Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work” to clarify NTP and include performance and payment bond language;

b. Adds FAR clauses:

i. 52.223-15 “Energy Efficiency in Energy-Consuming Products”;

ii. 52.223-16 “Acquisition of EPEAT ® -Registered Personal Computer Products”;

iii. 52.223-2 “Affirmative Procurement of Biobased Products Under Service and

Construction Contracts”; and

iv. 52.223-17 “Affirmative Procurement of EPA-Designated Items in Service and

Construction Contracts.”

c. Adds DFARS 252.225-7056 “Prohibition Regarding Business Operations with the Maduro

Regime”. and

6) Replaces technical specification sections: 01 22 00.00, 01 30 00, 01 35 26, 01 78 00, 26 05

00.00, 48 13 13.01, and 48 13 16.00.

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization has changed from

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CELRN-RC-N

DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING

110 9TH AVENUE SOUTH, RM A680

NASHVILLE TN 37203

to

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-NASHVILLE

CELRN-RC-N,

110 NINTH AVE. SOUTH

NASHVILLE TN 37203

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been added by reference:

52.211-6 Brand Name or Equal AUG 1999

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) Extend the proposal due date from Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time to Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time.

2) Extend the ability to enter answers to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds into ProjNet submitted from the close of business, Thursday, May 12, 2022 to close of business Thursday, May 19, 2022.

(End of Amendment)

Amendment 0002:

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Extend the proposal due date from Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time to Monday, June 27, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time.

2. Provide revised technical specifications as a separate attachment.

3. Provide revised price schedule as a separate attachment

4. Provide the site visit sign-in sheet as a separate attachment.

5. Provide the Government's offical responses to questions submitted by vendors through ProjNet.

(End of Amendment)

Amendment 0003:

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the proposal due date from Monday, June 27, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time to Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time.

(End of Amendment)

Amendment 0004:

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the proposal due date from Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time to Friday, August 5, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. Central Time.

Amendment 0005:

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1) Provide remaining responses to questions submitted to vendors through Projnet;

2) Update the Price Schedule by combining CLINs and adding CLINS;

3) Add clause in Section 00 21 00;

4) Update Contract Specialist and Source Selection Factor in Section 00 22 16;

5) Replace and add provisions in Section 00 45 00;

6) Add Section 00 61 00 Bond Requirements;

7) Update and add clauses in Section 00 70 00 Conditions of Contract; and

8) Update technical specification sections: 01 22 00.00, 01 30 00, 01 35 26, 01 78 00, 26 05 00.00, 48 13

13.01, and 48 13 16.00.

SECTION 00 22 16 - SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

PROPOSAL CONTENT & EVALUATION

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION

CRITERIA

1.0 Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one (1) contractor for the construction of the Old Hickory Turbine Generator Rehabilitation located in Hendersonville, Tennessee. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a FFP 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.

1.2 The basis of award is the Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) Process. The Contracting Officer will award one (1) FFP construction contract to the responsible Offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

1.3 Proposal shall be submitted in three volumes. Volume I contains the technical proposal.

Volume I shall not exceed 80 pages, excluding: cover page, chapter pages, table of contents, list of tables, list of figures, list of acronyms, list of appendices, intentionally blank pages for duplex printing, and page count exceptions listed within individual factors. Pages will be counted starting at the beginning of Volume I and any pages beyond the specified maximum shall be removed and excluded from evaluation. Sheets displayed or printed on both sides count as two pages. Clearly separate factors with subdividing chapter title pages for reviewability; this does not affect evaluation of potentially interrelated factors. Volume II contains the non-technical proposal.

Volume III Contains the Price and Pro-Forma Information.

1.4 The Volumes shall have a cover labeled with the Offeror's name, address and telephone number, the Solicitation number, the title of the Solicitation, and the Volume number. Pages shall be consecutively numbered at the bottom of the page in the center, single-spaced, using a font no less than 10 point, on 8 ½ x 11 (digital) paper with adequate margins and a minimum binding edge margin of at least 0.75 inches. A smaller font type may be used on charts, graphs, figures, diagrams, and schematics to accommodate a "make it fit" software capability; however, all text must be legible and easily read. Each Volume shall also contain a Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Appendices, and List of Acronyms, Offeror name at bottom right side of each page, and Volume (and Chapter, if applicable) at the bottom left side of each page.

This list of acronyms should include all acronyms appearing in the Volume. All pages in the Volumes shall be numbered to correspond with the table of contents.

2.0 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 money will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's plan for turbine replacement and generator stator rewind, past performance, and small business participation 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 PIEE 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:

Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) – https://piee.eb.mil

Please send proposals using the link above to Contract Specialist Kristal R. Jones at Kristal.R.Jones@usace.army.mil Sara T. King at Sara.T.King@usace.army.mil AND to Contracting Officer J.W. Purcell at James.W.Purcell@usace.army.mil. Only proposals submitted via the above link will be considered for award.

2.2.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

All proposals shall be submitted electronically through the PIEE 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 PIEE site. Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

2.2.2 REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: Offerors must email Contract Specialist Kristal R. Jones at Kristal.R.Jones@usace.army.mil Sara T. King at Sara.T.King@usace.army.mil AND Contracting Officer J.W. Purcell at James.W.Purcell@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 PIEE 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.

2.2.3 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.

2.2.4 INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE PIEE WEBSITE:

Only proposals submitted via the above link will be considered for award.

2.2.1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS: All proposals shall be submitted electronically through the PIEE site. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. See PDF file titled “PIEE Vendor Submit Offer Instructions.pdf” provided as a separate attachment for proposal submission details.

2.2.2 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.

2.2.3 INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS PIEE WEBSITE: All Offerors must be registered in PIEE in order to submit an offer to the solicitation. See PDF file “PIEE Vendor Access Instructions.pdf” provided as a separate attachment for registration/access details.

2.2.4 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 PIEE website. For proposals larger than the stated capacity of the PIEE website and require multiple submissions, the Government will consider the date and time the last submission is completely uploaded into the PIEE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous. It can take several minutes or, in some cases, hours. 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 the Factors All proposal materials shall be submitted via the PIEE 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. Volume III 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 PIEE site. Volume II proposal submittal including text, renderings, drawings, photographs, etc. on PIEE site. Provide the complete Volume III proposal submittal on PIEE site with the final price breakout schedule electronically.

2.4 The magnitude for the specified work, inclusive all options, is expected to be in the $25 Million to $100 Million range.

2.5 It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure that the proposal is complete prior to submittal. The evaluation panel for the Government will evaluate solely on the information provided by the proposal and will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability unless specified in the proposal.

2.6 All information presented must be complete, stand alone, and be supportive of a prompt and thorough evaluation. No material shall be incorporated into the proposal by reference. In order for the Offeror' s proposal to receive an in-depth evaluation and be considered responsive, it is necessary that the proposal be submitted containing the information required. Any exceptions or disclaimers to the technical requirements of the solicitation shall be grounds for rejection of the Offeror's proposal.

2.7 Policy on Requests by Prospective Offerors for Assistance in the Preparation of Proposals. It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to not provide any assistance to prospective Offerors in the preparation of their proposals. However, this is not meant to preclude Offeror's requests for information or clarification. Information will be provided if it is available and releasable, while clarification will be provided in all cases. Requests for information or a clarification should be directed to the Contract Specialist. No requests for clarification or questions will be considered 30 days prior to the proposal submittal date or revised submittal date. All questions shall be submitted electronically via email to the Contract Specialist.

3.0 Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of USACE employees 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 BVTO Process.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially 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 technical 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 confidence. The Small Business Participation Proposal will be evaluated by the SSEB with assistance from advisors in Contracting and the LRN Small Business Deputy.

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 of the above evaluations are complete, the Contracting Officer/SSA will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices. SSA will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4.0 Proposal Information and Related Evaluation Factors.

4.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed in relative order of importance (in descending order). 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 to 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 Summary – Technical Proposal

Volume I – Factor I – Past Performance Confidence 1st

Volume I – Factor II – Approach to Modifying Existing Components 2nd

Volume I – Factor III – Turbine and Windings Characteristics 3rd

Volume II– Factor IV - Small Business Participation Plan 4th

The following explains the relative importance of evaluation factors:

1) All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor V - Price.

2) Factor 1 – Past Performance Confidence, is more important than Factor II – Approach to Modifying Existing Components.

3) Factor II – is more important than Factor III – Turbine and Windings Characteristics

4) Factor III – is significantly more important than Factor IV – Small Business Participation.

4.3 Volume III Summary - Price and Pro Forma Information

Tab A Proposal Data Sheet Not Rated

Tab B SF1442 and Acknowledged Amendments (if any) Not Rated

Tab C Section B Price Proposal Not Rated

Tab D Section K (Unless Available at SAM) Not Rated

Tab E Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable Not Rated

Tab F Evidence to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Capability

Not Rated

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

5.0 Ratings

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

Combined Technical/Risk Proposal Ratings (Factors and Subfactors) 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 contract performance is high.

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

Past Performance 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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition 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.

Unknown Confidence (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.

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.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

6.0 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. Best Value. The expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

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

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

5. Competitive Range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c)

6. 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.

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

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

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

14. Source Selection Authority. The official designated to make the source selection decision.

15. Source Selection Decision Document. The document that reflects the SSA’s independent, integrated comparative assessment and decision.

16. 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.

17. 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).

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

7.1 Volume 1-Factor I – Past Performance Confidence

7.1.1 Submission Requirements:

Offerors shall provide at least three (3) but not more than five (5) projects of the Offeror’s past or current projects complete or substantially complete within the last fourteen (14) years (from issuance of the solicitation) for projects which are similar to this project in scope and magnitude. Substantially complete is defined as project that has at least one (1) completed & commissioned unit. Projects that are not similar in either scope or magnitude will be rated less favorably and less relevant. Projects that are not similar in both scope and magnitude will not be considered.

Similar in scope for each project is defined as the combination of all of the following bullets:

o Self-performance by the Offeror as the prime contractor completing both turbine and generator rehabilitation on at least one (1) unit;

o the design, manufacture, and installation of new turbine runners with a diameter of at least 150” for hydroelectric generating units; AND o the design, manufacture, installation, and testing of a complete winding.

Similar in magnitude for each project is defined as the combination of all of the following bullets:

o One of the following sub-bullets:

Design, manufacture, and installation of turbine runners, for hydroelectric generating unit rated output of 25-125

MW.

Refurbishment and installation of turbine runners, for hydroelectric generating unit rated output of 25-125

MW.

o the design, manufacture, installation, and testing of a complete winding for units with rated output 25-125 MW.

Additional Consideration may be provided on these projects for the following:

Projects demonstrating experience working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE).

Projects demonstrating experience with the refurbishment, design, manufacture, and/or installation of Kaplan turbine runners.

Projects demonstrating experience with discharge ring refurbishment or replacement for discharge rings found off-center at least one-eighth inch (1/8”).

Projects demonstrating experience in generator up-rates of at least 15%.

Note that winding up-rates without commensurate up-rate of generator are not included.

Projects demonstrating experience in recentering of stator, either by replacing stator core or shifting stator frame.

Projects shall be summarized in tabular form using the forms provided at the end of this section. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If the offeror elects not to use the forms, all information identified on the forms is still required for evaluation of this item and shall be presented in an organized manner. For each identified project, fill in the attached forms: Project Detail

Sheet Factor I - Form I, Past Performance Technical Details Factor I – Form II, and PPQ-0 Factor I – Form III, included at the end of this Section. Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria.

Provide two (2) references (Owner’s representative and a Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Project Engineer, Quality Assurance Representative, or equivalent) for all projects identified in under Factor I. The personnel references shall be those that interacted with the Contractor’s performance at least on a daily and weekly basis. 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. 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, Kristal R. Jones at Kristal.R.Jones@usace.army.mil Sara T. King at Sara.T.King@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.

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. Information gathered from these sources, if any, must evidence at least “Satisfactory” performance in that past twenty (20) years.

The Government may choose not to contact all of the identified references/points of contacts. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the requirements outlined in the solicitation.

NOTE: For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 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 part of the Joint Venture must submit their own Unique Entity ID (SAM) (Formerly DUNS number) with the JV proposal. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractor, 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 (2) 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 JV will not exceed five (5).

7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The SSEB will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s proposed subcontractor(s) 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 projects within the time frames stated above (from issuance of the solicitation) that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project will be rated more relevant. Projects 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 under Factor 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, FAPPIS, Dun and 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: Subcontractor(s) submitted for evaluation as part of this proposal must be used for execution of the project and cannot be changed or substituted after award. Any deviation from this requirement may result in a Termination for Default by the Government. The Offeror shall submit a firm commitment from the contractor(s) used for consideration for past performance.

NOTE: The Offeror’s Past Performance Proposal shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages, 8- 1/2” by 11”, printed single sided, excluding forms. Double-sided counts as two (2) pages. 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 required forms, 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.

7.2 Volume 1-Factor II: Approach to Modifying Existing Components:

7.2.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a narrative, with a maximum length of 25 pages, to include the Offeror’s proposed approach to modifying existing components, per the minimum requirements of Technical Specification Section 48 13 13.01; their approach to addressing, including modifying existing components, realignment of the units with regards to historical movement and potential seasonal movement; and Drawings and Descriptive Data.

Drawings and Descriptive Data, at a minimum, shall include turbine runner, rotating parts modifications, and non-rotating parts modifications as allowed in the Technical Specifications. Where applicable, show axial-cross section cuts; plan and elevation views;

general construction; overall and principal dimensions; elevations; and a distinction between existing and modified items. Each offeror shall clearly show any proposed modifications to existing components and identify the turbine modifications that are required to achieve the turbine performance offered in the proposal. Each offeror is required to provide all resources necessary to furnish and install a turbine which is homologous to the offeror’s model turbine and which achieves the performance stated in the specification and in the offeror’s proposal. In the event an Offeror’s proposed modifications impact other systems or components, the Offeror shall modify or replace components or systems in such a manner as to maintain the functions and functionality which existed prior to commencing the upgrade. Any such changes shall be clearly illustrated through the offeror’s provided narrative and shall be included as part of the technical requirements.

Factor II - Form I, included at the end of this section, shall be filled in and submitted with the proposal. This form does not count toward page limit.

7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The offeror’s narrative, drawings and descriptive data shall be reviewed and evaluated for thoroughness, completeness, and a clear understanding of the work required under this acquisition.

An offeror’s narrative which demonstrates modifications to the turbine that have minimal impacts on other systems and components may be evaluated more favorably.

An offeror’s narrative which details a clear plan which offers flexibility and efficiency in addressing modifications to the turbine and affected systems and components may be evaluated more favorably.

7.3 Volume 1-Factor III: Turbine Efficiency, Turbine Cavitation, and Winding Details:

7.3.1 Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall provide the following information:

1) Performance Curves with cavitation limits shown

2) Predicted Hill Chart for the proposed Old Hickory prototype turbine.

3) Prototype Turbine Hydraulic Efficiency, in accordance with Technical Specification Section 48 13 13.01 and Table 2-1 below for the purpose of determining the weighted turbine efficiency (Ewa).

4) Cavitation Limits in accordance with Technical Specification Section 48 13 13.01 and Table 2-2 provided below.

5) A narrative which details the following:

a. Guaranteed combined DC I2R (R corrected to 75 degrees C) loss, core loss, and stray load loss for the proposed winding in kilowatts (kW) at 45,000 kVA, 0.9 power factor.

b. The location and name(s) of the owning interest in the winding manufacturing facility.

c. A complete description of the stator winding manufacturing and installation process.

i. The stator winding manufacturing process shall include details such as coil insulation system, including strand, turn and ground-wall insulation material and thickness; cross sectional dimensions; designed dielectric stress of the ground-wall insulation at rated voltage; and the ground wall insulation application method (hand-wound, machine wound with/without scarf joint, other).

ii. The stator winding installation process shall include details of side packing system, wedging system including type, dimensions, and materials of wedges, total number of wedges per slot, number of check wedges per slot and end wedge securing method, spring deflection measurement method, brazing method, and quality assurance procedures.

Reference Technical Specification Section 48 13 16.00.

Table 3-1; Offeror Guarantee - Turbine Efficiency

Prototype Net Head

Emin

Pmin Hp

Epeak

Ppeak Hp

Emax

Pma xHp

29.5 12,000 21,000 28,500

40 17,500 30,000 43,500

50 22,500 39,000 56,000

54 24,000 48,000 61,600

59 27,500 50,000 61,600

WEIGHTED

EFFICIENCY,

Ewa (%)

For each prototype net head:

1) Emin is the turbine efficiency to be provided by the offeror at the given lower HP output for a given head.

2) Pmin is the given lower range HP at which the offeror shall provide a guaranteed efficiency.

3) Epeak is the peak turbine efficiency to be provided by the offeror for a given head.

4) Ppeak is the given turbine power output at which offerors shall provide a guaranteed efficiency for a given head. If the projected peak efficiency point for a given head is different than the HP provided in Table 3-1, provide the efficiency at the HP as given in Table 3-1 and separately state at which HP output the peak efficiency occurs and what that peak efficiency is.

5) Emax is the turbine efficiency to be provided by the offeror at the given upper HP output for a given head.

6) Pmax is the given upper range HP at which the offeror shall provide a guaranteed efficiency.

7) Efficiencies are to be provided at the HP as stated. If the minimum and maximum limits to the guaranteed operating range differ from the power stated in the Pmin and Pmax of Table 3-1, indicate what those guaranteed limits are with the input to Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Offeror Guarantee – Turbine Cavitation Limits Prototype Net Head (ft)

Prototype Tailwater (ft)

Min Power (Hp)

Max Power (Hp)

29.5 414.5

35 408

40 402.5

45 396.5

50 392

54 388

59 383.5

For each prototype net head:

a. Max Power is the maximum guaranteed turbine power output.

b. Min Power is the minimum guaranteed turbine power output.

7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

Each proposal will be reviewed and evaluated to ensure the offeror has a complete and thorough understanding of the solicited requirement as well as to ensure the proposed efficiencies and cavitation information, at a minimum, meet the requirements of the solicitation. The weighted efficiencies information for the turbine will be evaluated utilizing the information provided by the Contractor in Table 2-1. A weighted efficiency of at least 91% must be achieved to be deemed acceptable. A higher weighted efficiency may be evaluated more favorably. The following formula shall be used for determining the weighted efficiency:

Weighted Efficiency = .005*Ep29.5 + .01*Ep40 + .03*Ep50 + .06*Ep54 + .01*Ep59 + .005*Emax29.5 + .1*Emax40 + .16*Emax50 +.22*Emax54 +.05*Emax59 +.005*Emin29.5 + .05*Emin40 + .1*Emin50 + .145*Emin54+ .05*Emin59

Epxx = Contractor provided peak turbine efficiency for the required heads Emaxyy = Contractor provided turbine efficiency at maximum power output for the required head or efficiency at generator limit.

Eminzz = Contractor provided turbine efficiency at minimum power output for the required head

The cavitation limits will be evaluated against the values provided within the Technical Specifications:

For each given net head, cavitation limits that are greater than the specified minimum power are unacceptable.

For each given net head, cavitation limits that are less than the specified maximum power are unacceptable.

For each given net head, a lower cavitation-minimum-power may be evaluated more favorably.

For each given net head, a higher cavitation-maximum-power may be evaluated more favorably.

An offeror’s narrative which provides for less combined energy loss, yielding a more efficient generator, may be evaluated more favorably.

NOTE: Values provided by the offeror, if accepted, will be incorporated into the awarded contract’s technical requirements. Proposed values for Turbine Efficiency, Turbine Cavitation, and Generator Losses will be tested, verified, and shall become the guaranteed values per acceptance testing. Failure to meet the proposed guarantee may be considered a breach of contract.

NOTE: The Offeror’s Turbine Replacement and Generator Stator Rewind Proposal shall be limited to no more than forty

(40) pages, 8-1/2” by 11”, printed single sided, excluding forms. Double-sided counts as two (2) pages. 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 required forms, 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.

9.0 Volume 2 – Factor IV – Small Business Participation

9.1 Submission Requirements:

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) 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 the Small Business Subcontracting Plan 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 12% of the total contract value. Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business goal of 12% 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;

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…