SOLICITATION NOTICE
Y -- Micro Hydroelectric Generation System, West Point NY
- Notice Date
- 7/24/2015
- Notice Type
- Presolicitation
- NAICS
- 237990
— Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
- Contracting Office
- Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE District, New York, Attn: CENAN-CT, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, 10278-0090, United States
- ZIP Code
- 10278-0090
- Solicitation Number
- W912DS-15-R-0015
- Archive Date
- 8/23/2015
- Point of Contact
- Brian C. Klug,
- E-Mail Address
-
brian.klug@usace.army.mil
(brian.klug@usace.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- The New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) intends to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the construction of a micro hydroelectric generation system at the US Army Garrison, West Point, West Point, NY, by means of a design/build firm fixed-price contract. The contract will be awarded using the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method. This method permits proposals to be evaluated based on price competition, technical merit and other factors; it permits impartial and comprehensive evaluation of Offerors' proposals received, with discussions if necessary; and ensures selection of the source whose performance will be technically acceptable with the lowest cost to the Government. The design-build contractors is to furnish all labor, materials, support services, tools, equipment and incidentals necessary to design, build, connect and commission a hydroelectric generation facilities at USAG-WP, by adding such generation capacity to long-established dam. Project Description: FY15 SRM Micro Hydroelectric Generating System The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236210. Procurement Strategy will be Unrestricted, Full and Open competition Best Value (Lowest Price Technically Acceptable) LPTA. Evaluation criteria will be the following: FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: To demonstrate recent, relevant experience, the Offeror must use the Specialized Experience forms - (Attachment 2 for construction experience). If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, Limited Liability Corporation, members of a Teaming Agreement, or integrated design-build firm provide experience information for design and construction, demonstrating the experience of each proposed design and construction entity as is relevant to their proposed role on this project. Submit projects that are currently well underway (designed and at least 75% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer than seven (7) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If any firm has multiple divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division submitting the offer. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) projects, one of which must have been performed by the Prime Contractor, but no more than six (6) projects for Factor 1. At least one project must demonstrate design/build experience. If the Offeror proposes to use an architect-engineer firm as part of the Offeror's team, the architect-engineer firm shall submit a minimum of two (2) projects for Factor 1. The total number of projects submitted for Factor 1 shall not exceed six (6) project examples. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of the previous experience demonstrated in the submitted EXPERIENCE INFORMATION FACT SHEET, Form A2. Offerors must submit a minimum of two (2) projects which demonstrate their experience in the design and construction of hydroelectric construction projects in the public and/or private sectors. Offerors shall provide information about their past experience on hydroelectric projects of similar magnitude and scope. Factor 1 shall be rated in accordance with guidelines listed below. The projects submitted should include the following criteria.  Micro Hydroelectric Generation Projects shall be considered relevant if they meet each of the following:  o Projects shall be considered relevant in terms of magnitude if the hydroelectric project had construction costs greater than or equal to $250,000. o Projects shall be considered relevant in terms of scope if the installed capacity of the hydroelectric power project is greater than or equal to 50 kW. In addition, in order to be acceptable, the projects submitted, must also meet the following criteria: - The Offeror acted as a prime contractor in at least one (1) project of the example experiences. - At least one (1) project submitted must demonstrate design-build experience. The proposal may also be rated as unacceptable if: - Experience examples are not verifiable. RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1 The Government will review the Offeror's submittal for specialized experience. In order for the Offeror's proposal to be acceptable for Factor 1, the proposal must meet the minimum requirements listed above. The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating for this factor. Acceptable: Project clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. 3.1.2. FACTOR 2 - CONTRACTOR PAST PERFORMANCE The Offeror will provide past performance information on the projects submitted under Factor 1 using the past performance questionnaires included in the solicitation. In addition to the past performance questionnaires provided, the Government intends to use the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). However, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s) or other personnel with knowledge of performance, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources. The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines, below. Negative performance information includes the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of negative performance, if significant enough, may lead to a negative rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant negative performance may lead to a negative rating for this factor. In conducting the performance competence assessment, the Government will consider the relevancy of the past performance information available. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current solicitation, although the past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the criteria for Factor 1, Past Experience. In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past five (5) years) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's record of past performance information in accordance with the table below. The Government will review the past performance information provided for the relevant project submitted under Factor 1. Based on the Offeror's recent relevant performance record, the Government will make a determination as to the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A past performance evaluation rating will be assigned in accordance with the table shown below. Where 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 will receive an Unknown Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.   Rating Guidelines for Factor 2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note below.) Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "unknown" shall be considered "acceptable." The Government will review the relative risk of the contractors ratings but normally not award to an Offeror that receives unacceptable rating in this factor: 3.2 FACTOR 3 - QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFEROR'S TEAM a. Submission Requirements i. Offerors should establish their qualifications to make relevant decisions based on experience in hydroelectric development projects. To do so, Offerors must demonstrate that they have the skills, qualifications and experience required for completion of all deliverables. To illustrate such qualifications, resumes of key team members should be included in proposals. As appropriate, include engineering licenses held (including license numbers) should be listed. If the proposal is submitted on behalf of a team, partnership or joint-venture, the proposal must provide relevant qualification information for each member of the team and identify the prime design/build contractor. Offerors must submit resumes for the following Key Personnel: 1. Overall Project Manager 2. Senior Mechanical Engineer (Responsible for Mechanical Design) 3. Senior Structural Engineer (Responsible for Civil Design) 4. Senior Electrical Engineer (Responsible for Electrical Design) 5. Site Superintendent (Overall Field Manager responsible for Construction). ii. All resumes must include the following information and may NOT exceed three (3) pages per Resume: • Name and title • Assignment on this project • Name of firm with which associated • Years experience with the firm (in the employee's field of expertise/discipline) and years of experience with other firms (in the field of expertise/ discipline) • Educational degree(s), year of degree, and institution • Active professional registration and year first registered, if applicable • Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract • List of projects in which the individual has worked to include Name of project(s), project location(s) and the role or position filled by the individual. iii. The resumes of the key personnel listed above must indicate that they have the experience and degrees as prescribed in the table below. iv. Degrees listed in resumes must be from institutions of higher education, such as United States universities or colleges. v. Resumes of key personnel must demonstrate that key personnel candidates have the minimum of number of years of relevant professional experience (see Table 1, below, for minimum qualifications). For example, the Senior Mechanical Engineer must have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and a minimum of five (5) years of professional mechanical engineering experience (for example, from September 2007 to Present). vi. The Offeror must document whether personnel proposed for work under the project are currently employed by the Offeror. When the Offeror is a joint venture, key personnel who are employees of any of the joint venture partners meet this requirement. When resumes indicate that key personnel candidates are not currently employed by the Offeror (this includes key personnel candidates currently employed by subcontractors), the Offeror must provide a signed letter of commitment, dated within one month before the date the Offeror submitted its proposal under the Solicitation, signed by both the key personnel candidate and the Offeror, and specifically referencing the Solicitation number and title. The signed letters of commitment will not count towards the page limitation of either the resumes or the overall page limitation of this Section.   b. Evaluation Criteria i. The Offeror's proposed key personnel will be evaluated against the minimum qualifications stated below: Table 1 Position Experience and Education 1 Overall Project Manager Engineering Degree (civil, electrical, mechanical or structural; see paragraph a. iv., above) with a minimum of 5 years professional experience as a Project Manager. 2 Senior Mechanical Engineer Mechanical Engineering Degree (see paragraph a.iv., above) with a Minimum 5 years professional experience as a mechanical Engineer. A Professional Engineer's License as a Mechanical Engineer. 3 Senior Civil/Structural Engineer Civil/Structural Engineering Degree (see paragraph a.iv., above) with a Minimum 5 years professional experience as a Civil/Structural Engineer. A Professional Engineer's License as a Civil/Structural Engineer. 4 Senior Electrical Engineer Electrical Engineering Degree (see paragraph a.iv., above) with a Minimum 5 years professional experience as an electrical Engineer. A Professional Engineer's License as an Electrical Engineer. 5 Site Superintendent Site Superintendent with a minimum of 5 years of construction experience Rating Guidelines for Factor 3 The government will not award to an Offeror that receives an unacceptable rating for this factor. Acceptable: Project clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/COE/DACA51/W912DS-15-R-0015/listing.html)
- Record
- SN03810179-W 20150726/150724235608-7d1b8b99eb5570331a0604f8fa9b84a1 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |