OR-WAPATO LAKE PUMP STATION REHAB
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Contracting and General Services (CGS) Region 1 has been tasked to solicit for and procure a firm-fixed-price contract to demo existing pump station facilities; install a cofferdam dewatering system; construct a new pump station on the existing elevated concrete slab; rehab existing concrete; and site restoration at the Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Sherwood, Oregon (Washington County).
Project is unrestricted to any size business. Applicable NAICS code is 237110. Small business size is defined as $36.5 million or less annually when averaged over a three year period. The period of performance for the project is the date of award and ending by December 31, 2020. Project magnitude is between $500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00.
SCOPE OF WORK:
The proposed scope of work consists of furnishing all materials, labor, equipment, and supervision necessary for demolition of existing pump station facilities; installation of a cofferdam dewatering system; construction of a new pump station on the existing elevated concrete slab; rehabilitation of existing concrete; and site restoration. The new pump station includes, but is not limited to, the following: installation of a prefabricated building, installation of two axial flow vertical turbine pumps with formed suction intakes and associated discharge piping, new trash rack assembly, facility startup and testing, and performing associated site, mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation work.
Site Visit: Already held.
Date for submission of Questions: The cut-off date for questions has passed already.
BASIS FOR AWARD
The "Lowest-Priced, Technically-Acceptable (LPTA)" Source Selection Process shall be utilized in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.101-2 as the basis for award. The lowest priced proposal will be based upon the total value of base bid items (items 1 and 2 of the bid schedule), which will be assessed to determine the overall Price Fair and Reasonableness. Based upon available funding at the time of award, the initial award amount may include one or more option items. If any of the tasks appear to be unbalanced, a review of the breakdown of each task will be conducted. Any option items not included with initial award, but deemed to be necessary thereafter, may be incorporated by modification. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of an offer meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. There will be two (2) non-cost evaluation factors: Recent Relevant Experience and Recent Relevant Past Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than `AcceptableB? must be achieved for Recent Relevant Experience and Recent Relevant Past Performance.
The Government will first conduct a price analysis to determine fairness, reasonableness and if unbalanced pricing exists. Offerors proposals will then be ranked from the lowest to the highest-priced. The Government will then evaluate the technical proposal of the apparent, lowest-priced offeror. If the apparent, lowest-priced offeror's technical proposal is "Unacceptable" the Government will then evaluate the technical proposal of the apparent, second lowest-priced offeror. This process will continue until a lowest-priced offeror's technical proposal is "Acceptable."
Once the Government identifies the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable offeror, an award will be made and no other proposals will be evaluated from offerors who proposed higher pricing.
B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED
The following evaluation factors and will be used to evaluate each proposal:
FACTOR 1 - RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
FACTOR 2 - RECENT RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE
FACTOR 3 - PRICE
Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.
Evaluation of the offerorB?s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the statement of work, specifications and drawings. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in paragraph c below (Evaluation Approach) below. An offer will receive an `AcceptableB? rating if it meets the minimum requirements of all evaluation factors described below.
C. EVALUATION APPROACH
FACTOR 1 - RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Offerors shall be evaluated to determine whether they have performed similar contracts, in terms of scope and price, to the work required within the solicitation. Offerors shall provide the minimum requested project information on at least two (2) recent, relevant projects for pump station rehab construction or rehabilitation projects involving procurement, installation and start-up of similar size and scale to this project (vertical turbine pumps with 50 hp motor and capacity of 11,750 gpm). Project experience shall also include in-water work and dewatering experience. A maximum of ten (10) pages is allowed for the experience evaluation factor. For a project to be considered, the offeror shall have been the Prime Contractor on it. Projects do not have to have been with a Federal Agency to be considered. Include the following information with project examples:
1) Name and location of project
2) Date started and date completed
3) Reference information B? telephone and e-mail address for client that can be contacted regarding project
4) Description of project, service type (what is being pumped), elements of work performed (procurement, installation, start-up, etc.)
5) Number of pumps and nominal size and pumping capacity
6) In-water work and familiarity with dewatering. These could be included in the projects above or non-pump station projects.
7) Structural (demo, salvage and rehabilitation of existing concrete structures, fabrication and installation of steel B? trash rack, pre-fab FRP structure, etc.)
8) Mechanical (piping and pump intake installation)
9) Electrical
A project is considered `recent' if it has been completed within the past five (5) years or is currently ongoing (but at least 25% complete).
A project is considered `relevant' if it is similar in terms of scope and price to the work required within the solicitation. To be considered similar in scope, projects shall demonstrate work experience in the areas stated above and each of those projects shall have a contract value of at least $500,000.00 or more.
Please note that FACTOR 1 (Recent Relevant Experience) differs from FACTOR 2 (Recent Relevant Past Performance). FACTOR 1 determines whether or not an offeror has performed similar work whereas FACTOR 2 evaluates how well the offeror performed.
FACTOR 1
RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Rating Description
Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation for this factor.
Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation for this factor.
FACTOR 2 - RECENT RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE
Offeror's past performance shall be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. Offerors shall provide at least two (2) recent, relevant projects for pump station rehabilitation (ten page limit). Projects shall include current points of contact and phone numbers. The contractor is solely responsible for the accuracy of this information as the Government will not pursue incorrect contact data.
For a project to be considered, the offeror shall have been the prime contractor on it. In addition to scope, each project shall have a current or final contract value greater than $500,000.00 and have been completed within the past five past five (5) years or be currently ongoing (but at least 25% complete). Furthermore, for each project to be considered, the offeror shall have been the Prime Contractor on it. Projects do not have to have been with a Federal Agency to be considered. Offerors may submit the same projects as those proposed for FACTOR 1 (Recent Relevant Experience).
In addition to the above, 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 the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE / Unique Entity Identifiers (i.e. DUNS) of team members (i.e. partnerships, joint ventures, teaming arrangements or parent companies / subsidiaries / affiliates) identified in the offerorB?s proposals, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting 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.
FACTOR 2
RECENT RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITION
Rating Description
Acceptable Based on the offerorB?s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offerorB?s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)
Unacceptable Based on the offerorB?s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
NOTE: 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 IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv); therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of `AcceptableB? / `Unacceptable,B? unknown past performance shall be considered `Acceptable.B?
FACTOR 3 - PRICE
Price - the total value of base bid items (items 1 and 2 of the bid schedule) will be assessed to determine the overall Price Fair and Reasonableness. Based upon available funding at the time of award, the initial award amount may include one or more option items. If any of the tasks appear to be unbalanced, a review of the breakdown of each task will be conducted. Any option items not included with initial award, but deemed to be necessary thereafter, may be incorporated by modification.
Offeror's prices for each item within the bid schedule shall represent the best price in response to the solicitation. Prices will be evaluated using price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(a)(2) and 15.404-1(b). Prices shall be evaluated to determine fairness, reasonableness and if unbalanced pricing exists.
Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. If price analysis techniques indicate that a proposal is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (no page limit).
Solicitation Number 140F0119R0006 with attachments was posted on April 16, 2019. Amendment 1 was issued on April 17, 2019 to incorporate drawings. Amendment 2 was issued on May 16, 2019 and extended the date for receipt of proposals indefinitely pending updated documents. Amendment 3 was posted on May 30, 2019 and reestablished the date for receipt of proposals as June 18, 2019 by 2 PM PT. Amendment 4 was posted on June 6, 2018 and updated answers to a few questions and a updated Section, basis for award and leaves the receipt of proposals for June 18, 2018 at 2 PM PT. Proposals submitted by mail channels must be received by no later that date/time specified with a 20 percent bid bond or proposals can be emailed to karl_lautzenheiser@fws.gov along with a copy of the bid bond and the original bid bond must also mailed no later than the date/time for receipt of proposals.
No further notice will be posted on FedBizOpps. To be considered for award, interested contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at (https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/) and Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) must be completed at this same website. For technical or contract questions, please contact Karl Lautzenheiser by email to Karl_Lautzenheiser@fws.gov.
Lautzenheiser, Karl
