SRCSGT | R | ESPC under DOE IDIQ for Fort Jackson SC

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF DECEMBER 11, 2010 FBO #3304
SOURCES SOUGHT

R -- ESPC under DOE IDIQ for Fort Jackson SC

Notice Date: 12/9/2010
Notice Type: Sources Sought
NAICS: 541690 — Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
Contracting Office: Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Acquisition Locations, DLA Energy, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 22060-6222, United States
ZIP Code: 22060-6222
Solicitation Number: SP0600-11-R-0400
Archive Date: 1/22/2011
Point of Contact: Cynthia J. Obermeyer, Phone: 7037679652, Douglas Kennard, Phone: 703-767-7661
E-Mail Address: cynthia.obermeyer@dla.mil, douglas.kennard@dla.mil
(cynthia.obermeyer@dla.mil, douglas.kennard@dla.mil)
Small Business Set-Aside: N/A
Description: Notification of Opportunity Fort Jackson, South Carolina Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) Task Order 1. Notice: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy on behalf of the Fort Jackson Directorate of Public Works plans to award an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) Task Order using the Department of Energy (DOE) Super ESPC indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. DLA Energy invites the current 16 ESPC contract holders to submit a written response to this notice for our consideration. Only those 16 DOE ESPC awardees are eligible for award. This notice represents only step one of a two step down selection process per the basic DOE ESPC IDIQ, paragraph H.4. Offerors shall comply with Section L and Section M, attached, when preparing their response. 2. Authority: The DLA Energy authority is in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 23.205 "Energy-savings performance contracts," Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), and DOE Final Rule, 10 CFR 436 Subpart B - Methods and Procedures for Energy Savings Performance Contracting and Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPA, April 10, 1995). 3. Site Information: Fort Jackson is the largest and most active Initial Entry Training Center in the U.S. Army, training 50 percent of all Soldiers and 70 percent of the women entering the Army each year. The Fort includes more than 52,000 acres, including more than 100 ranges and field training sites and 1,160 buildings. More than 3,900 active duty Soldiers and their 14,000 family members are assigned to the Installation. Additionally, Fort Jackson employs almost 5,200 civilians and provides services for more than 36,000 retirees and their family members. 4. Project Approach: In achieving their energy goals, Fort Jackson is interested in energy conservation measures (ECM) as listed below: ECM Focus Areas: TC.1 Boiler Plant Improvements TC.2 Chiller/Thermal Energy Storage Plant Improvements TC.3 Building Automation Systems (BAS)/Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS) (must integrate into existing wireless Tropos mesh network and Honeywell EBO Energy Monitoring Control System) TC.4 Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning TC.5 Lighting Improvements TC.6 Building Envelope Modifications TC.7 Chilled Water and Hot Water Distribution Systems TC.8 Electric Motors and Drives TC.11 Renewable Energy Systems - Solar PV TC.12 Energy/Utility Distribution Systems TC.14 Electrical Peak Shaving/Load Shifting TC.17 Commissioning TC.18 Advanced Metering Systems (must integrate into the existing Pep wave wireless system) In addition to these ECMs of interest, the installation would be interested in any other recommended energy conservation measures proposed by the energy service company (ESCO). Be advised that all selected ECMs will have the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) performed by the ESCO. 5. Two Step Down Selection Process: In order to minimize the costs to both the contractors and the Government, DLA Energy will use a two step down selection process to select an ESCO for the final task order award. The resultant task order will be awarded to the offeror that provides the best technical approach for achieving the greatest level of savings using a holistic, comprehensive energy conservation approach at Fort Jackson and results in the least risk and at the most economical and reasonable cost for same energy conservation measures. Step One: In accordance with the down selection process of the basic IDIQ ESPC contract, paragraph H.3.1.B.4, all sixteen ESCOs will be given an opportunity to submit a package acknowledging interest in the Fort Jackson requirement. In the first step, Notice of Opportunity, offers will be evaluated against the following criteria: Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1 - Industry Experience Subfactor 2 - Key Project Personnel Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Financial Stability In the performance price tradeoff source selection procedures for step one of the two step process, a determination of technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between past performance and cost/price factors. The order of importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals. After determination of the technically acceptable proposals, in step one of the two step down selection process, Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Financial Stability) are considered of equal importance. Contractors are not required to submit a cost proposal in the initial down selection process. This selection will focus, in a general nature, on an ESCO's ability to perform previous projects of this magnitude, their current financial capability and their illustration of technical expertise in similar energy projects of this nature. The Government will assess an ESCO's likeliness to successfully perform a project of this magnitude. Up to three ESCOs will be selected during the first step in the two step down selection process. Step Two: The selected ESCOs shall submit a Preliminary Assessment (PA), as detailed in the DOE basic contract paragraph H.4, Preliminary Assessment Content Requirements for Task Orders, which sets out the merits, technical feasibility, and the level of projected energy savings, economics, and cost/price of the project. Full trade off source selection procedures will be utilized with the evaluation of the PAs based on the following evaluation criteria: Factor 1: Mission Capability: Each of the following subfactors is listed in the order of importance for the Mission Capability, Factor 1. Subfactor 1: Technical Feasibility of proposed energy conservation measures Subfactor 2: Holistic Comprehensive Approach Subfactor 3: Guaranteed Cost Savings Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price In the second step of the two step down selection process, Factor 1 Mission Capability is of greater importance than Factor 2 Past Performance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factors 1 Mission Capability and 2 Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3, Cost/Price, however Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The Government will review the PAs and select one contractor to perform an Investment Grade Audit (IGA). The selected contractor will be issued a Notice of Intent to Award at which time they will begin the IGA as described in paragraph H.5, Investment Grade Audit for Task Orders. 6. Procedures/Process: Interested DOE ESPC contractors shall comply with the Section L, Instruction to Offerors, as attached for the offeror's submission requirements. A site visit will not be necessary nor conducted for step one in the down selection process. Also attached is Section M, Evaluation of Offers, which defines the evaluation criteria that will be used in step one of the two step down selection process. (Note: Separate Section L and Section M will be issued for step two of the down selection process for this acquisition). 7. Submission Requirements: All interested ESCOs should provide the above required information to DLA Energy no later than 07 Jan 2011, 4:00 PM. EST. Emailed responses to the Notice of Opportunity are not acceptable. Please submit your offer in two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic CD format to either of the following at: Doug Kennard, (703) 767-7661 - AND - Cynthia J. Obermeyer, (703) 767-9652 at: DLA Energy-AP 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 4950 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6222 Attachments: 1. Site Date and Description 2. Step One Section L with Attachment 1 3. Step One Section M Attachment 1 Fort Jackson Site Data and Description Fort Jackson is located in the city of Columbia, the capital and largest city in South Carolina. Columbia is in the center of the state residing in Richland County. Utility Systems: Fort Jackson receives their electric utility service from South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and natural gas is purchased from SCE&G for heat and hot water generation. The potable water supply is provided by the City of Columbia. Fort Jackson purchases electricity under a standard General Service Administration (GSA) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract from SCE&G without a term limitation at the utility company's Large General Service billing rate. There is a single 115 kilo-volt (kV) overhead distribution line to SCE&G's substation located at the intersection of Lee Road and Hill Street. It has a capacity of 44.8 mega-volt-amperes (MVA) and steps the voltage down to 8.32 kV. The 8.32 kV distribution system consists of approximately 64 miles of overhead and underground, primary and secondary lines. The power is stepped down to usable building voltages at transformers located in the vicinity of each building. The distribution system is owned by Fort Jackson and maintained by the Installation's Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Department. SCE&G plans to construct a second 44.8 MVA substation in the northwest corner of the installation in 2011. Both substations have the capability for expansion should the installation's future consumption exceed 89.6 MVA. The central energy plants consume the largest amount of electricity at Fort Jackson. The natural gas distribution system consists of 37 miles of underground piping from the gas distribution station. The majority of the piping is iron which dates to the 1940's and 60's and is considered to be in fair condition. Some plastic gas piping has been installed more recently and is reported to be in good condition. Cathodic protection for the entire gas system has been installed to limit corrosion. Natural gas is mostly used for space and water heating throughout the installation. Natural gas usage is highest during the cooler months of the year. Natural gas end users are individual buildings with standalone energy plants, individual buildings with gas fired HVAC and water heating equipment, and the central energy plant boilers. As with electrical energy, the largest consumers are the central energy plants. The water distribution system was originally owned and operated by Fort Jackson, but was privatized in 2008 to Palmetto State Utility Services. The infrastructure of the system has been expanded over time with a variety of piping materials, including asbestos concrete, metal, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. A large portion of water is used for drinking, personal hygiene, and equipment maintenance associated with the basic training mission. A large amount of water is also expected to be lost due to leaks through the central energy plant distribution and potable water systems. The service tariffs are commercial rates with average costs as follows: Electricity - Average electricity rate: $0.042 - $0.073 / kWh plus peak demand charges Natural Gas - Average natural gas rate: $ 7.55 / kcf Water: - Commodity charge rate - $2.07 / kgal Sewer: - Commodity charge rate - $1.13 / kgal The following tables illustrate the historic utility consumption at Fort Jackson: Total Energy Consumption (MBtu) Year Total Energy (MBtu) FY03 957,472 FY04 940,667 FY05 1,041,465 FY06 1,020,939 FY07 926,025 FY08 984,473 FY09 1,067,143 Energy Consumption Intensity (MBtu/KSF) 2003-2009 - excluding family housing 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Electricity 55.1 47.7 52.2 49.9 53.5 53.9 55.9 Natural Gas 61.6 48.7 54.5 62.0 47.3 55.1 58.8 Total 116.7 96.4 106.7 111.9 100.8 109.0 114.7 Water Consumption (excluding family housing) Year Water Consumption (MGAL) Water Consumption Intensify (GAL/SF) 2007 624.7 68.0 2008 687.0 76.0 2009 634.0 68.1 Fort Jackson desired focus areas for energy conservation measures include: boiler plant improvements, chiller plant improvements, Building Automation Systems (BAS)/Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS), lighting improvements, building envelope modifications, renewable energy systems (solar PV), electrical peak shaving/load shifting, and commissioning). The following systems descriptions provide background information on select components of the existing infrastructure. Central Energy Plant systems Four central energy plants (CEPs) serve a total of approximately 150 buildings at Fort Jackson with a combined floor area of 3.7 million SF. CEPs #1 and #2 are the largest and oldest, having been built in the 1960s. CEP #3 was built in the early 1970s. CEP #4 was built recently in 2006. All central boilers are dual-fueled and primarily use natural gas, burning fuel oil only when economics dictates a switch. The boilers operate year-round to provide service hot water as well as meeting the seasonal space heating load. The water-cooled chillers run only during the summer months. Most of the hot water distribution piping at Fort Jackson is insulated steel installed in shallow concrete trenches. Much of the original piping was replaced in 2002. Exceptions are the piping for about 25% of the buildings served by CEP #1, which was replaced in 1985 and an original section of direct-buried piping that serves the hospital area loop from CEP #2. Another exception is the piping serving CEP #3, which dates to the construction of this plant in 1986. Chilled water piping is a mixture of insulated steel and PVC that is direct buried. Buildings in the 2000 area of CEP #1 are generally served by PVC, while buildings in the 3000 area of CEP #1 and 4000 area of CEP #2 are generally served by the original steel piping installed in the 1960s. The PVC replacement piping was installed in 1991. CW piping materials associated with buildings served by CEP #3 and building numbers 5000 and higher are as originally constructed, with vintages dating back to 1980, but the specific construction materials were not identified. Thermal storage Tank There is a 2.25 million gallon thermal storage tank integrated into the Installation cooling system. Building Automation Systems (BAS)/Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS) The Installation's controls systems have components provided by several manufactures and vary in age and effectiveness. Opportunities for improvement include continued optimization of control strategies including schedules, set-points, and other operational parameters that will also improve efficiency. Lighting Lighting systems within the buildings consist of numerous fixture types varying in age and condition. Some buildings or areas within buildings utilize energy-efficient lighting technology. However, opportunities still exist to install energy efficient fixtures and controls for interior and exterior lighting throughout the Installation Building Envelope A significant energy opportunity includes enhancing building envelopes, which consists of upgrading windows, insulation, and doors, as well as sealing air leaks. Due to their age, many facilities are candidates for these enhancements. Renewable Energy The location of Fort Jackson provides for several alternatives for renewable energy. Waste-to-energy sources, such as landfill methane, are available both on the installation and in the nearby community. Fort Jackson also benefits from very good solar source availability. Finally, South Carolina has moderate biomass and hydrogen resources. ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR OFFER PREPARATION USING SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES Step One of the Two Step Process A. PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVE The Government plans to award an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) task order using the Department of Energy (DOE) Super ESPC indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. DLA Energy will award this effort on behalf of the Fort Jackson Directorate of Public Works. B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing offers as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the offer. The offeror's submission must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions and the basic IDIQ ESPC contract. Any offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable offer evaluation. 2. The submission shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The offer should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's submission. 3. The response acceptance period is a minimum of 120 calendar days from date of submission. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the submission documentation that the response is valid until this date. 4. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful offers. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful offer. C. RESPONSE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS 1. Document Submission: Offers must be completed and returned to the below address prior to the exact time and location set forth as the closing date for submission of offers, see Notice of Opportunity (herein called the ‘Notice'). Late responses will only be considered in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f). All documents shall be sent to: DLA ENERGY- AP ATTN: Mr. Doug Kennard -AND- Ms. Cynthia Obermeyer Contract Specialist Contracting Officer 8725 John J. Kingman Road Fort Belvoir VA 22060 The box shall be marked "DO NOT OPEN/ Submission of Offer, Fort Jackson". Telegraphic offers are not acceptable. Any formal communications such as requests for clarifications and/or information concerning this solicitation must be submitted in writing to the above address, sent via facsimile or email to the following: FAX: 703-767-2382 EMAIL: douglas.kennard@dla.mil -AND- cynthia.obermeyer@dla.mil 2. Offers: To assure timely and equitable evaluation of offers, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all Notice of Opportunity requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The offer shall consist of three (3) separate areas of consideration; 1) Factor 1: Technical Capability; 2) Factor 2: Past Performance; and 3) Factor 3: Financial Stability. 3. Point of Contact: In order to ensure receipt of responses, two points of contract have been established for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to both the Contract Specialist (CS) and the Contracting Officer (CO). Written requests for clarification may be sent to the CS and the CO at the address as identified above. Please ensure that any questions reach Mr. Kennard and Ms. Obermeyer 10 days prior to the Notice closing date. 4. Debriefings: The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable. 5. Discrepancies: If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CS and CO in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial response submission, as received, without discussions. 6. Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Offers: Offers and modifications to offers shall be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages in paper media and electronic media addressed to the CO and CS at the address shown above, and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the Notice number, and the name and address of the offeror. Emailed responses to the Notice of Opportunity are not acceptable. 7. Page Limitations and Number of Copies: Each offer submitted shall contain one electronic version and two hard copies as stated in paragraph D. Each copy shall be marked clearly as "original" or "duplicate copy". In accordance with FAR 4.803(a)(10), Contents of Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful offers. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful offers. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors are advised that their offer represents their company's best efforts and most complete responses to this Notice. Cursory responses or responses which merely reiterate the contents of the Notice will be considered unacceptable. Assurance of experience, capability, and qualifications that clearly demonstrate and support the offeror's claims are essential. The page limitation for each offeror's response is 20 pages. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the offer and (for paper copies) will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries and those parts of the offer noted as unlimited. 8. Page Size and Format: A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 points. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy versions of the response. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the offer, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy versions of the response. 9. Electronic Copies: The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. When discrepancies exist between the written offers and those provided in electronic format, the written offer will take precedence in all cases. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD-ROM the offeror's name and project title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactor required plans, exhibits, appendices and attachments, if any. The electronic copies of the response shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007®, MS Excel 2007®, MS-Project 2007®, and MS-Power Point 2007®, or Microsoft Office XP®, as applicable. 10. Indexing: To the greatest extent possible, indexing shall be used to readily identify information contained in the submission. The offer shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. 11. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: The offer shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations. D. OFFERS The offer/proposal and other information shall be submitted in two hard copies and one electronic copy (standard CD) format. The response shall consist of the following parts: Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1 - Industry Experience Subfactor 2 - Key Project Personnel Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Financial Stability Offerors are advised to submit sufficient information to enable evaluators to fully ascertain the offeror's capability to perform the requirements contemplated by the Notice. The data submitted with each offer shall be complete and concise, but not elaborate. E. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY In this factor, the offeror will demonstrate their company's ability to understand the requirements of the Notice. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual experience you possess that will satisfy these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the Notice are mandatory. By your submission, you are representing that your firm would like to be considered in the down selection process toward a resultant ESPC task order. It is neither necessary nor desirable for you to tell us so in your response. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the Notice. Subfactor 1 - Industry Experience: Identify in a brief narrative the technical project experience for any chiller/thermal energy storage plant improvements; Building Automation Systems (BAS)/Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS) experience; experience communicating over a wireless mesh network system; heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; and electrical peak shaving/load shifting. Project experience should have been constructed within the last five (5) years from the date of the Notice. Note: For future reference, please be advised that any additions or modifications to the Fort Jackson's Tropos wireless mesh network shall be overseen by a Tropos Certified Expert. Subfactor 2 - Key Project Personnel: 1. Identify appropriate key positions and define their responsibilities in both the management/administrative staff, as well as the field construction staff (including positions such as Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Safety Monitors and Quality Control Monitors). Also indicate positions to be filled by subcontractors or temporary/part-time employees and provide information as to the qualifications required to fill such positions. Identify levels of authority for key positions, including authority to sign contractual documents, authorize modifications, authorize field changes (not involving cost increases), make progress reports, submit Requests for Information (RFI), provide material submittals, and ability to direct subcontractors. 2. Identify approach to hire, manage, retain and replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience training, and required certifications (if any), to perform under this contract. Offerors shall address each stage of the ESPC TO process when responding to this factor such as the development stage, the implementation stage and the period of performance for debt service, as applicable. F. PAST PERFORMANCE 1. Each offeror shall submit the past performance information as required on Attachment 1 for each project identified in response to paragraph E, above, Technical Capability, Subfactor 1, Industry Experience. A separate Attachment 1 shall be submitted for each project identified. The Past Performance Information sheet(s), Attachment 1, shall not count toward any page limitations. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. Areas of past performance include management, quality and quality control, knowledge and professionalism, problem resolution, adherence to schedules, working relationships, design capabilities, environmental awareness, and contract performance. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. G. FINANCIAL STABILITY The offeror shall submit a current Duns and Bradstreet Credit eValuator Plus report. This report shall not be more than 90 calendar days old. SECTION L - ATTACHMENT 1 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program accomplished or currently underway with in the past five years from the date of the Notice of Opportunity request. Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program submitted. A. Offeror Name (Company/Division): __________________________________________ CAGE Code: ____________________________________________________________ DUNS Number: _________________________________________________________ (NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes.) B. Program/Project Title: ______________________________________________________ C. Contract Specifics: 1. Contracting Agency or Customer __________________________________________ 2. Contract Number __________________________________________ 3. Contract Type __________________________________________ 4. Periodof Performance __________________________________________ 5. Original Contract $ Value ___________________________ (plus unexercised options) 6. Current Contract $ Value ___________________________ (plus unexercised options) 7. If Amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. Brief Description of Effort as __Prime or __Subcontractor Provide a short specific detail discussion for each contract listed, why or how you consider that effort relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Completion Date: 1. Original completion date: ¬______________________________________________ 2. Current Scheduled completion date: _______________________________________ 3. Estimate percent complete to date: _________________________________________ 4. How Many Times has schedule changed: ____________________________________ 5. Primary Causes of schedule change: ________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles). 1. Program Manager and/or Name ____________________ Site Manager Office ____________________ Address ____________________ ____________________ Telephone ____________________ Email ____________________ 2. Purchasing Contracting Officer: Name ____________________ Office ____________________ Address ____________________ ____________________ Telephone ____________________ Email ____________________ 3. Administrative Contracting Officer: Name ____________________ Office ____________________ Address ____________________ ____________________ Telephone ____________________ Email ____________________ G. Explain any corrective actions taken in the past for substandard performance or any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ H. Offerors shall attach a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. Offerors shall attach an additional sheet(s) for this effort and these do not count in the offer's page limit. ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD USING PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF PROCEDURES Step One of the Two Step Process A. BASIS FOR SELECTION The first step of this two step acquisition will utilize Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In order to minimize the costs to both the contractor and the Government, DLA Energy will use a two step process to select a contractor for the task order contract award. The task order will be awarded to the offeror that provides the best technical approach for the greatest level of savings using achieving holistic, comprehensive energy conservation efforts at Fort Jackson and results in the least risk and at the most economical and reasonable cost for same energy conservation measure. In accordance with the down selection process of the basic IDIQ ESPC contract, paragraph H.3.1.B.4, all sixteen ESCOs will be given an opportunity to submit a package acknowledging interest in the Fort Jackson requirement. The submission will be evaluated based on criteria of equal importance for past performance and financial stability for all technically acceptable offers. Contractors are not required to submit a cost proposal in the initial down selection process. This selection will focus in a very general nature of their ability to perform previous projects of this magnitude, their current financial capability and their illustration of their technical expertise in similar energy projects of this nature. The focus of this selection will be the likeliness to successfully perform a future project of this magnitude. Up to three ESCOs will be selected during this first step in the two step down selection process. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. B. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED The Government intends to award one task order for this requirement following the completion of the two step source selection process. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a task order at all, depending on the quality of the offers, proposals and prices submitted. C. EVALUATION FACTORS 1. Offers: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below. Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1 - Industry Experience Subfactor 2 - Key Project Personnel Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Financial Stability 2. Order of Importance: In PPT, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between financial stability and past performance. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals. After determination of the technically acceptable proposals, in step one of the two step down selection process, Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Financial Stability) are considered of equal importance. 3. Evaluation Methodology: The Government evaluation teams will evaluate the technical capability, past performance and financial stability factors simultaneously to facilitate an expeditious contract award. However, only those offers that receive a final "acceptable" rating for the technical capability factor shall be considered for the overall assessment offerors. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical capability factor on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of acceptable, reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph (4) below. Past performance will be evaluated as described in the paragraph (5) below. Financial stability will be evaluated as described in paragraph (6) below. The SSA will then review all evaluated offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. 4. Factor 1 - Technical Capability: Each subfactor within the technical capability factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offer. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating. ACCEPTABLE - The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance. REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE - The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered "Unacceptable." UNACCEPTABLE - The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an Unacceptable rating are not awardable. Subfactor 1 - Industry Experience: The criteria are met when the contractor illustrates previous technical experience with contracts including the following technical experience: a) chiller/thermal energy storage plant improvements; b) Building Automation Systems (BAS)/Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS) experience; c) experience communicating over a wireless mesh network system; d) heating, ventilating, and air conditioning; and e) electrical peak shaving/load shifting. Subfactor 2 - Key Project Personnel: The Government will assess the offeror's proposed key personnel management approach for the project. The subfactor threshold (minimum) is met when the offeror's proposal adequately demonstrates all of the following essential components: 1) Identification of appropriate key positions and definition of their responsibilities in both the management/administrative staff, as well as the field construction staff (including positions such as Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Safety Monitors and Quality Control Monitors). Also, identification of positions to be filled by subcontractors or temporary/part-time employees and provide information as to the qualifications required to fill such positions. Identification of levels of authority for key positions, including authority to sign contractual documents, authorize modifications, authorize field changes (not involving cost increases), make progress reports, submit Requests for Information (RFIs), provide material submittals and ability to direct subcontractors. 2) Acceptable approach to hire, manage, retain and replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience training, and required certifications (if any), to perform under this contract. 5. Factor 2 - Past Performance: The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to successfully perform the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints as defined in the solicitation. The evaluation is based on recency, relevancy, and a demonstrated record of performance. The past performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments: TABLE 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS RATING DESCRIPTION SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has no expectation that that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. (i). Evaluation Process - The past performance evaluation considers the offeror's demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet customer's needs. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror's past performance proposal submission and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and commercial sources as well as interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may also include interviews with any other sources known to the Government. (ii) Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the ESPC effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this Notice of Opportunity. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. (iii) Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the description of work in the Notice of Opportunity. A relevant contract is one that illustrates experience in developing, designing, implementing and funding an energy conservation effort. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, the Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Project Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Project Management on the proposed effort. The Government will not be bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts: TABLE 2 - RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS RATING DESCRIPTION Highly Relevant Present/past performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Present/past performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (iii) Performance Quality Assessment - The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS and commercial sources as well as interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may also include interviews with any other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts: TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT Quality Assessment Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) (BLUE) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Governments benefit. VERY GOOD (VG) (PURPLE) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Governments benefit. SATISFACTORY (S) (GREEN) Performance meets contractual requirements. MARGINAL (M) (YELLOW) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. UNSATISFACTORY (RED) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective. (iv) Assigning Ratings - As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating identified in Table 1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Any offer receiving a rating of "No Confidence" will not be considered for selection. 6. Factor 3 - Financial Stability The Government will utilize the comprehensive ‘Credit eValuator Plus' credit report authored by Duns and Bradstreet (D&B) in determining a company's financial stability as acceptable or unacceptable. D&B furnishes ratings on estimated financial strength, promptness of trade payments, and capital adequacy, plus statistical data, such as financial performance ratios of rated companies. D&B reports provide a complete view of current and future financial performances for U.S. businesses. D. DISCUSSIONS It is the Government's intent to make a selection without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their complete information and best terms initially. E. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS Offerors are required to meet all Notice requirements in accordance with the basic DOE IDIQ ESPC contract, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for selection. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the Notice and provide complete accompanying rationale.
Web Link: FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DLA/J3/DESC/SP0600-11-R-0400/listing.html)
Place of Performance: Address: Fort Jackson Army Installation, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, United States
Record: SN02341684-W 20101211/101209234329-c2c104aa7acb3dbba6a5790907c4af7c (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 |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

R -- ESPC under DOE IDIQ for Fort Jackson SC