FEMA Region 6 Upper-Level Watch Renovation NAICS: 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Place of Performance: FEMA Region 6 Federal Regional Center, Denton, Texas Acquisition Type: Construction / renovation services Recommended Evaluation Strategy: Best Value Tradeoff

1. Evaluation Approach

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine which offeror provides the best value for the FEMA Region 6 Upper-Level Watch Renovation requirement. This project includes phased planning, renovation, demolition, construction, installation, utility coordination, cleanup, inspection, documentation, and final acceptance activities in support of the Regional Watch Center and associated mission support spaces.

Because this requirement involves construction in an occupied federal facility, coordination with ongoing operations, safety compliance, qualified trades, facility access requirements, phasing, and schedule risk, the recommended evaluation method is Best Value Tradeoff. Under this approach, the Government may select an offeror other than the lowest-priced offeror if the technical benefits of that proposal justify the price premium.

All non-price factors, when combined, are more important than price. Price will become more important as the technical merit of proposals becomes more equal.

2. Evaluation Factors and Relative Importance

The Government will evaluate proposals using the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:

1. Technical Approach

2. Staffing and Management Plan

3. Safety and Quality Control Plan

4. Project Schedule and Phasing Plan

5. Past Performance

6. Geographical Area

7. Price

Technical Approach is the most important non-price factor. Staffing and Management Plan is more important than Safety and Quality Control Plan. Safety and Quality Control Plan is more important than Project Schedule and Phasing Plan. Project Schedule and Phasing Plan is more important than Past Performance. All non-price factors, when combined, are more important than Price.

Price will be evaluated but will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

3. Rating Definitions

Each non-price factor may be evaluated using the following ratings:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and demonstrates an adequate approach with no worse than moderate risk.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet one or more material requirements or presents unacceptable performance risk.

Neutral If offeror does not have any ratings since they have not done business with the government, this will not be held against the offeror

Factor 1: Technical Approach

1.1 Evaluation Standard

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the Statement of Objectives and its proposed approach to successfully completing all project requirements. The technical approach shall be clear, specific, practical, and tailored to the project location, phasing, operating constraints, and required deliverables.

The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the project scope, including planning, site surveys, demolition and removal, construction and installation, utility coordination, finish restoration, cleanup, documentation, inspections, and final acceptance.

1.2 Areas to be Evaluated

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to:

• Conducting initial site surveys and developing a detailed project plan.

• Preparing a contractor-developed Performance Work Statement or detailed work plan, as required by solicitation.

• Performing phased renovation activities for the Watch Center and associated spaces.

• Performing wall removal, door and frame installation, ceiling and finish work, and related interior buildout tasks.

• Coordinating affected utilities, including power, data, HVAC, fire protection, lighting, and life safety systems.

• Performing required testing, balancing, verification, and documentation.

• Completing work in accordance with applicable NEC, NFPA, OSHA, GSA, NEPA, BOMI, ASHRAE, ADA, and federal, state, and local building requirements.

• Managing dust, noise, debris, material staging, and facility impacts.

• Performing work in an occupied federal facility while minimizing disruption to mission operations.

• Coordinating work hours, high-noise activities, utility impacts, deliveries, waste removal, loading, parking, and staging with the Government.

• Providing required drawings, test results, equipment documentation, warranties, and closeout documentation.

• Supporting final Government review, inspection, punch-list correction, and acceptance.

1.3 More Favorable Evaluation

A proposal may be evaluated more favorably when it:

• Demonstrates a strong understanding of the project scope and constraints.

• Provides a complete, realistic, and efficient technical approach.

• Clearly addresses phased construction and occupied-facility coordination.

• Identifies project risks and provides practical mitigation strategies.

• Demonstrates understanding of applicable building, safety, environmental, and facility standards.

• Provides a clear plan for minimizing disruption to FEMA operations.

• Provides a sound approach for documentation, inspection, and closeout.

1.4 Less Favorable Evaluation

A proposal may be evaluated less favorably when it:

• Provides a generic or incomplete technical approach.

• Fails to address major project objectives or required deliverables.

• Does not demonstrate understanding of work in an occupied federal facility.

• Does not adequately address utility coordination, safety, cleanup, or inspection requirements.

• Presents schedule, quality, safety, or operational disruption risk.

Factor 2: Staffing and Management Plan

2.1 Evaluation Standard

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staffing and management approach to determine whether the offeror has the personnel, supervision, qualifications, trade expertise, and management controls necessary to complete the requirement successfully.

2.2 Areas to be Evaluated

• Providing a qualified Project Manager responsible for overall contract performance.

• Providing onsite supervision during all phases of work.

• Providing qualified personnel for construction, demolition, electrical, HVAC, fire protection, communications, environmental, safety, and quality control tasks, as applicable.

• Managing subcontractors and specialty trades.

• Maintaining accountability of contractor personnel onsite.

• Ensuring personnel possess required licenses, certifications, training, and experience.

• Ensuring personnel comply with FEMA facility access, security, background investigation, badging, and escort requirements.

• Submitting personnel rosters within required timeframes.

• Communicating with the CO, COR, Project Officer, facility management, and other

Government stakeholders.

• Managing performance issues, schedule risks, quality issues, and corrective actions.

2.3 Key Personnel

At a minimum, the Project Manager should be considered key personnel. Depending on the acquisition strategy, the Government may also consider the following positions:

• Site Superintendent or onsite supervisor.

• Safety Officer.

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control representative.

• Construction lead or foreman.

• Trade leads to major disciplines, as applicable.

Offerors should provide resumes or qualifications summaries for key personnel. Resumes should identify relevant experience, certifications, licenses, and experience managing comparable projects.

3.2 More Favorable Evaluation

• Provides qualified and experienced key personnel.

• Demonstrates strong onsite supervision.

• Provides a realistic staffing approach.

• Clearly identify roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority.

• Demonstrate effective subcontractor management.

• Shows ability to meet facility access and personnel accountability requirements.

3.3 Less Favorable Evaluation

• Does not identify qualified key personnel.

• Provides insufficient detail regarding staffing or supervision.

• Does not demonstrate ability to manage specialty trades.

• Presents risk of delay due to personnel availability, access requirements, or inadequate supervision.

Factor 3: Safety and Quality Control Plan

3.1 Evaluation Standard

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Safety and Quality Control Plan to determine whether the offeror can safely perform the work, comply with applicable safety requirements, protect personnel and property, and ensure that the finished work meets contract requirements.

3.2 Safety Areas to be Evaluated

• Complying with OSHA requirements and applicable federal, state, and local safety standards.

• Providing and enforcing appropriate personal protective equipment.

• Submitting and managing Safety Data Sheets for hazardous materials brought onsite.

• Coordinating material safety review and approval.

• Maintaining temporary barriers, signage, and safety controls.

• Maintaining clear walkways, exits, and emergency routes.

• Managing dust, noise, debris, and worksite hazards.

• Reporting and responding to hazardous materials.

• Conducting daily safety checks.

• Maintaining safety documentation and corrective action records.

• Coordinating with the Government safety representative, COR, and facility management.

3.3 Quality Control Areas to be Evaluated

• Inspecting work before Government review.

• Verifying workmanship and code compliance.

• Verifying proper installation of materials, systems, and finishes.

• Managing construction deficiencies and punch-list items.

• Documenting inspections and corrective actions.

• Providing as-built drawings, electrical updates, test results, warranties, and closeout documentation.

• Ensuring daily cleanup and final cleanup are completed.

• Ensuring work areas are restored to acceptable conditions.

3.4 More Favorable Evaluation

A proposal may be evaluated more favorably when it includes a detailed, project-specific safety and quality plan with clear inspection points, assigned responsibilities, documentation methods, and corrective action procedures.

3.5 Less Favorable Evaluation

A proposal may be evaluated less favorably when the safety or quality plan is generic, incomplete, lacks inspection procedures, or does not adequately address hazards, occupied facility work, cleanup, or documentation requirements.

Factor 4: Project Schedule and Phasing Plan

4.1 Evaluation Standard

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s project schedule and phasing plan to determine whether the offeror can complete the work within the required period of performance and milestone requirements while minimizing disruption to ongoing operations.

4.2 Areas to be Evaluated

The Government will evaluate the proposed schedule for:

• Planning and preparation.

• Personnel roster submission.

• Site survey.

• Design and ordering materials/equipment.

• Phase 1 renovation activities.

• Phase 2 renovation activities.

• Workstation or infrastructure installation activities, if included in the final solicitation.

• Daily cleanup.

• Final cleanup.

• Review, inspection, closeout, and acceptance.

• Material lead times.

• Subcontractor sequencing.

• High-noise work coordination.

• Utility disruption coordination.

• Government review and approval points.

• Punch-list correction.

• Overall completion within the required period of performance.

4.3 More Favorable Evaluation

• Provides a realistic and detailed Gantt chart or milestone schedule.

• Demonstrates understanding of phased work and dependencies.

• Includes reasonable lead times and sequencing.

• Identifies critical path activities.

• Provides mitigation strategies for schedule risks.

• Clear addresses require coordination with facility management and the COR.

4.4 Less Favorable Evaluation

• Provides an unrealistic or incomplete schedule.

• Does not address phasing or dependencies.

• Fails to account for access, material lead times, utility coordination, safety controls, or inspection timeframes.

• Creates risk to timely completion or mission continuity.

Factor 5: Past Performance

5.1 Evaluation Standard

The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant projects. Past performance is different from corporate experience because it assesses how well the offeror performed.

5.2 Areas to be Evaluated

The Government may evaluate:

• Quality of construction work.

• Timeliness of performance.

• Ability to meet schedule milestones.

• Safety performance.

• Quality control and deficiency correction.

• Responsiveness to customer concerns.

• Performance in occupied or secure facilities.

• Coordination with Government or facility personnel.

• Completion of required documentation.

• Record of terminations for default or convenience, if any.

5.3 Submission Information

Offerors should provide up to three past performance references for projects completed within the last five years or are currently in progress. Each reference should include:

• Project title and description.

• Customer name.

• Contract or order number, if applicable.

• Contract value and type.

• Period of performance.

• Role as prime or subcontractor.

• Summary of work performed.

• Customer point of contact.

The Government may consider information provided by the offeror and information obtained from Government systems or other available sources. Offerors with no relevant past performance shall receive a neutral rating for past performance only.

5.4 More Favorable Evaluation

A proposal may be evaluated more favorably when past performance demonstrates consistent customer satisfaction, timely completion, quality workmanship, safe performance, and successful delivery of similar construction or renovation projects.

5.5 Less Favorable Evaluation

A proposal may be evaluated less favorably when past performance reflects schedule delays, quality issues, safety concerns, unresolved deficiencies, poor communication, or customer dissatisfaction.

Factor 6: Geographical Area The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.212-2 and the evaluation factors stated in the solicitation. Due to the mission-critical nature of this requirement and the need for timely response and completion of work, the Government requires the contractor to demonstrate the ability to perform within a 150-mile radius of FEMA Regional Center, 800 N. Loop 288, Denton, Texas, 76209. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.212-2 and the evaluation factors stated in the solicitation.

Factor 7: Price

7.1 Evaluation Standard

Price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance. Price will not be assigned to an adjectival rating.

The total evaluated price shall include all labor, materials, supervision, tools, equipment, permits, bonds, insurance, subcontractors, safety controls, testing, cleanup, documentation, warranty, and other costs necessary to complete the requirement.

7.2 Price Elements

The Government may evaluate pricing for:

• Planning and project management.

• Site survey and design/documentation support.

• Demolition and removal.

• Construction and installation.

• Door and framework.

• Utility relocation and system coordination.

• Electrical, HVAC, fire protection, communications, and life safety work.

• Environmental testing or abatement, if required.

• Safety controls and PPE.

• Daily cleanup and final cleanup.

• Waste removal and disposal.

• Testing, inspection, and commissioning.

• As-built drawings, warranties, and closeout documentation.

• Labor, materials, overhead, and profit.

• Any options, allowances, or contingencies included in the solicitation.

7.3 Evaluation Considerations

The Government will evaluate price proposals for:

• Completeness.

• Mathematical accuracy.

• Reasonableness.

• Consistency with the technical approach.

• Unbalanced pricing.

• Assumptions, exclusions, or conditions that may create risk.

• Whether all required work appears included in the proposed price.

Offerors are cautioned to avoid unbalanced pricing. The Contracting Officer may reject a proposal if pricing is determined to be unbalanced and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

8. Rating Definitions

Each non-price factor may be evaluated using the following ratings:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and demonstrates an adequate approach with no worse than moderate risk.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet one or more material requirements or presents unacceptable performance risk.

Neutral If offeror does not have any ratings since they have not done business with the government, this will not be held against the offeror

9. Proposal Submission Instructions

Offerors should be instructed to submit the following:

• Technical Volume o Technical approach.

o Project schedule or Gantt chart.

o Phasing plan.

o Safety approach.

o Quality control approach.

o Approach to minimizing operational disruption.

o Approach to cleanup and closeout documentation.

• Experience and Past Performance Volume o Corporate experience examples.

o Past performance references.

o Explanation of relevance to this requirement.

• Staffing and Management Volume o Project Manager qualifications.

o Key personnel resumes or qualifications summaries.

o Staffing plan.

o Subcontractor management approach.

o Personnel access and accountability approach.

• Price Volume o Completed price schedule.

o Supporting pricing details, if requested.

o Assumptions or exclusions.

o Identification of any optional or separately priced items, if applicable.