NAICS: 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Size Standard Requirement: FRC and VSAB-1 Restroom Remodels Place of Performance: Federal Regional Center and Vehicle Storage Administration Building 1 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 Recommended Product Service Code: Z2AA, Repair or Alteration of Office Buildings Acquisition Type:

Firm-Fixed-Price construction/renovation contract or task order.

Recommended Evaluation Strategy:

Best Value Tradeoff technical quality and risk in addition to price.

Evaluation Factors Restroom Remodel Proposals will be evaluated using the following factors:

1. Technical Approach

2. Relevant Experience

3. Past Performance

4. Project Management, Staffing, and Schedule

5. Safety, Quality Control, and Environmental Compliance

6. Geographical Area

7. Price

The non-price factors, when combined, are more important than price. As proposals become more equal in technical merit, price will become more important.

Evaluation Ratings 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 Evaluation Standard The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear, feasible, and low-risk approach to performing the restroom renovations in accordance with the SOO, applicable codes, ADA requirements, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, OSHA requirements, and facility access constraints.

The evaluation will consider whether the proposal demonstrates:

1. A complete understanding of the work required in both the FRC and VSAB-1.

2. A sound approach for renovating approximately seventeen restrooms, including:

o FRC ground level, upper level, and lower level restrooms;

o VSAB-1 second floor restrooms;

o conversion of one FRC ground-level restroom into a nursing mother’s room;

o conversion of one FRC ground-level restroom into a handicapped unisex restroom;

o restoration of the lower-level janitorial closet to an ADA-compliant restroom.

3. A clear approach for meeting ADA accessibility requirements, including:

o toilet and sink heights;

o wheelchair maneuvering clearances;

o exposed pipe protection;

o grab bars;

o accessible doors;

o automatic push buttons for handicap-accessible restrooms;

o door opening force and maneuvering clearances.

4. A practical plan for demolition, disposal, tile replacement, painting, partitions, fixtures, lighting, plumbing, hardware, mirrors, dispensers, and no-touch features.

5. A realistic approach to maintaining at least one functional men’s and women’s restroom on each floor to the maximum extent practicable.

6. A sound approach for protecting floors, elevators, lobbies, and construction pathways during demolition and installation.

7. Understanding of potential asbestos abatement requirements and the need to comply with applicable environmental standards.

8. Understanding of work in occupied federal facilities, including coordination with FEMA, access controls, escorting requirements where applicable, and minimization of disruption to staff.

Strengths May Include A proposal may receive favorable consideration for:

• Providing a detailed phasing plan that maintains restroom availability during construction.

• Demonstrating a strong understanding of ADA and Section 504 requirements.

• Providing room-by-room or floor-by-floor sequencing.

• Addressing unknown conditions in older facilities, especially the FRC.

• Providing a clear plan for asbestos identification, abatement coordination, disposal, and documentation.

• Providing specific measures to protect government property, floors, elevators, and access routes.

• Demonstrating an approach that minimizes operational disruption.

Weaknesses May Include A proposal may be less favorably evaluated if it:

• Provides a generic renovation approach not tailored to the FRC and VSAB-1.

• Fails to address ADA compliance in detail.

• Does not explain how restroom access will be maintained during performance.

• Does not address work in an occupied federal facility.

• Does not address hazardous materials, asbestos, or environmental compliance.

• Does not provide a credible plan for protecting floors, elevators, and work pathways.

Factor 2: Relevant Experience

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has successfully performed projects similar in size, scope, complexity, and environment to the SOO requirement.

Offerors should submit recent and relevant projects, preferably completed within the past five years, that demonstrate experience with:

1. Restroom renovations or interior facility renovations.

2. ADA-compliant construction or renovation.

3. Plumbing, tile, fixtures, partitions, lighting, painting, and finish work.

4. Work in occupied facilities requiring phasing, access control, and disruption management.

5. Federal, state, local government, or institutional facilities.

6. Older facilities where hazardous materials, including asbestos, may be present.

7. Projects requiring safety plans, quality control plans, permits, inspections, and closeout documentation.

Recommended Submission Requirement Offerors should provide at least three relevant projects. For each project, the Offeror should include:

• Project title;

• Customer name;

• Location;

• Contract number, if applicable;

• Period of performance;

• Dollar value;

• Description of work performed;

• Explanation of relevance to this requirement;

• Whether the Offeror served as prime contractor or subcontractor;

• Customer point of contact, if permitted.

Evaluation Considerations The Government may evaluate:

• Similarity of prior projects to this SOO;

• Size and dollar value of prior work;

• Complexity and phasing requirements;

• ADA renovation experience;

• Performance in occupied facilities;

• Experience coordinating inspections, permits, and safety requirements.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on recent and relevant contracts. The evaluation may consider information provided by the Offeror and information obtained from Government sources, including CPARS, PPIRS successor systems, past performance questionnaires, or other available sources.

The Government may evaluate:

1. Quality of workmanship.

2. Timeliness of performance.

3. Cost control or price discipline.

4. Safety performance.

5. Customer satisfaction.

6. Ability to manage subcontractors.

7. Responsiveness to corrective actions.

8. Compliance with contract requirements.

9. Ability to perform work in occupied or secure facilities.

10. Quality of closeout documentation.

Factor 4: Project Management, Staffing, and Schedule

Evaluation Standard The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s project management approach, staffing plan, key personnel, schedule, and ability to complete the work within the required period of performance.

The evaluation will consider whether the proposal demonstrates:

1. A realistic project schedule consistent with the SOO deliverables and 260-day period of performance.

2. Ability to begin on-site work within 14 calendar days after award, as required by the SOO.

3. Understanding of required access roster submission within two days after award.

4. Identification of key personnel and their roles, qualifications, and availability.

5. A management structure with clear lines of authority and communication.

6. Approach for coordinating with FEMA project personnel, COR, safety representatives, and security personnel.

7. Ability to manage subcontractors, including specialty trades such as plumbing, electrical, tile, asbestos abatement, and automatic door hardware.

8. Ability to sequence work while maintaining restroom availability.

9. Ability to obtain required permits and inspections.

10. Ability to recover from delays, including delays caused by security processing, material lead times, or unforeseen site conditions.

Recommended Key Personnel The Government may request resumes for the following positions:

• Project Manager;

• Site Superintendent;

• Quality Control Manager;

• Site Safety and Health Officer;

• ADA/Accessibility Compliance Lead or equivalent qualified reviewer;

• Asbestos abatement coordinator or subcontractor, if applicable.

Schedule Evaluation The Government should evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed schedule includes:

• Planning and preparation;

• Roster submission;

• Submittals;

• Site safety plan;

• Drawings and schematics;

• Phased demolition;

• Phased installation;

• Inspections;

• Daily cleanup;

• Final cleanup;

• Final acceptance;

• Warranty transition.

Factor 5: Safety, Quality Control, and Environmental Compliance Evaluation Standard The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to safety, quality assurance, quality control, environmental compliance, waste disposal, recycling, asbestos abatement, and final acceptance.

The evaluation will consider whether the proposal includes:

1. A Site Safety Plan addressing OSHA 29 CFR 1910 and 29 CFR 1926 requirements.

2. Job Hazard Analysis and Activity Hazard Analysis for project activities.

3. Daily toolbox safety meeting procedures.

4. Pre-project safety meeting procedures.

5. Hazard communication and Safety Data Sheet procedures.

6. PPE requirements.

7. Accident reporting and near-miss reporting.

8. Procedures for chemical, physical, biological, and potential asbestos hazards.

9. Proof of training or approach to ensuring required training for personnel.

10. Quality Assurance Plan and quality control inspection procedures.

11. Approach to protecting government property.

12. Approach to daily cleanup and final cleanup.

13. Waste disposal and recycling plan.

14. Construction debris disposition reporting.

15. Approach to final inspection, punch list correction, and warranty support.

Environmental Compliance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to:

• Construction waste disposal;

• Recycling and diversion from landfill where practicable;

• Asbestos abatement, if encountered or required;

• Proper disposal of old materials, fixtures, tile, and associated debris;

• Documentation to the COR, including recycling and debris disposition reports.

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

The Government will evaluate price for reasonableness, balance, and completeness. The Government may evaluate whether:

1. The total proposed price is fair and reasonable.

2. Prices are balanced across contract line items or major work elements.

3. The price includes all labor, supervision, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, permits, inspections, disposal, cleanup, warranty, and other costs necessary to perform the work.

4. The price reflects the Offeror’s technical approach.

5. The price includes work in both FRC and VSAB-1.

6. The price accounts for phasing and possible weekend work.

7. The price accounts for access/security requirements and possible staffing delays.

8. The price accounts for asbestos abatement responsibility, if included in the final solicitation scope.

Rating Method Technical Ratings The Government may use the following adjectival ratings for Factors 1,- 6

Method: Best Value Tradeoff A best value tradeoff is recommended because award to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror may not sufficiently account for:

• ADA compliance risk;

• work in occupied FEMA facilities;

• phasing requirements to maintain restroom availability;

• potential asbestos abatement;

• security and facility access requirements;

• older building conditions in the FRC;

• coordination across multiple floors and two buildings;

• quality of finishes and long-term durability;

• need for a strong safety and quality control approach.

• ADA compliance risk;

• work in occupied FEMA facilities;

• phasing requirements to maintain restroom availability;

• potential asbestos abatement;

• security and facility access requirements;

• older building conditions in the FRC;

• coordination across multiple floors and two buildings;

• quality of finishes and long-term durability;

• need for a strong safety and quality control approach.

“The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government may select a higher-priced proposal if the proposal provides technical advantages that warrant the additional price. As technical proposals become more equal in merit, price will become more important.”