10 - DB Solicitation 2 Phase Part I 2021 01 19.pdf

GSA Solicitation No.

Document: DB201-1/JULY 2020 (The Solicitation)

Design Build Contract for: Design-Build Bridging for the new US Courthouse, Huntsville, AL

The Solicitation, Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications

Table of Contents

I. General Information A. The Project B. The Solicitation and Contract C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents D. Authorized Representatives E. Pre-Proposal Conference F. Estimated Price Range G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 H. Receipt of Qualifications

II. Proposals

A. Proposal Contents B. Proposal Format C. Technical Proposal D. Other Requirements E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

III. General Provisions

A. Availability of Funds B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation C. Notice to Small Business Firms D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results E. Affirmative Procurement Program F. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals G. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirements) H. Contractor Performance Information I. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Building Information

J. INFORM 2.0

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions To be issued in Phase 2

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions A. Additional Provisions

(i) GSAR 552.236-74, Evaluation of Options (Mar 2019)

(ii) GSAR Clause 552.236-77, Government’s Right to Exercise Options (Mar 2019)

VI. Method Of Award A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals C. Determination of Responsibility D. Price Reasonableness/Price Realism E. Unbalanced Price F. Total Evaluated Price G. Non Price Factors H. Evaluation of Joint Ventures

I. General Information

I.A. The Project

The project is a new Federal courthouse in downtown Huntsville, Alabama. The site for the building is approximately a 5-acre area bounded by Gallatin Street and Lowe Avenue at the southern edge of the central business district. Residential development is located to the east of the site, and vehicular-oriented commerce is located to its north, south and west. A large mixed-use development to the west, called City Center, is currently under construction and will have a significant impact on traffic patterns and pedestrian movement around the site. The design of the new courthouse will be Neoclassical in style in general (and organized using the classic Ionic Order), in keeping with other recent Federal courthouses in the State of Alabama. The design will respond to the unique demands of a 21st-century federal courthouse while integrating classical organizational, proportional, and design elements. The architecture of the Federal Courthouse will reflect its prominent location on this geographic threshold and will be responsive to current master planning initiatives.

This project is for the design and construction of new US Courthouse in Huntsville, Alabama.

This acquisition encompasses the design and construction of offices and related space for the U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama; U.S. Bankruptcy Court and Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator, U.S. Department of Justice - Attorney’s Office, U.S. Probation Office, U.S.

Department of Justice - Marshals Service and GSA/PBS Field Office. The newly constructed courthouse shall be located on GSA owned property, on approximately a 5 acre site bounded by Gallatin Street and Lowe Avenue located at 660 Gallatin Street. The total space requirement consists of approximately 123,106 gross square feet for agency personnel, furnishings and equipment and includes 26 inside, secured parking spaces.

I.B. the Solicitation and Contract

(1) This procurement is being conducted using the two phase selection process found in FAR

36.3. Qualification proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. One contract will be awarded using competitive negotiation. In

Phase 1, GSA will select a short list of the most highly qualified offerors and request that those offerors submit Phase 2 proposals. All responsible sources may submit a Phase 1 proposal. A maximum of 5 firms will be selected to submit Phase 2 proposals. Only those selected offerors are authorized to submit Phase 2 proposals. Those offerors not selected for participation in

Phase 2 will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a). In Phase 2, Offerors may submit a price proposal subject to the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements set forth in the

Phase 2 solicitation (a PLA proposal), a price proposal not subject to the PLA requirements set forth in the Phase 2 solicitation, or both. Any price proposal submitted in Phase 2 shall clearly identify whether it is subject to such PLA requirements.

(2) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for Phase 1 qualifications proposals and the evaluation factors for Phase 2 proposals for a Contract to construct the Project. Proposals conforming to the Solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the Method of

Award set forth herein. The Government will award the Contract to the selected Offeror, subject to the conditions set forth herein.

(3) Neither the Solicitation nor any part of an Offeror's proposal shall be part of the Contract except to the extent expressly incorporated therein by the Contracting Officer.

I.C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents

The Solicitation Documents are comprised of:

(1) The Solicitation – Phase 1

(2) Offeror Representations and Certifications Form

(3) Standard Form (SF) 1442 – Solicitation Offer and Award

(4) Draft of the Agreement

(5) The Scope of Work, Specifications, Drawing Exhibits and other Attachments to the

Agreement.

(6) Attachments noted in the Evaluation criteria

I.D. Authorized Representatives

The following individuals are designated as the authorized GSA representatives under this Solicitation:

Authorized Representative Information:

Contracting Officer’s Information

Name: Kiersten S. Mathews

Address: 77 Forsyth Street SW, 4PQB, Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: 404-526-3125

Email: Kiersten.Mathews@gsa.gov

Alternate POC Information

Name: Dellice McElroy

Address: 77 Forsyth Street SW, 4PQB, Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: (404) 331-4939

Email: Dellice.McElroy@gsa.gov

I.E. Pre-Proposal Conference mailto:Dellice.McElroy@gsa.gov

A Pre-proposal conference is will be held virtual on January 29, 2021. The conference will be held at: https://gsa.zoomgov.com/j/16187362390?pwd=NmpZSkY1TlYwVjFpc1FWemIxMi8wUT09

Meeting ID: 161 8736 2390

Passcode: HDBBPPC

I.F. Estimated Price Range

The estimated price range for the Project is between $60,000,000.00 and $70,000,000.00.

I.G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 Submit all questions regarding the Phase 1 to the Contracting Officer on or before February 2, 2021. Any responses provided by GSA will be posted on the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

I.H. Receipt of Qualifications

(1) In order to be considered for Phase 2 and award, Phase 1 qualifications proposals conforming to the requirements of the Solicitation must be received at the following office no later than 12:00 pm local time on the following date and at the following address.

Date: February 19, 2021

Address: Due to COVID-19, the GSA Atlanta office is closed. Thus all submissions must be sent electronically to Kiersten.Mathews@gsa.gov and Dellice.McElroy@gsa.gov.

PLEASE NOTE: Your submission is not allowed to be sent to any other GSA personnel.

Should you cc: or bcc: another GSA person outside of the names noted above, your proposal will be deemed non-responsive and not evaluated.

II. Proposals

II.A. Proposal Contents

Proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed and executed in accordance with this Solicitation:

1. Technical Proposal

2. Other Documents as Required

II.B. Proposal Format

Firms responding to the Phase 1 Request for Qualifications shall submit one (1) original emailed copy to the email addresses listed above in Section I.H. The submission should be in an 8-1/2” x 11” pdf format and should be organized to correspond with the evaluation factors listed below.

Standard Form 330 is not required. The total submission should not exceed XXX 8-1/2”x 11” pages (not including Cover Letter, Table of Contents, or Section Separators), with one-inch margins, and shall be in a standard font a minimum of ten (10) points or a maximum of twelve

(12) points in height, single-spaced. All proposals must be current. GSA shall evaluate all responses in accordance with the criteria stated in the Federal Business Opportunity https://www.google.com/url?q=https://gsa.zoomgov.com/j/16187362390?pwd%3DNmpZSkY1TlYwVjFpc1FWemIxMi8wUT09&sa=D&source=calendar&ust=1609592735018000&usg=AOvVaw2pyk1JbgIWFmJL5SPkiXLH mailto:Kiersten.Mathews@gsa.gov mailto:Dellice.McElroy@gsa.gov

(FedBizOpps) website. Phase I factors and evaluations are independent of the Phase II factors and evaluation. The Phase I factors and evaluation will only be used to evaluate and select firms to compete in Phase II.

All Phase One Proposal development costs shall be borne by the Offerors without reimbursement from GSA.

II.C. Technical Proposal

Proposals must address the technical approach, technical qualifications, and the other Phase 1 evaluation factors stated herein. Any proposal not meeting all of the following criteria may result in not being further considered for award.

Phase I Go/No Go Criteria

Project Bonding Capacity (Responsibility Determination - $70,000,000)

Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications (50% weight)

This factor will evaluate the past experience, technical competence and capability to perform of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror’s design-build (DB) team.

For this factor, Offerors must identify by name its member firms, both General Contractor (GC) and A/E. If an Offeror consists of more than one GC or more than one A/E, then the Offeror must identify by name its lead GC and its lead A/E. The relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance will be considered. Relevant projects would be those construction projects with all of the following characteristics (“Relevant Projects”):

A commercial or government owned facility consisting of new construction in an urban environment (i.e densely populated area) that is multi-story (low or mid-rise building with a 3-story minimum). These structures can include courthouses, hospitals, secure office buildings, public safety buildings, and federally owned buildings, with a minimum construction cost of $50 million.

The project was completed within seven (7) years of the closing date of the Phase I RFQ.

Projects at or past 75% construction completion on the closing date of the Phase I RFQ will be considered as complete for purposes of this evaluation. Projects that are less than 75% construction complete as of the closing date of the Phase I RFQ will not be evaluated. Projects must have been delivered utilizing Design-Build (DB), Bridging Design-Build (BDB) or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is defined as the execution of a multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for that project.

Examples of Relevant Projects include, but are not limited to, local, state, and/or federal courthouses, hospitals, secure office buildings, and public safety buildings. Projects in which the primary function is to serve as a residence such as condominium complexes, apartment complexes, dormitories, or hotels, and projects in which the primary function is retail, such as shopping malls, big box stores, and strip malls, are not considered relevant for the purposes of this evaluation. Manufacturing, assembly plants and industrial type facilities are also not considered relevant for the purposes of this evaluation.

Experience on Relevant Projects for the Federal Government will be considered more favorable. Offerors with demonstrated experience with the design and construction of traditional and/or neoclassical architecture will also be considered more favorable. More favorable consideration will also be given to those firms who have worked together on Relevant Projects.

Submittal Requirement:

Each member of the Offeror’s team shall provide sufficient documentation in order to demonstrate the extent of the Offeror’s past experience for at least four (4) but no more than six (6) Relevant Projects . Of this group of Relevant Projects, the General Contractor must submit at least two projects and must have served as the prime contractor of both projects submitted. The A/E must submit at least two projects and must have had responsibility for developing the detailed design and construction documents for at least one of the two projects submitted. If more than six (6) projects are submitted, only the first six (6) will be evaluated. Projects exceeding the first six (6) will not be evaluated.

Note: For purposes of evaluation, a “project” is a discrete project, and is not an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, blanket purchase agreement, other type of master contract or a list of more than one discrete project. However, if the “project” was performed under an IDIQ, blanket purchase agreement or other type of master contract, this should be identified, and will be considered favorable .

For each project, Offerors should submit, at a minimum, the information identified on the document included in the solicitation as Attachment 1, Prior Experience on Relevant Projects – Offeror Worksheet.

Factor 2 - Past Performance on Relevant Projects (30% weight)

This factor considers the Offeror’s past performance in providing design and construction services on the projects submitted by the Offeror under Evaluation Factor 1. Past performance will be evaluated to determine the probability that the Offeror will successfully perform the project identified in the RFQ based on demonstrated past performance.

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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), previously submitted PPQ information, and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from a variety of sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete client contact information in Attachment 1 rests with the Offeror. GSA will not maintain a database of PPQs submitted by Offerors.

The Government has no obligation to ensure that an equal number of references are obtained for each Offeror.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. The Offeror will receive a neutral rating.

Submittal Requirement:

The Offeror shall provide the name, phone number and email address of the client’s contact person, a primary contact and a secondary contact (at least one contact must be the owner) in Attachment 1 for each project submitted in response to Evaluation Factor 1.

The contact information provided by the Offeror shall include the person or persons having actual knowledge of the Offeror’s involvement in the project. Listing a CEO or other high level individual who cannot speak specifically to the Offeror’s performance on the project should be avoided. Additionally, the contractor shall submit how projects completed by the Offeror met the customer’s requirements as set forth in the contract documents (drawings and specifications), were delivered on budget, within schedule and the number of and reason for any contractor initiated change orders.

Factor 3 - Approach to Design-Build (20% weight)

This factor considers the Offeror’s approach to establishing a design-build team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the Government’s objectives, including the realization of Design Excellence. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” refers to GSA’s Design Excellence (DE) Program which seeks a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, urban design, interior design, sustainability, and construction) that delivers value by producing high quality, high performance facilities on budget and on time. DE further seeks to commission our nation's most talented constructors, designers, and artists to design and construct federal buildings of outstanding quality and value.

These projects are to demonstrate the value of integrated design that balances aesthetics, cost, functionality, constructability, reliability; creating environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees; and giving contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal Requirement:

Each Offeror must submit a written narrative that may include flowcharts, spreadsheets, diagrams etc. concerning its approach to the DB process, as well as the Offeror’s approach to collaboration, integration, planning, organizing and controlling the execution of the design and construction on the project. The narrative should address the Offeror’s approach to promote on-time, on-budget and excellent quality for the project. The narrative should also address lessons learned and best practices from previous projects and how those lessons learned are incorporated into new commissions. There is no factor specific page limit for this factor, but these pages will count towards the overall proposal page limit.

The narrative must discuss each of the subjects set forth below. The following bullets are not subfactors; rather, they are elements the Government will consider when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

Design-Build Process: The Offeror shall describe their overall approach to DB including such topics as the lines and methods of communication; decision-making;

interaction with consultants; the means to integrate client and community input; the physical location of design and production work; the location of major trade partners;

how the Architect of Record will support the General Contractor during construction and managing quality, cost and schedule. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s DB approach will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort.

Offerors must also describe their experience with, and approach to, working in the local geographic market. Offerors must describe their plan to obtain responsible, quality subcontractors to ensure project success.

Design Excellence: The Offeror’s approach to supporting and collaborating as a cohesive team in order to realize Design Excellence. This includes the Offeror’s commitment to achieving the bridging architect’s concept design in the constructed facility. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project.

Provide the Offeror’s “Workers Compensation Experience Modification Factor” and a contact at the Insurance Company for verification.

Stipend: Explain how the stipend will be distributed among the team members. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror will share the stipend in an equitable manner among the team members.

II.D. Other Information to be Submitted with Proposals

(1) Representations and Certifications

Offerors are reminded their SAM registration status must be “Active”, at the time their offer is submitted, to be considered for award (see 52.204-7). Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this Solicitation shall complete electronic Annual Representations and Certifications in conjunction with required Entity registration in System for Award Management (SAM), accessed via System for Award Management. Offerors shall also submit with their proposal, the Annual Representations and Certifications (FAR 52.204-8), using the attached Offeror’s Representations and Certifications (C301-SAT).

(2) Proof of Bonding to [$70,000,000.00]

II.E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

(1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of an executed joint venture agreement (with original signatures) which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of https://www.sam.gov/ the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability or authority for each member.

(2) An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

(3) In the case of corporations that are joint venture members, the corporation secretary must certify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture, either by so certifying in the joint venture agreement, or by submitting a separate certification to the Government. The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

(4) Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

III. General Provisions

III.A. Availability of Funds

Issuance of this Solicitation does not warrant that funds are presently available for award of a Contract. Award of the contract shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and the Government shall incur no obligation under this Solicitation in advance of such time as funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for the purpose of contract award.

III.B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation

The Government will attempt to answer all requests for clarifications or interpretations of the

Solicitation Documents prior to the date set for receipt of offers, but do not warrant that all such requests will be answered within 15 calendar days. Prospective Offerors should make such requests not less than 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers.

III.C. Notice to Small Business Firms

A program for the purpose of assisting qualified small business concerns in obtaining certain bid, payment, or performance bonds that are otherwise not obtainable is available through the Small Business Administration (SBA) (Small Business Administration). For information concerning SBA's surety bond guarantee assistance, contact your SBA District Office.

III.D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results

This acquisition is being conducted under the provisions of FAR Part 15 as a negotiated procurement. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and FAR 15.207, after receipt of proposals, no information regarding the identity of those submitting offers, the number of offers received, or the information contained in such offers will be made available until after award except as provided by FAR 15.503.

III.E. Affirmative Procurement Program

GSA has implemented an Affirmative Procurement Program (APP) intended to maximize the use of recovered materials, environmentally preferable, and bio-based products. Offerors should http://www.sba.gov/ familiarize themselves with the requirements for using and reporting on the use of such materials in performance as set forth in the Agreement. Refer to Clause FAR 52.223-10 encouraging vendors to practice waste reduction.

III.F. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals

Offerors are cautioned to carefully read the entire Solicitation and the Agreement to be included in the Contract contemplated by the Solicitation in order to be fully aware of all requirements and clauses in the contemplated Contract. Verify that all blanks requiring information to be supplied in an Offer have been properly filled out, that all pricing and other numerical data is accurately calculated, and that all copies of the Offer contain the same information.

III.G. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirements)

If a bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer, any contract awarded will require a performance bond and payment bond as specified in the Agreement. Offerors who utilize individual sureties should note the requirement for a certified, audited, financial statement for each person acting as an individual surety under clause FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and the requirements of clause FAR 52.228-11 Pledge of Assets.

III.H. Contractor Performance Information

(1) Evaluating Contractor Performance: The General Services Administration is using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) module as the secure, confidential, information management tool to facilitate the performance evaluation process.

CPARS enables a comprehensive evaluation by capturing comments from both GSA and the contractor. The website for CPARS is Contractor Performance Assessment

Completed CPARS evaluations are sent to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which may then be used by Federal acquisition community for use in making source selection decisions. PPIRS assists acquisition officials by serving as the single source for contractor past performance data.

(2) CPARS Registration: Each award requiring an evaluation must be registered in CPARS.

The contractor will receive several automated emails. Within thirty days of award, the contractor will receive an e-mail that contains user account information, as well as the applicable contract and order number(s) assigned. Contractors will be granted one user account to access all evaluations.

(3) Contractor CPARS Training: Contractors may sign up for CPARS training. A schedule of classes will be posted to the CPARS training site (CPARS Training) and updated as needed.

(4) Contractor Representative (CR) Role: All evaluations will be sent the Contractor Representative (CR) named on your award. The CR will be able to access CPARS to review and comment on the evaluation. If your CR is not already in the CPARS system, the contracting officer will request the name and email address of the person that will be responsible for the CR role on your award.

Once an evaluation is ready to be released the CR will receive an email alerting them the evaluation is ready for their review and comment. The email will indicate the time frame the CR has to respond to the evaluation; however, the CR may return the evaluation earlier than this date.

GSA shall provide for review at a level above the contracting officer (i.e., contracting director) to consider any disagreement between GSA and the contractor regarding GSA’s evaluation of the http://www.cpars.gov/ https://www.cpars.gov/webtrain.htm contractor. Based on the review, the individual at a level above the contracting officer will issue the ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation.

Copies of the evaluations, contractor responses, and review comments, if any, will be retained as part of the contract file.

III.I. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Building Information

Certain information contained in the Solicitation Documents may have been designated as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) building information. With respect to such information, Offerors shall agree to the terms for receipt of such information, as set forth in the provision “Administrative Matters” in Section III of the Agreement, as a condition of receipt of such information.

III.J. INFORM 2.0

A. Overview of the IN-depth Feedback through Open Reporting Methods (INFORM 2.0) Process

This solicitation is part of an initiative using the INFORM 2.0 process which is designed to enhance the quality and usefulness of post-award communications by providing greater transparency and openness into the procurement process. INFORM 2.0 seeks to increase GSA-industry communication by providing clearer and more complete information to explain the award decision.

Through the INFORM 2.0 process, GSA will seek to share additional information with offerors in writing and/or through an oral feedback meeting that is not required by statute or regulation. For purposes of this solicitation, and in addition to any information required by FAR 15.503 and 15.506, GSA is providing each offeror with the opportunity to participate in the INFORM 2.0 process as further discussed below.

B. Detailed Description of the INFORM 2.0 Process

B.1. Component 1 - Notification of Award

After award and in accordance with any post-award notification timeframes required by regulation (i.e., FAR Parts 15.503(b) and 16.505(b)(6)), the contracting officer will issue written notices to the successful and unsuccessful offerors (the Notification of Decision Statement (NODS)). The notices will contain:

● All information required by statute or regulation;

● An unredacted copy of the complete technical evaluation for that particular offeror that includes a full description of the unsuccessful offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies;

● An overall technical evaluation summary for that particular offeror and the successful offeror that includes evaluated price; overall technical ranking, rating, or score.

B.2. Component 2 - Request for Oral Feedback Meeting or Written Questions

Within three business days after receipt of the NODS, an offeror may, but is not required to:

● submit a written request to the contracting officer for an oral feedback meeting;

● submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer; or

● take no further action.

If the offeror timely elects to request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions, GSA will consider any such request to constitute a required debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.506. If an offeror does not request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions within the three day time period, the receipt of the NODS concludes the INFORM 2.0 process and satisfies the FAR requirement for debriefs pursuant to FAR 15.506.

If the offeror submits a list of written questions in lieu of the oral feedback meeting, the contracting officer will attempt to respond within five business days of receipt of the written questions. Unless otherwise stated, the contracting officer’s response to the written questions will conclude the INFORM 2.0 process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506.

If the offeror requests an oral feedback meeting, the offeror should provide the following information:

● Primary point of contact;

● List of participants with titles (e.g., Senior Vice President);

● List of topics to assist GSA better prepare for the oral feedback meeting; and

● Preference for in-person, telephone, or web-based conferencing (if available).

B.3. Component 3 - Oral Feedback Meeting

During the oral feedback meeting, GSA’s objectives are to provide:

● Reasonable responses to written questions submitted by the offeror;

● Explanations for the evaluation conclusions and contract award decisions;

● Any additional information about the fairness and impartiality of the evaluation and why the award decision was rational;

● Reasonable responses to additional questions raised during the meeting;

● Additional transparency into the underlying competition process; and,

● A greater understanding of the evaluation and award process.

GSA will not provide any information that is prohibited by law or regulation.

B.4. Component 4 - Post Oral Feedback Meeting Questions

Within two business days after the conclusion of the oral feedback meeting, the offeror may submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer. The contracting officer will provide a written response within five business days and, unless otherwise noted by the contracting officer, the INFORM 2.0 process and any corresponding postaward debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506 will have concluded.

If the offeror elects not to submit a list of written questions within two days after the oral feedback meeting, the INFORM 2.0 process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506 is concluded.

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions

To be issued with Phase 2 Solicitation.

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions

V.A. Additional Provisions

N/A

VI. Method of Award

VI.A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals

The Government will evaluation Phase 1 proposals based on the following evaluation factors and short list a maximum of five offerors to submit Phase 2 proposals.

(1) Technical Qualifications 50%

(2) Past Performance on Relevant Projects 30%

(3) Approach to Design-Build 20%

NOTE: The Government has elected to lower the short list maximum number to 3 instead of 5.

VI.B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the Solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, Total Evaluated Price and other factors considered. In addition to Total Evaluated Price, the following Phase 2 non-price factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1) Key Personnel 55%

2) Management Plan and Technical Approach 30%

3) Project Labor Agreement (PLA) 10%

4) Small Business Subcontracting Plan 5%

VI.C. Determination of Responsibility

In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer, and is independent of the evaluation of offers set forth herein.

VI.D. Price Analysis and Price Realism Analysis

(1) The Contracting Officer will use Price Analysis to analyze the Offeror’s proposal to ensure that the final agreed-to-price is fair and reasonable. In performing Price Analysis, the Contracting Officer may use, singly or in combination with others, the analytical techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer may request the advice and assistance of other experts to ensure that appropriate Price Analysis is performed.

(2) In addition, the Contracting Officer will use Price Realism Analysis in conjunction with the evaluation of the offeror’s (fill in the appropriate non-price factor) to measure an Offeror's understanding of the requirements and to assess the risk inherent in an Offeror's proposal.

Accordingly, Offerors are advised that a business decision to submit significantly low pricing will be considered as reflecting on their understanding or the risk associated with their proposals.

Price Realism Analysis will not be used for the purpose of determining the probable cost to the Government.

VI.E. Unbalanced Prices

Offers must include balanced prices. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall: (i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and (ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

VI.F. Total Evaluated Price

Total Evaluated Price shall be calculated using the prices indicated in the Phase 2 Price Proposal using the formula in the Phase 2 Solicitation.

VI.G. Non-Price Factors Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications (50% weight)

Standard for Evaluation:

The standard is met when the Offeror submits at least four (4) Relevant Projects, and all of the requested information is provided for each project submitted on Attachment 1.

Of the total number of Relevant Projects submitted, the General Contractor must have submitted at least two (2) projects and must have served as the prime contractor of both projects submitted. The A/E must have submitted at least two (2) projects and must have had responsibility for developing the detailed design and construction documents for at least one (1) of the two (2) projects submitted.

Additional favorable consideration will be given for the following:

The General Contractor and the A/E firm worked on the same project Experience on Relevant Projects that are federal capital courthouse projects Offerors that submit more than four (4) Relevant Projects Offerors with demonstrated experience with the design and construction of traditional and/or neoclassical architecture.

Factor 2 - Past Performance on Relevant Projects (30% weight)

This factor will be evaluated based on the Offeror's past performance in the design and construction of relevant new construction facilities. The standard is met when sources of information used for evaluating past performance demonstrate a majority of “Good” evaluations for projects that meet the definition of Relevant Project. Sources contacted indicate that the projects have been completed by meeting the customer’s requirements as set forth in the construction contract documents (drawings and specifications), within established budgets and schedules, with a minimum number of Requests For Information (RFIs) resulting in contractor requested change orders.

Additional favorable consideration will be given for the following:

Sources of information used for evaluating past performance demonstrate consistent evaluations of “Very Good” or “Excellent” for projects that meet the definition of Relevant Project.

Projects that had the federal government as a client.

Relevant Projects that were federal capital courthouse and were delivered within budget. Project cost information is requested as part of the Relevant Project Summary (Attachment to the SSP). The SSEB will verify by contacting the Owner references provided by the Offeror as part of the Relevant Project Summary.

Relevant Projects that were federal capital courthouse and were delivered on schedule For projects submitted using the bridging design-build delivery method, references contacted state that the bridging architect’s design was realized in the constructed facility. In other words, the building constructed met the original concept design.

Factor 3 - Approach to Design-Build (20% weight)

The standard is met when there is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort. Based on the information submitted from the contractor we can evaluate the likelihood of what they did in the past and how successful their process worked.

There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project. One way to measure this is if the Offeror demonstrates prior experience in GSA Design Excellence projects. This is one way we can validate the Offeror's probability that they will be able to meet this criteria for Huntsville. The SSEB can also verify with the references provided in the Relevant Project Summary information if the constructed facility meets the Owner's requirements with regard to architecture, building performance, sustainability, etc.

The Offeror’s EMR does not exceed 1.0 which is the industry standard

Additional favorable consideration will be given for any of the following:

The proven, successful implementation of the Management Process on any of the projects listed under Evaluation Factor 1;

Offerors that identify lessons learned from previous projects and how they are incorporated into new commissions;

Offerors with experience in local markets, with subcontractors, with the general labor market, and with local government in the area the building is being built;

Offerors demonstrating an “Workers Compensation Experience Modification

Factor” that is below industry standard of 1.0;

Written, binding agreements between the team members on the equitable distribution of the stipend.

Note 1: If any one factor receives a rating of “Marginal” the entire proposal must be rated “Marginal”. If any one factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable” the entire proposal must be rated “Unacceptable”.

Note 2: If a proposal receives an overall rating of “Marginal” and discussions are not conducted or, such a rating is assigned after receipt of final proposals, the proposal shall be deemed “Unacceptable”.

Note 3: For the purposes of determining an overall rating, consider “neutral” to be equivalent to Acceptable.

VI.H. Evaluation of Joint Venture Offerors

In the evaluation of responsibility and non-price factors, information submitted for a party to the joint venture will only be evaluated to the extent that the terms of the joint venture agreement do not limit such party's performance or financial obligations as a party to the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation.