NEW Attachment 08 - Section M Evaluations Factors 06302025 V2.pdf

12445125R0002 VA Creeper Bridge and Trail Restoration Design-Build

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Version 06302025

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The evaluation process will follow the requirements of FAR 36.3 Two Phase Design‐Build Selection Procedures.

One solicitation will be issued covering both phases. Phase I Call for Qualifications will be evaluated to determine which offerors will submit proposals in Phase II.

Phase I, Call for Qualifications, involves all non‐price Evaluation Factors. The Cover letter/bonding and safety record must be rated Pass/Fail. All other non‐price Evaluation Factors are considered of equal importance.

Following evaluation of Phase I, a maximum of 3 firms will be selected as the most highly qualified to proceed to the Phase II portion of the design build selection process.

Phase II RFP. The Contracting Officer will award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Government determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable regarding pricing, and whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the price and non‐price Evaluation Factors described herein. All evaluation Factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price.

The CO will utilize the best value continuum of FAR 15.101. The tradeoff process will be used to IAW FAR 15.101.

Source selection procedures will be utilized as set forth in FAR 15.3 to select firms using the best value tradeoffs method. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced, conforming offer(s), the Government must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal would justify the award to that Offeror.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. General Submission Requirements for Phase I Call for Qualifications All submittals will be Adobe PDF (or equal) and 508 compliant for accessibility. See Section M for page length of each volume. The USDA‐FS must be able to “copy/paste” from your submittal. Submittals not in compliance will not be considered and the opportunity to correct will not be provided.

II. PHASE I Call for Qualifications Evaluation Criteria Phase I, Call for Qualifications, involves all non‐price Evaluation Factors. The Cover letter/bonding and safety record must be rated Pass/Fail. Failure of one of these items will result in the proposal not being further evaluated.

Evaluation Factor 1 is paramount and the most significant Evaluation Factor. The Government will assess, and rate Technical Qualifications (Attachment 10 and 11) and Past Performance (Attachment 12 and 13) submittals based on how well the offerors meet the Evaluation Factors and requirements outlined in the Call for Qualifications using the evaluation criteria as follows:

- Volume IA Cover Letter with Bonding and Safety Record (No Page Limit)

- Volume IB Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach (Composition and Management of Proposed DB

Team) 10 Page limit

- Volume I C Evaluation Factor 2: Technical Qualifications – Approach and Delivery (130 Page limit)

‐ Experience (Construction and Design) 40/40 Page Limit ‐ Capability/Capacity to Perform (Construction and Design) 10 Page Limit ‐ Past Performance of the offeror’s team (40 Page Limit)

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

III. Volume IA Cover Letter with Bonding and Safety Record (No Page Limit) Screening criteria will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis by the Contracting Officer as part of the determinations of responsibility in Phase I. Only firms deemed responsible and receiving a rating of Pass for all Screening Criteria will be provided to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for evaluation.

Contractor Submittal - Bonding and Safety

A. Bonding Capacity

a. Standard: The Surety Letter will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror can obtain a minimum bonding value of $300M

b. Submittal Requirement:

i. Provide a letter from the Offeror’s surety stating the surety’s commitment to bond the Offeror for at least $300M for performance and payment bonds. The Offeror shall submit one copy with each proposal package. Actual bonds are not required until the Award phase.

B. Constructor Safety Record

a. Standard: Average Experience Modification Ratio (EMR) of 1.2 or less for the last three years with the rating in any one year not greater than 1.2

b. Submittal Requirement:

Provide a statement in the Phase I cover letter of the that the firm’s average EMR is 1.2 or less for the last three years, and that the EMR in any one year has not exceeded 1.2.

Provide copies from the insurer of the firm’s EMR for the last three years in Volume I

Government Standard Screening Criteria

- Pass or Fail

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

IV. Volume IB Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach (Composition and Management of Proposed DB Team) 10 Page limit

The qualification submittal will be evaluated on how the offeror intends to organize, staff and manage the contract and the means that will be used to accomplish the contract requirements. The degree to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements will be evaluated, as well as the offeror's planned management of consultants and subcontractors, if applicable

Contractor Submittal – Technical Approach 10 Page Limit (Construction and Architect‐Engineering) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms and primary design firms for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement to meet the 30 Sep 2026 deadline. Provide roles, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR subpart 9.6). If the experience of a significant subcontractor is being claimed in Factor 2A, the firm must be named in the above narrative and organizational chart.

- The Technical Approach narrative shall be limited to ten (10) pdf pages including the organizational chart.

- In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture (JV) agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., JV partner, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). These pages do not count against the narrative page limit.

Government Standard Screening Criteria The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means of subjectively evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP via the proposed DB team. Offerors that are rated less than satisfactory will be ineligible to proceed to Phase II.

V. Volume I C Evaluation Factor 2: Technical Qualifications – Approach and Delivery (110 Page limit)

The construction industry has become highly specialized because of the changing market. Increased technology and regulation have resulted in increasing numbers of specialty contractors (such as general building, heavy construction, and special trade contractors) that make coordination and management more difficult for the general contractor and complicates both CQC and QA.

Submittals will consist of elements demonstrating the Design‐Build contractor expertise in the areas of demolition/disaster debris removal, architect‐engineering projects, and construction. The DBC should have specific experience in bridge/trussell bridges, community trail creation/restoration, and historic preservation.

Evaluation Factor 2 is broken down into three subfactors:

A. Experience (Construction and Design) 40/40 Page Limit B. Capability/Capacity to Perform (Construction and Design) 10 Page Limit C. Past Performance of the offeror’s team (20 Page Limit)

Contractor Subfactor A Submittal - Experience (Construction and Architect‐Engineering)

Construction Experience (40 Page Limit):

- Submit a maximum of five (5) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as a Design Build or Design Bid Build portfolio valued at $200 million or more, involving new construction or renovation of bridges and trails work types. The offeror may submit relevant experience from a subcontractor or other teaming member that they propose to use; however, the offeror must also submit a signed copy of a JV or teaming member. Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

- A project is defined as a construction award performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD should not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

- The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (RFP Attachments 10 and 11) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded;

however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed eight (8) pdf pages.

- For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for the project, including specific descriptions of those features.

- If the Offeror is a JV, relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the JV entity. If the JV does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each JV partner.

Offerors who fail to submit experience for all JV partners may be rated lower. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

- If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates / subsidiaries / parent / Limited Liability Company (LLC) / Private Limited Company (LTD) member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF‐1442 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (or equal commercial form), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate / subsidiary / parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

- The Offeror may utilize the experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this Evaluation Factor. The Offer must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in the performance of this contract.

Design Experience (40 Page Limit):

- Submit a maximum of five (5) design projects for the design team that best demonstrates design experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as a Design Build or Design Bid Build project(s) design portfolio valued at $10 million or more, involving new construction or renovation of bridges and trails work types.

- Projects submitted shall be completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. For design‐build projects, the design portion of the contract shall have been completed within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

- A project is defined as a complete design effort performed under a single task order or contract/subcontract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole should not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors should submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

- The attached Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheet (RFP Attachments 10 and 11) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. If the same project is being used to demonstrate construction and design experience, submit separate Project Data Sheets for construction and design. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded;

however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed eight (8) pdf pages.

- For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e.: unique features, area, construction methods). In addition, the description should also address any sustainable features for

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD the project, including specific descriptions of those features. If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates / subsidiaries / parent / LLC / LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on SF‐1442 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (or equal commercial form), ), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate / subsidiary / parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

- The Offeror may utilize the experience of a design subcontractor to demonstrate design experience under this evaluation Factor. The Offer must provide a supporting JV agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement for the design subcontractor.

Government Standard Screening Criteria The assessment of the Offeror’s submittals will be used as a means of subjectively evaluating the offeror’s demonstrated breadth and depth of experience in performing relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. An assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five projects. Any projects submitted, more than the five (5) for the Construction Experience and five (5) for the Design Experience will not be considered.

- Relevant projects where the Offeror and the proposed design firm(s) have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

- Relevant projects that demonstrate design‐build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design‐build experience.

- Relevant projects that demonstrate renovation experience may be considered more favorably than those that provide new construction experience.

- Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

- AE should adequately reflect professional qualification in Specialized codes: B02 Bridges; S09 Structural Design; Special Structures; C15 Construction Management; R04 Recreation Facilities (Parks, Marinas, Etc.).

Contractor Subfactor B Submittal - Capability/Capacity to Perform 10 Page Limit The Design‐Build firm will be able to successfully integrate Design with Construction to meet a deadline of 30 Sep 2026. The DB firm should provide a concept overview for the execution of the VCT RFP should it be awarded to them. The concept overview should address:

- Provide a layout Overview of Project: schedule; personnel; Control costs; Finance work; Estimate jobs;

Schedule the work; Manage cash flow; Manage an effective safety program; Maintain an effective quality control system

- Submittal of overarching schedule/Gantt chart or equivalent that demonstrates executing the overall requirements in the draft RFP. The project completion end date is 30 Sep 2026.

Government Standard Screening Criteria:

The assessment of the Offeror’s capability/capacity will be used as a means of subjectively evaluating the capability/capacity of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP via the proposed DB team.

Offerors that are rated less than satisfactory will be ineligible to proceed to Phase II

- Submissions that propose DB teams that have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

- Submissions that demonstrate an ability to meet the completion date of 30 Sep 2026, may be considered more favorably than those that reflect an alternative date of completion.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Contractor Subfactor C Submittal : Past performance of the offeror’s team (40 Page Limit) This subjective evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Evaluation Factor 2, Subfactor Experience and may also consider recent and relevant past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

Contractor Submittal Evaluation Subfactor C: Past Performance of the Offeror’s Team

- If a completed Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluation Report or a Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Evaluation Report is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Subfactor Experience for construction experience. If a completed A‐E Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS) Evaluation Report is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Evaluation Factor 2, Subfactor Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS, CCASS or ACASS evaluation then submit a Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (RFP Attachment 12 and 13) for each project included in Subfactor 1 for both Construction and Architect‐Engineering.

- Experience and Design Experience. The Offeror should provide completed PPQs in the proposal.

- Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow‐up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. Questionnaires should be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, steven.alves@usda.gov /Richard.huffman@usda.gov.

- Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Evaluation Factor 2, Past Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed four (4) pdf pages in total.

- The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this Evaluation Factor.

- For DB projects whereby the offeror did not receive a past performance (ACASS) or whereby the CCASS or CPARS evaluation report did not specifically address design performance, the offeror shall submit a PPQ specifically for the design work associated with the DB project. Submitting only a performance award or additional information is not acceptable.

Government Standard Screening Criteria This subjective evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the recent and relevant projects submitted under Evaluation Factor 2, Subfactor Experience and may also consider recent and relevant past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.

- Project recency and relevancy will be considered in the evaluation of past performance for each project.

More emphasis will be placed on more recent and more relevant projects. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

- The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

- Offerors lacking recent and relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive an Unknown/Neutral rating.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Phase I Call for Qualifications Evaluation of Non-Price Evaluation Factors.

Phase I of the solicitation will be a qualification-based selection in which all potential sources are able to submit proposals demonstrating their qualifications including bonding capacity, technical approach, experience, and past performance. Call for Qualifications using the evaluation criteria/ Evaluation Methodology as follows:

Volume I

- Volume 1A: Cover Letter w/bonding and safety record PASS/FAIL

- Volume 1B: Evaluation Factor 1 Technical Approach Narrative /Adjective Rating

- Volume 1C: Evaluation Factor 2 Technical Qualifications Narrative /Adjective Rating

Phase I involves only non‐price Evaluation Factors. The Cover letter/bonding and safety record is rated on Pass/Fail Criteria. All other Evaluation Factors are of equal importance. A failure in bonding/safety renders the overall Phase I proposal as non‐selectable to proceed to Phase II. The Government will assess, and rate proposals based on how the offerors meet the Evaluation Factors and requirements outlined in Phase I.

The review panel will utilize a Narrative and adjectival method system. The adjectival rating will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach and the degree to which it demonstrates an understanding of the requirements (factor or subfactors, when established) through an assessment of the proposal’s strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and excesses.

Table 1, Evaluation Factor 1 TECHNICAL APPROACH STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS, provides the rating structure for the descriptive narrative reviews of the criteria being evaluated.

TECHNICAL STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition

Significant Strength A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Strength A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weakness A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency

A deficiency is defined as an aspect of the proposal that fails to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Clarification A clarification is defined as limited exchanges between the Government and offerors, for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of proposals, without entering into discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Table 2, Evaluation Factor 1 TECHNICAL APPROACH ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION, provides the overall rating for the technical criteria. Once the descriptive narrative has been completed, the SSEB individuals will assign a final adjectival rating for the criteria being reviewed.

TECHNICAL ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional understanding of the requirements; significantly exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; contains significant strengths, exceptional feature, or innovation that should substantially benefit the Government; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies; has a very high probability of success and the risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough understanding of the requirements; exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; contains significant strengths and/or minor strengths, features, or innovation that should benefit the Government; weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths; no deficiencies are noted; has a better than average probability of success and the risk of unsuccessful performance is very low

Satisfactory Proposal meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; there are few, if any, strengths or features to benefit the Government; has an average probability of success; weaknesses are offset by strengths and/or can be readily corrected; the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal Proposal has demonstrated a superficial or vague understanding of the requirements; fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; there are weaknesses that cannot be offset by strengths and cannot be readily corrected; the risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal lacks understanding of the requirements; fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist; proposal needs major revisions; the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Table 3, Evaluation Factor 2 TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS, provides the rating structure for the descriptive narrative reviews of the criteria being evaluated for subfactor(s)

A. Experience (Construction and Design) B. Capability/Capacity to Perform (Construction and Design)

TECHNICAL STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition

Significant Strength A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Strength A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weakness A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency

A deficiency is defined as an aspect of the proposal that fails to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Clarification A clarification is defined as limited exchanges between the Government and offerors, for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of proposals, without entering into discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Table 4, Evaluation Factor 2 TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS, provides the rating

A. Experience (Construction and Design) B. Capability/Capacity to Perform (Construction and Design)

TECHNICAL ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional understanding of the requirements; significantly exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; contains significant strengths, exceptional feature, or innovation that should substantially benefit the Government; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies; has a very high probability of success and the risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough understanding of the requirements; exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; contains significant strengths and/or minor strengths, features, or innovation that should benefit the Government; weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths; no deficiencies are noted; has a better than average probability of success and the risk of unsuccessful performance is very low

Satisfactory Proposal meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; there are few, if any, strengths or features to benefit the Government; has an average probability of success; weaknesses are offset by strengths and/or can be readily corrected; the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal Proposal has demonstrated a superficial or vague understanding of the requirements; fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; there are weaknesses that cannot be offset by strengths and cannot be readily corrected; the risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal lacks understanding of the requirements; fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; numerous weaknesses and deficiencies exist; proposal needs major revisions; the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Table 5, Evaluation Factor 2 TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS, provides the rating

C. Past performance of the offeror’s team A past performance evaluation team within the SSEB will conduct a past performance evaluation that examines an offeror's recent and relevant past performance record to assess the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform as proposed. The past performance evaluation will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, general trends in the offeror’s performance, the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall performance record. The SSEB will assess the degree of relevance and confidence the Government has in an Offeror's ability to supply the products and services that meet the requirements identified in the solicitation. This is based on a demonstrated record of performance. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation.

The Government will first assess the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the Offeror to the scope of this contract. The projects will include those submitted under the Specialized Experience as well as from other sources described above. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 5 below.

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Table 6, Evaluation Factor 2 TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS STRENGTH/WEAKNESS DEFINITIONS, provides the rating

C. Past performance of the offeror’s team

Past Performance Confidence Rating. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine the degree of success on the contracts. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance to ensure previous work performance satisfactorily met the contract requirements, performance schedules, prescribed quality of work, safety requirements, and other customer expectations on these projects. In conducting a performance confidence evaluation, each Offeror shall receive one of the ratings in Table 6 below:

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has high expectations that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The Government places a higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation. Higher values may also be achieved for projects that provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully

Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Phase II Request for Proposal Evaluation of Non-Price Evaluation Factors

Phase II of the solicitation will involve a Request for Proposal (RFP) which will require the submission of a technical and price proposal from the most highly rated Phase I offerors. The technical proposal requirements involve a technical solution to satisfy the requirements of the DB project provided to the Phase II firms. The design solution shall include proposed construction methods, phasing, and timelines.

Volume II A Design-Build Technical Approach and Presentation Evaluation Factor The Government will assess, and rate proposals based on how well the offerors meet the Evaluation Factors and requirements outlined in the RFP using the evaluation criteria. Evaluation Factor 3 is more important than Evaluation Factor 4 and 5 when combined (Factors 4 and 5 are equal in value). Evaluation Factors are as follows:

- Evaluation Factor 3: Design and Technical Solution (Design Solution, Materials, Project Schedule) and (Presentation and Problem Solving) (100 pg.)

- Evaluation Factor 4: Project Management (Key Personnel Qualifications, Quality Control, Safety, Project Management Software System and Implementation, and Staffing) (75 pg.)

- Evaluation Factor 5: Small Business Utilization (No pg. limitation)

PHASE II General Submission Requirements for Phase II Request for Proposal During Phase II, the most highly qualified firms will be issued a Request for Proposal (RFP), which will outline the remainder of the selection process requirements. The RFP will contain the requirements necessary for the most highly qualified Offerors to submit both a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal during Phase II.

Those Offerors will be required to provide the necessary information to the USDA‐FS within approximately 60 calendar days after receiving the RFP. A site visit/pre‐proposal meeting will be held within the first 15 calendar days of the Phase II period to provide additional information.

After receiving the Phase II Technical and Price Proposals, the Contracting Officer (CO) will conduct a Best Value Tradeoff Process under FAR 15.101‐1 with Evaluation Factor 3, Design and Technical Solution (Design Solution, Materials, Project Schedule) and (Presentation and Problem Solving) supporting a delivery by 30 Sep 2026 being the most important. Factor 4 and 5 are equal in value.

Volume IIA Submittal Requirements

3. Contractor Submittal Evaluation Factor 3: Design and Technical Solution (Design Solution, Materials, Project Schedule) and (Presentation and Problem Solving) 100-page limit)

- See RFP Attachment 02, Section C, Statement of Work Elements

- Provide a detailed estimated duration of each project schedule/option including the total design and construction duration. A design and technical solution that supports a delivery date of 30 SEP 2026 is most the important Evaluation Factor. The government required completion date is 30 SEP 2026. The contractor’s draft schedule may reflect an alternative date for consideration by the government, but that schedule “may” impact overall Phase II consideration. See Request for Proposal (RFP), Section F, Deliveries or performance, for further details.

- Submit a general description of the tasks involved in the project and the approach the Offeror will take for design and construction administration, including the involvement of the design members of the Offeror's team during construction. In addition, describe cost‐effective accelerated construction techniques and identify cost‐effective technologies/designs that can be utilized to minimize trail closure times and impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, and USDA‐FS work vehicles.

- Describe how the Government’s reviews will be incorporated and how the overall schedule may be shortened to tighter integrate with the Government’s project team.

- Describe the means and methods by which the Offeror will plan and control the scheduling of design, permitting, and construction work to meet the contractual completion date(s), including any plans to address the possibility of early completion.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

- Presentation and Problem Solving/ Schedule Presentation. The Design Presentation is intended to provide a comprehensive and integrated overview of the proposed technical solution and to clarify questions about the solution from the TEB. The information in the oral presentation and presentation materials will be evaluated.

Offerors are limited to bringing in no more than five of the key personnel listed in the Management Proposal and one non‐participating assistant. The proposed Project Manager is required to attend the Presentation.

The presentation shall not exceed 90 minutes

- A technical solution that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and the opportunities to achieve the 30 Sep 2026 deadline through innovative means and methods.

- A technical solution that proposes alternatives to traditional trail and road construction that benefit the government and add value to the proposal may be considered more favorably.

- A technical solution that addresses restoration/conservation of existing structures and trail features may be considered more favorable.

- Schedule will be evaluated to assess the offerors demonstrated understanding of the project requirements in terms of key milestones and project completion time.

- The submittals and the oral presentation will be subjectively evaluated for the submittals and oral presentation in assessing the offerors understanding of the contract requirements and proposed technical solutions to achieve the contract requirements in terms of the design approach, materials and project schedule. The evaluation will consider the technical solution in terms of functionality, aesthetics, quality, maintainability, sustainability and historical preservation considerations. The aesthetics assessment will consider the integration with the natural beauty and topography of the site, and the architectural compatibility with the new structures on the VCT.

- The submittal and oral presentation will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s understanding of project requirements, objectives and challenges and proposed technical solutions to those challenges.

4. Contractor Submittal Evaluation Factor 4 Project Management (Key Personnel Qualifications, Quality

Control, Safety, Project Management Software and Implementation, and Staffing Plan) (75 Page Limit) This Evaluation Factor addresses the offeror’s approach to managing the project specifically in the areas of Key Personnel qualifications, quality control, safety, project management software and staffing. The offeror shall submit resumes for the Key Personnel. In addition, submit a Quality Control Plan of Approach, a Safety Plan of Approach, identify the Project Management software system and implementation plan, and a Staffing Plan to demonstrate project management capabilities and plans.

- Key Personnel: Submit a Resume Form/Key Personnel Qualifications, RFP ATTACHMENT 14 for each of the following

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Construction Group:

1. Quality Program Manager (QPM) – The QPM is responsible for the oversight of all design and construction quality control programs. The QPM will coordinate with key personnel and the CO to ensure that the design and construction of the project are in conformance with the contract and design documents, and that the methods and procedures contained in the approved quality management plan (QMP) are implemented and followed. This individual will be dedicated full time from NTP of design, onsite during any preliminary investigation and construction activities, and throughout the duration of the contract until issuance of Final Acceptance.

This individual shall be employed by an independent firm independent of the design firm and prime contractor companies. The QPM will communicate directly and report equally to the CO and the DBPM. The QPM shall have a minimum of two (2) projects of technically the same or similar work within the past ten (10) years involving the design and construction of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity. This individual shall be a licensed Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This individual shall have at least ten (10) years of experience within the past fifteen (15) years performing technically the same or similar work.

2. Construction Manager – The Construction Manager is the Contractor’s authorized representative and is responsible and in charge of the construction work. This individual shall have a minimum of five (5) years’ experience within the past ten (10) years performing technically the same or similar work, and on at least one project with a contract value greater than $100,000,000.

3. Construction Quality Control Manager (CQCM) – The CQCM is Offeror’s authorized representative and is responsible for and in charge of the construction work. At a minimum, the CQCM will coordinate all inspection needs per the contract, testing requirements in accordance with the FP‐14, lead preparatory meetings, and daily reporting with test and inspection results to the CO and QPM. In addition to the experience described above, the CQCM must have experience performing technically the same or similar work on at least two (2) projects within the past ten (10) years involving the design and construction of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity.

Architect‐Engineering Group

1. Design‐Build Project Manager (DBPM) – The DBPM is the principal point of contact for all activities throughout the entire design‐build process. The Design‐Build Project Manager shall have experience performing technically the same or similar work on at least two (2) projects within the past ten (10) years involving the design and construction of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity. This position can be either part of the Construction Group or Architect‐Engineering Group as best utilized by the prime contractor’s proposed team structure.

2. Designer of Record (DOR) – The DOR is the single point of responsibility for all design procedures and decisions. This individual shall be a licensed Professional Engineer licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Designer of Record must have experience performing technically the same or similar work on at least two (2) projects within the past ten (10) years involving the design and construction of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity. This individual shall have at least ten (10) years of experience within the past fifteen (15) years performing technically the same or similar work.

3. Bridge Engineer – The Bridge Engineer is responsible for and in charge of all bridge and structural aspects of the project. This individual shall be a licensed Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Bridge Engineer must have experience performing technically the same or similar work on at least two (2) projects within the past ten (10) years involving the design and construction of projects similar in scope, size, and complexity. This individual shall have at least ten (10) years of experience within the past fifteen (15) years performing technically the same or similar work.

4. Environmental Protection Specialist – The Environmental Protection Specialist is responsible for and in charge of ensuring the project complies with NEPA and environmental policies and regulations, field monitoring of construction operations to ensure they do not negatively impact cultural and natural resources, developing weekly reports documenting impacts to cultural and natural resources, assisting with the environmental aspects of permitting, submitting permit applications on behalf of the government, serving as the single point of contact for coordinating with permitting agencies, and handling and tracking final permit documents and applications. This individual shall have a minimum of three (3) years of experience within the past ten (10) years performing technically the same or

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD similar work in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the USDA U.S. Forest Service, or equivalent land management agency.

5. Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer – Virginia Professional Geologist – This individual shall have at least ten (10) years of experience within the past fifteen (15) performing technically the same or similar work. This individual shall be licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Successful completion of both the National Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG) Exam and the Virginia State‐Specific Exam. Can be subordinate to the Designer of Record.

- Project Management Software. The DB contractor shall obtain web‐based project management software for use in scheduling and monitoring important project activities. The Government shall have access to the software to monitor project progress, facilitate communication, and expedite and record its own responses to inquiries by the DB contractor. The project management software shall be maintained solely by the DB contractor. The software shall include means of recording the number, content, affected disciplines, key dates, recommendations, responses and outcomes related to the following:

- Submit a description of the system that will be used to manage project quality and describe how the system will be updated and monitored. Submittals including product data, shop drawings, calculations, warranties and other requirements of the specifications numbered per the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 2004 format.

- Requests for Information (RFI)

- Proposed Changes (PC)

- Change Directives (CD) and Change Orders (CO)

- Risk Management. Identify potential risk Evaluation Factors, project specific issues, or problems that are likely to be encountered and explain the approach to mitigate those risks, issues, or problems.

- Quality Control Draft. Describe the approach to managing quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) for design, and QC for construction activities. Describe the authority and responsibility of quality management personnel and discuss how they will interface with the Offeror’s organization and the Forest Service. Provide a description of measures to be used to partner or form team cohesion between the lead construction contractor, lead design firm, and subcontractors

- Describe the management of design and construction to promote quality through integrated design principles.

- Safety Plan Draft: Clear and concise description of the DBC’s approach to safety in all phases of the work that will form the basis for the awarded DBC’s project safety plan.

- Communications Plan Draft. For all project phases incorporating the use of an infrastructure project management information system (IPMIS) provided by the contractors. State which IPMIS will be used by the DBC and the Government.

- Staffing Plan Draft. Submit a staffing plan which addresses the offeror’s plan for hiring the appropriate staff, including subcontractors, in a timely manner and ensure they are available when needed. This plan shall also include the methods the offeror uses to retain staff.

The submittals will be subjectively evaluated to determine the overall alignment of key personnel proposed with the solicitation requirements, the offeror’s demonstrated plans of approach, project management software system and implementation, Risk/Quality/Safety/Communications/and staffing throughout the project performance will be included in the evaluation.

Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

5. Contractor Submittal Evaluation Factor 5: Small Business Utilization Small Business Participation…