13-102-SOL-00001_Kayenta_Staff_Quarters_Request_For_Quals_reduced_size.pdf

Kayenta Staff Quarters Project 13-102-SOL-00001 Kayenta, Arizona 1/11/13

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is issued as a Total Small Business set aside for the two-phase design build construction procurement (FAR 36.303) of the Kayenta Staff Quarters project. The time and date set forth within is for the receipt of proposals for Phase I only. Phase II will be issued by amendment to the successful offerors determined to be the three most highly qualified during Phase I evaluation.

Solicitation No: 13-102-SOL-00001

Posted Date: January 11, 2013

Phase I Request for Qualifications Proposal Due Date: February 12, 2013, 2:00 PM PST

Project Title: Kayenta Staff Quarters Project

All inquiries concerning the attached Phase I Request for Qualifications must be submitted in writing via email to Jane.Stuessy@ihs.gov and must be received no later than 10 days prior to the proposal due date/time to allow responses.

mailto:Jane.Stuessy@ihs.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

PART 1 – GENERAL………………………………………………………

1.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND SCOPE……………………………

1.1.1. Set-Aside…………………………………………………………………. 3

1.1.2. Scope……………………………………………………………………... 3

1.2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS..…. 3

1.2.1. The Phase I Result……………………………………………………… 3

1.2.2. Phase I Evaluation Factors…………………………………………….. 3

1.2.3. Relative Weight………………………………………………………….. 4

1.2.4. Intent for No Discussions………………………………………………. 4

1.2.5. Successful Offeror Incentive…………………………………………… 4

PART 2 – SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE I,

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS…………………………………………….. 5

2.1 PHASE I REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION………………………………………...….. 5

2.2 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATTING………………. 5

PART 3 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION – PHASE I………………………….. 11

3.1 PHASE I TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS…………………… 11

PART 4 – PHASE II PROPOSAL SUMMARY

(FOR INFORMATION ONLY)………………………………………….. 14

4.1. BASIS OF AWARD, PHASE II………………………………………… 14

4.2. PHASE II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS.….. 14

PART 5 – PHASE I ATTACHMENTS…………………………………………. 15

5.1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS……………………………………………… 15

PART 1 – GENERAL

1.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

1.1.1. Set-Aside: This solicitation will be Total Small Business Set Aside resulting in a negotiated Firm-Fixed price contract. The estimated construction budgeted cost is between $30 million and $40 million.

1.1.2. Scope: Provide comprehensive site design and construct up to 129 new staff quarters in Kayenta, Arizona, for housing the medical and operational staff of the new Kayenta Health Center currently under construction.

Kayenta is a community of approximately 5,000 people in the northeast corner of Arizona on the Navajo Nation, approximately 300 miles northeast of Phoenix, Arizona, and 300 miles northwest of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Housing will be co-located with the hospital, currently under construction, on a single, dedicated plot of land with a common approach and shared circulating roadway. Housing units will be composed of a mix of occupancies and configurations to best utilize the site and to support recruitment and retention of non-local medical and operational staff.

Emphasis will be placed on developing the housing to incorporate specific sustainability goals, operational maintainability, community features, and how the site layout, massing, and organization enhances the public and staff functions of the hospital environment; specifically the unique, remote location and cultural setting of this project.

Project phasing during the contract is anticipated, to include phased funding. The initial phase will complete all design, with options for construction of site utilities, roads, paths, sidewalks, lighting, support structures, and other common features along with some number of initial housing units.

The contract is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2013 with an approximate performance period of three years.

1.2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2.1. The Phase I Result of this procurement will be the selection of a maximum of three (3) Offerors/firms that are most highly qualified based on Phase I evaluation factors. The three (3) or fewer selected offerors/firms will be invited to submit responses to the Phase II Request for Proposals (RFP). Firms responding to this Phase I solicitation that are not selected to participate in Phase II will not be considered for contract award.

1.2.2. Phase I Evaluation Factors

Qualifications will be evaluated in Phase I to determine the three

(maximum) most qualified Offerors. Each proposal will undergo a Technical Evaluation utilizing the Evaluation Factors as defined in PART 3.1.1.

1.2.3. The Relative Weight of each Phase I Evaluation Criteria is approximately equal for purposes of evaluation.

1.2.4. Intent for No Discussions: Offerors are advised that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and select those firms to proceed to Phase II and/or select Phase II Offerors/firms without discussions or any contact with Offerors concerning the proposals received for Phase I. The Government reserves the right to contact Offerors if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.2.5. Successful Offeror Incentive: No more than the three most qualified offerors will be requested to submit proposals in accordance with the Phase II Request for Proposals. A stipend in the amount of $15,000.00 is anticipated to be awarded to Phase II Offerors to offset direct costs associated with the preparation of a Phase II response.

PART 2 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE I, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS

2.1. PHASE I REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION shall be submitted by email only no later than February 12, 2013, 2PM PST to Jane.Stuessy@ihs.gov. Each Section shall be submitted as a separate PDF document.

Each Section submission shall indicate on a cover page the following:

NAME OF OFFEROR, SECTION # (1,2 etc.)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104)

PHASE I PROPOSAL FOR 13-102-SOL-00001

2.2. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATTING

Proposals shall be typewritten, with fonts no smaller than 11 points, 1/2" top, bottom and 1" side margins, single space, paginated, portrait mode on letter size paper; except charts and matrices may be displayed in landscape mode.

Please limit the narrative responses to 30 pages TOTAL, exclusive of Section 1, Section 8, Section cover pages, resumes, required attachments and the returned Past Performance Questionnaires. No hyperlinks or electronic media will be allowed or considered.

Phase I proposals shall consist of eight (8) Sections.

Failure to address any of the requirements herein may result in rejection of the offeror’s Phase I proposal.

Section 1 – A cover letter with the following information:

A. Identification of the business entity submitting the offer;

B. Name, Address, Telephone and Facsimile numbers of Offeror and email address;

C. DUNS Number;

D. Name, telephone number, title and signature (and electronic addresses if available) of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

E. Joint ventures, SBA Mentor – Protégé, or other teaming proposals shall clearly identify the roles and level of participation of each firm in the proposed work and shall include the Small Business Administration approval of Small Business status of the offering business entity. Failure to include SBA certification of small business status for purposes of this solicitation with submission of the Phase I qualification shall result in rejection of the offer.

Joint Venture Agreement: (1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of the joint venture agreement which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of 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 submission accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members. No page limit.

SBA Mentor – Protégé Agreement: If a business concern is contemplating an 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture on this project, evidence shall be provided from the Offeror that the Mentor-Protégé Agreement has been submitted and approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by the closing date of Phase I submission. All Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures must be in accordance with SBA requirements. Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures applications must be approved by the Mentor-Protégé’s cognizant SBA office on or before the date that Phase I proposals are due. No page limit.

F. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

G. A table of contents that identifies each of the Sections submitted.

H. Proof of Bonding Capacity: Required to assure that Offeror’s selected for Phase Two will have the bonding capacity for both performance and payment bonds as required under the terms and conditions of this solicitation and resultant contract pursuant to FAR 52.228-15.

Each Offeror shall submit evidence from an approved corporate surety or an individual surety indicating a single and aggregate bonding capacity of the Offeror and is not dependent on any teaming arrangement between prime and subcontractors. (For a listing of approved corporate sureties see website at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html). FAR 28.202 (Acceptability of corporate sureties) and FAR 28.203 (Acceptability of individual sureties) provide additional information regarding corporate and individual sureties. Also, see FAR 52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bond - Construction (b) (1), (2) for penal amounts.

Each Offeror shall submit a Surety Letter from its surety company on company letterhead demonstrating the surety’s commitment to bond the Offeror at a minimum of $40 million. The Surety Letter shall http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html

Guarantee that the Offeror has the bonding capacity to perform the task based on the Offeror's own merit and that the capacity is not dependent on any teaming arrangement between prime and subcontractors. The Surety Letter shall also state the current credit rating of the Surety. The page limitation listed above does not apply to submittal of this bonding information.

I. Certifications and Representations

Offeror’s Certifications and Representations will be obtained from the United States federal government’s System for Award Management (SAM) database. The Offeror shall ensure information is current in SAM prior to the Phase I response due date. Anomalies and inconsistencies found in the Offeror’s Certifications and Representations may result in deeming the Offeror’s Phase I proposal non-responsive.

Section 2: Offeror’s team qualifications and approach

Describe and explain how the Design Build Team will approach the project from development of schematic design through construction including obtaining approvals, permits, etc. Do not respond with detailed design or technical information.

A. Describe and explain how the Offering Team is structured.

Provide relevant titles and roles within the organization, inclusive of both the design and construction aspects of the project.

B. Provide information regarding previous experience of this specific team. Discuss effectiveness with team successes including the approach to team management and communication among the team and with past clients.

C. Provide examples of the Team’s previous experience in design and construction of housing developments. Discuss design parameters and mitigating measures taken; provide information regarding modifications during construction and how resolution was accomplished, etc.

D. Provide information on projects similar in size and complexity to this project that the Offeror has designed and constructed. (See Section 4 requirement for the definition of “similar size and complexity”.)

Section 3: Sustainable design

Describe how the Team has utilized sustainable designs. Provide specific examples for each of the following, including successes, lessons learned, balancing and negotiating design challenges, etc.:

A. Third Party Certification (LEED for Homes / LEED for Neighborhood Development), B. Neighborhood pattern and design, C. Green infrastructure and buildings, D. Low energy consumption and operational costs to end users, E. Site Development, and F. Maintainability.

Section 4: Community/town planning and development

This factor considers the extent of the Offeror's current and relevant experience as a Design-Builder for projects of a similar size and complexity as the Kayenta Staff Quarters. Similar size and complexity is defined as design/construction projects greater than $5 million. Provide information for projects in progress or completed within five (5) years prior to the date of the RFQ’s issuance. Submitted projects shall be considered "similarly complex" if they include the following: the design and construction of a new residential housing community associated with a dedicated purpose (i.e. military, hospital, institutions) and included architectural, landscaping, sustainability, structural, utilities, streets, street-side walks, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, etc.

Address the following:

A. Design that encourages resident interaction, B. Design that encourages pedestrian activity, C. Development of a comprehensive and distinctive architectural vocabulary that visually and thematically creates relationships between residences and other built elements, D. Design that visually and thematically creates a relationship between new structures and an existing key facility (in this case, the existing hospital), and

E. Development of common amenities, parks, paths, playgrounds, and other supporting spaces.

Section 5: Integration of security concepts (see Attachment A)

Provide examples of how the following items have been integrated on past projects:

A. Passive and active systems, and B. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).

Section 6: Specialized experience and capability to perform

Provide examples of how the following items have been addressed on past projects:

A. Remote location, B. Extreme winds and driven sands, C. Seasonal monsoons, D. Implementing local hire goals, E. Phased funding, F. Integration of local cultural elements, G. Low maintenance landscaping, and H. Coordination with ongoing construction of the new hospital at a common site.

Section 7: Past Performance

Under this factor, the Government is evaluating the past performance of Offeror (Team) and/or the Offeror’s team members such as the proposed A/E firm, etc.

for each of the projects identified by the Offeror under all evaluation factors.

Additionally, Offeror and Offeror’s proposed A/E firm are encouraged to provide information on problems encountered during performance of the listed projects and the corrective actions identified. Note that the Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of the referenced information.

The Offeror’s demonstrated Past Performance should address, but is not limited to, the following components and characteristics, as applicable to each specific project:

Design:

Design Schedule Control - The extent of the Offeror’s A/E’s demonstrated success monitoring and controlling the Similar Project design schedule and mitigation of time growth.

Design Cost Control – The extent of the Offeror’s A/E’s demonstrated success executing and monitoring project cost / budget throughout the Similar Project design phase.

Construction:

Schedule Control - The extent of Offeror’s demonstrated success monitoring and controlling the Similar Project construction schedule and mitigation of time growth.

Cost Control – The extent of Offeror’s demonstrated success executing and monitoring project cost controls throughout the Similar Project construction.

Quality Control - The extent of Offeror’s demonstrated experience maintaining Quality Control throughout the Similar Project construction.

Change Order Management - The extent of Offeror’s demonstrated experience managing and minimizing change orders for the Similar Project.

Safety – The number of lost days due to accidents/injuries for the Similar Project.

Self-Performance – The extent to which the Offeror self-performed the work on the Similar Project, expressed as a percentage.

Claims Avoidance - The extent of Offeror’s demonstrated success minimizing claims by subcontractors throughout the Similar Project construction.

Project Management – The extent to which the Offeror utilized an electronic Project Management Information System, as defined in the Similar Project construction.

Site Logistics - The extent to which the Offeror encountered and resolved challenges in staging materials and site access throughout the Similar Project construction.

A. A past performance questionnaire is included as Attachment B to this solicitation. This questionnaire shall be used to gather data from references concerning your performance on previous contracts. Offerors shall be responsible for ensuring that the references submit a completed questionnaire directly to the Government via email as directed on the form.

B. Offeror shall provide at least two (2) contact names for each project, email addresses, telephone numbers and name of project for the projects identified by the Offeror under all evaluation factors. Failure of the Offeror to provide a minimum of two (2) references, and/or the inability of the Government to complete a minimum of one past performance check after making a reasonable effort to do so, may result in the Offeror being rated neither favorably nor unfavorably for purposes of past performance.

C. The Offeror shall provide a list of all firms (with relative contact information to include points of contact, phone numbers, email addresses, etc.) that were requested to submit past performance information for this solicitation. No page limitation, but suggest this be kept to one page.

Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of contact information and the Government reserves the right to contact as many references as necessary.

Section 8 – Project Listing

The Offeror must ensure it is clear if identified work was performed by the Team, a business within the team, or by individuals who now work for a business within the Team. All references to project or segments of projects accomplished or currently in progress shall state who or what entity performed what percentage or task of work. Attachment C is provided as a guide for listing projects referenced in other submittal Sections. Although there is no page limitation with this Attachment, please limit to one page per project.

PART 3 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION – PHASE I

3.1. PHASE I TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s technical proposal submission taking into consideration past performance, recent, relevant, sources, context, and trends that demonstrate overall design- build experience and capability. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination, however, 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance.

Factors 1- 6 (sections 2-7) will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating and each of these factors will be considered approximately equal in importance for purposes of determining up to three (3) Offerors who will be requested to submit Phase II proposals. Only the Offerors selected to submit Phase II proposals shall be considered for contract award. All other Offerors shall not be considered.

Evaluation Factor 1: Offeror’s team qualifications and approach

A. The Offering Team’s roles and organization, B. Previous experience and effectiveness as a team, C. Previous experience in housing development, Evaluation Factor 2: Offeror’s experience with sustainable design including:

A. Third Party Certification (LEED for Homes / LEED for Neighborhood Development), B. Neighborhood pattern and design, C. Green infrastructure and buildings, D. Low energy consumption and operational costs to end users, E. Site Development, and F. Maintainability.

Evaluation Factor 3: Offeror’s experience with community/town planning and development including:

A. Design that encourages resident interaction, B. Design that encourages pedestrian activity, C. Development of a comprehensive and distinctive architectural vocabulary that visually and thematically creates relationships between residences and other built elements, D. Design that visually and thematically creates a relationship between new structures and an existing key facility (in this case, the existing hospital), and

E. Development of common amenities, parks, paths, playgrounds, and other supporting spaces.

Evaluation Factor 4: Offeror’s experience and performance with integration of security concepts including:

A. Passive and active systems, and B. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED

Evaluation Factor 5: Offeror’s specialized experience and capability to perform including:

A. Remote location, B. Extreme winds and driven sands, C. Seasonal monsoons, D. Implementing local hire goals, E. Phased funding, F. Integration of local cultural elements, G. Low maintenance landscaping, and H. Coordination with ongoing construction of the new hospital at a common site.

Evaluation Factor 6: Offeror’s (Team and/or Team members) past performance

A. The Government may contact individuals provided as references to solicit an assessment of the quality of the services provided for the projects identified in the other factors. When evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to rely upon other sources of information, including, but not limited to, Federal, state, and local agencies, better business bureaus, published media, and electronic databases.

B. The Government will evaluate the Offeror and Offeror’s proposed A/E firm’s past performance based on information obtained from the Past Performance Questionnaires, any information received based on contacting the provided references, and other current and relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, personal knowledge and any information supplied by the Offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

C. The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each Offeror’s Team. Performance risks are those associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance.

D. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror's performance. The lack of a past performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the Offeror.

E. The Government is not required to contact all references provided by the Offeror. Also, references other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government to obtain additional information that will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror's past performance.

F. The Government may consider adverse past performance information, regardless of size, scope, and complexity of the project.

PART 4 – PHASE II PROPOSAL SUMMARY (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

************DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS SECTION BELOW***********

THIS SECTION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

PHASE II RFP WILL BE ISSUED TO ONLY THE QUALIFIED OFFERORS (NO

MORE THAN THREE) SELECTED AS A RESULT OF THIS PHASE I

EVALUATION.

THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL FACTORS ARE GIVEN FOR INFORMATION

ONLY.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THESE PHASE II TECHNICAL FACTORS AS PART OF

THE PHASE I PROPOSAL.

4.1. BASIS OF AWARD, PHASE II

A maximum of three (3) Offerors will advance to Phase II. Phase II evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s technical proposal and price proposal in accordance with the Best Value Continuum tradeoff process (FAR 15.101-1). The Government will award to the Offeror where the expected outcome of the acquisition in the Government’s estimation provides the best value in response to the terms and conditions included in the Phase II solicitation. Contract award will be made after review and evaluation of the Phase II proposals.

4.2. PHASE II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Phase II Technical Evaluation factors are listed below and will be adjectively rated. These factors, when combined, will be evaluated as approximately equal to price.

Phase II Technical Evaluation factors will include: Site planning and development;

Housing details; Sustainable design features, LEED homes, and LEED neighborhood development; Housing development as a tool for recruitment and retention of staff; and Specialized project issues and features.

PART 5 – PHASE I ATTACHMENTS

5.1. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)

Attachment B. Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment C. Similar Projects Template