Amendment_1_13-102-SOL-00001_Phase_I_Kayenta.pdf

Kayenta Staff Quarters Project 13-102-SOL-00001 Kayenta, Arizona Amd. 1 1/24/13

Questions Received from Potential Offerors

Personal and extraneous information has been redacted. Duplicate questions have been paraphrased.

1. Question: “I would like to request a copy of the RFP for the project listed below.”

Answer:

Interested parties are required to utilize the Government Point of Entry to download and print off solicitations. Please use this link to retrieve the requested documents:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9a a583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 For your convenience, a pdf version of the solicitation is included as an attachment to this amendment.

2. Question: May my company visit the Hospital Construction Site?

Answer:

The hospital that this project will support is currently under construction and is controlled by the prime contractor, Flintco. Privileged access to the site will not be granted during the Phase I solicitation phase. Offerors who are selected to participate in Phase II will participate in a formal site visit.

3. Question: “Is this project a design build for individual housing or more of a dormitory design?”

Answer:

Interested parties are required to utilize the Government Point of Entry to download and print off solicitations. Please use this link to retrieve the requested documents:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9a a583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 Your question should be adequately addressed within the Phase I Request for Qualifications solicitation.

4. Question: Will the Navajo Nation proposal, selection and preference process be applicable to the submission and award of this RFQ?

Answer:

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. The Navajo Nation proposal and selection process is not being utilized.

5. Question: Is there Indian Preference for this project?

This requirement is 100% set-aside for small businesses under NAICS 236115.

There is no further preference being considered in the evaluation of proposals https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9aa583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9aa583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9aa583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9aa583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 or contract award.

6. Question: “… given that this solicitation is a Total Small Business Set Aside it does not seem consistent that the stipend amount for Phase II of the solicitation process is only $15,000 whereas it may realistically cost Offerers in the magnitude of up to $XXX to adequately satisfy the requirements of the Phase II technical proposal. Most true small businesses XXX do not have that kind of money to risk on trying to win a project. Likely only the really large contractors that are set up on a Mentor – Protégé arrangement with a small business will have the ability to risk and absorb that kind of expense. XXX.

We would like to ask that IHS consider augmenting the stipend to a realistic amount to even the playing field for small business to be able participate in this solicitation. It will also be crucial to have the level of completion of the design documents desired for Phase II to be very clearly defined. For example, is the intent for us to have 90% complete site and housing drawings or are you looking for more preliminary/schematic documents? Defining and controlling the scope of the design services required will in turn help us to define and control our expenses in putting a proposal together.”

Answer:

Phase II selection will not anticipate a fully developed design. Selection criteria will allow each team to present a creative approach and demonstrate design philosophy in the use and function of the site along with housing details coordinated with their price proposal. Design submittals from the selected team will be required only after award.

There will be direct and indirect preparation costs to participate in a Phase II selection process. In the spirit of partnership, and in recognition of these costs, the allowance of a stipend is intended to provide some relief for direct costs in generating Phase II proposals. The stipend is not expected to be compensation for comprehensive proposal preparation.

The stipend amount for Phase II stands at $15,000.00.

7. Question: “I am not able to open the Attachment B Past Performance Questionnaire or Attachment C Similar Project Template. Can you please send it to me in a different format so I am able to open it?

Enclosed are the solicitation and attachments in pdf format.

8. Question: “We are evaluating if we should take the time, resources, and expense into developing a proposal for you on this project, because we are curious if you would consider any of the following options:

1) Phased Implementation beginning with site review and Engineering Design, progressing to roads and utilities construction after approval of design, and lastly construction of the homes, and ancillary facilities as required?

2) A rolling $10 million completion bond, which would also provide cost savings to IHH and the project since utilizing a $10 million rolling bond over the life of the project would be at least 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of a $30 - $40 million bond for the same time period.

A clarification:

A) Will IHH provide their own QA/QC inspectors during construction or is that the responsibility of the engineers under contract on the project?”

Answer:

1) Projected phasing of the work is based on the anticipation of funding spread out over three years. Initial phase to complete design, develop the site, construct common features and amenities, construct a 10-20 unit apartment style housing unit, along with some number of initial single family housing units. Phase two would construct a significant number of additional units.

Phase three would complete the project. Actual phasing of the work will follow funding with the highest priority of funding directed to completion of the hospital.

2) The Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 3131 et seq.) requires performance and payment bonds for any construction contract exceeding $150,000 as per FAR 28.102-1. Although funding for this project is anticipated to be phased, there is a possibility that it could be funded in its entirety. This would require the successful offeror to be able to obtain complete bonding coverage. The $40,000,000.00 bonding capacity requirement stands.

3) Firm fixed price FAR Construction Contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold are required to include FAR 52.246-12 Inspection of Construction.

9. Question: “1. This project spans over 3 years will there be a price escalation clause. Material price increases. 2. Do you know the approximate square foot size of the homes needed. 3. Is it known how many homes will be built at a time. Number of Phases.”

Answer:

1. Anticipated phasing will be included in the Phase II solicitation and contract;

the inclusion of an economic price adjustment clause has not yet, been determined.

2. The project will require a mix of housing units, 1 bedroom through 4 bedroom units in duplex or higher configurations or clusters and will include a 10-20 unit apartment style building. Specific guidance will be provided in the Phase II solicitation that will allow for flexibility in sizing and configuration to address and incorporate project goals.

3. See Question 8, Answer 1 response.

10. Question: “Regarding Bonding. Since we are a small business bonding 40 million is not possible. We can bond XX million and since this project is spread over 3 years which means there would never be over XX million in work at one time could we somehow provide bonding in phases?”

See Question 8, Answer 2.

11. Question: “Will we be paid for stored material?”

Firm fixed price FAR Construction Contracts are required to include FAR 52.232-5 Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts.

12. Question: “In reference to Solicitation 13-102-SOL-00001, page 6 of 15, Item “H. Proof of Bonding Capacity”, the document states:

“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… Each Offeror shall submit a Surety Letter from its an approved surety company on company letterhead demonstrating the surety’s commitment to bond the Offeror for this project at a minimum of $40 million….”

This requirement appears to contradict the SBA regulations (including mentor protégé) where SBA allows for the large business bonding to be extended to small businesses. And further where large businesses obtain additional small business contracting credits for doing so. Small businesses typically do not have single bonding capacities in excess of the NAICS small business standard size.

If not for this requirement our team meets or exceeds every requirement in the RFP to proceed to phase two. XXXX.”

Answer:

Page 6, remove Section 1. H. paragraphs 2 and 3 and replace with the following:

“Each Offeror shall submit evidence from an approved corporate surety or an individual surety (see Department of Treasury Circular 570) indicating a single and aggregate bonding capacity of the Offeror in an amount no less than $40M.

Each Offeror shall submit a Surety Letter from an approved surety company demonstrating the surety’s commitment to bond the Offeror for this project at a minimum of $40 million. No page limit.”

13. Question: “Paragraph 1.1.2 Scope, outlines the general initial project phasing and an anticipated performance period of three years. Additional Phase I information in regards to the phasing approach would be very useful to industry to better understand the program and conduct a proper analysis of this business opportunity. Providing this insight during Phase I would greatly reduce the likelihood of any of the three shortlisted firms dropping out of the Phase II competition. Request additional scope phasing information be provided.”

See Question 8, Answer 1.

14. Question: “We have a question in regards to Section 1.E. of the RFQ.

This paragraph deals specifically with joint ventures, SBA Mentor – Protégé, or other teaming proposals and states is bold that “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”. Can you clarify if this SBA certification requirement is for Offerers that have teaming arrangements only or does this also apply to Offerers that are a small business on their own merit independent of any other teaming arrangements?”

Page 5, remove Section 1.E. and replace it with the following:

“E. Joint ventures, SBA 8(a) Mentor – Protégé, or other teaming proposals shall clearly identify the roles and level of participation of each firm in the proposed work. Failure to have business entity registered in SAM.gov under the provided DUNS number and NAICS Code 236115 Small Business status may result in rejection of the offeror’s Phase I proposal.

Joint Venture Agreement: (1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of the joint venture agreement that 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 8(a) Mentor – Protégé Joint Venture: 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. No page limit.

15. “We are would like to contact all the contractors interested in the

Kayenta Staff Quarters-Phase I to introduce ourselves and discuss possible teaming arrangements. Would you be so kind as to provide us a list of the contractors who could potentially submit bids or where we could find that information?”

Answer:

Interested parties are encouraged to list themselves on solicitations they are interested in. This may be accessed on the Government Point of Entry to download and print off solicitations. Please use this link to add yourself to the Interested Vendor List and to access information for other Interested Vendors:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9a a583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9aa583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=06162d4b52d40a9aa583584185f330af&tab=core&_cview=1

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

PAGE 122 2010 Architect / Engineer Design Guide

Crime prevention through environmental design is a multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design. CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts.

Strategies for the Built Environment

CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts. Research into criminal behavior shows that the decision to offend or not to offend is more influenced by cues to the perceived risk of being caught than by cues to reward or ease of entry. Consistent with this research, CPTED based strategies emphasize enhancing the perceived risk of detection and apprehension.

The proper design and effective use of the built environment can reduce crime, reduce the fear of crime, and improve the quality of life. Built environment implementations of CPTED seek to dissuade offenders from committing crimes by manipulating the built environment in which those crimes proceed from or occur. The three most common built environment strategies are natural surveillance, natural access control and natural territorial reinforcement.

Natural surveillance and access control strategies limit the opportunity for crime. Territorial reinforcement promotes social control through a variety of measures.

Natural Surveillance

Natural surveillance increases the threat of apprehension by taking steps to increase the perception that people can be seen. Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positive social interaction among legitimate users of private and public space. Potential offenders feel increased scrutiny and limitations on their escape routes.

Place windows overlooking sidewalks and parking lots.

Leave window shades open.

Use passing vehicular traffic as a surveillance asset.

Create landscape designs that provide surveillance, especially in proximity to designated points of entry and opportunistic points of entry. Do not use landscape and building design that form hiding

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

(CPTED)

places for perpetrators of crime.

Use the shortest, least sight-limiting fence appropriate for the situation.

Use transparent weather vestibules at building entrances.

When creating lighting design, avoid poorly placed lights that create blind-spots for potential observers and miss critical areas. Ensure potential problem areas are well-lit: pathways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, ATMs, phone kiosks, mailboxes, bus stops, children’s play areas, recreation areas, pools, laundry rooms, storage areas, dumpster and recycling areas, etc.

Avoid too-bright security lighting that creates blinding glare and/or deep shadows, hindering the view for potential observers. Eyes adapt to night lighting and have trouble adjusting to severe lighting disparities. Using lower intensity lights often requires more fixtures.

Use shielded or cut-off luminaires to control glare.

Place lighting along pathways and other pedestrian-use areas at proper heights for lighting the faces of the people in the space (and to identify the faces of potential attackers).

Natural surveillance measures can be complemented by mechanical and organizational measures. For example, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras can be added in areas where window surveillance is unavailable.

Natural Access Control

Natural access control limits the opportunity for crime by taking steps to clearly differentiate between public space and private space. By selectively placing entrances and exits, fencing, lighting and landscape to limit access or control flow, natural access control occurs.

Use a single, clearly identifiable, point of entry

Use structures to divert persons to reception areas

Incorporate maze entrances in public restrooms.

This avoids the isolation that is produced by an anteroom or double door entry system

Use low, thorny bushes beneath ground level windows.

A4 SuPPLEMENTAL AND EXAMPLE MATERIAL

2010 Architect / Engineer Design Guide PAGE 123

Eliminate design features that provide access to roofs or upper levels

Use waist-level, picket-type fencing along residential property lines to control access, encourage surveillance.

Use a locking gate between front and backyards.

Use shoulder-level, open-type fencing along lateral residential property lines between side yards and extending to between back yards. They should be sufficiently unencumbered with landscaping to promote social interaction between neighbors.

Use substantial, high, closed fencing (for example, masonry) between a backyard and a public alley.

Natural access control is used to complement mechanical and operational access control measures, such as target hardening.

Natural Territorial Reinforcement

Territorial reinforcement promotes social control through increased definition of space and improved proprietary concern. An environment designed to clearly delineate private space does two things. First, it creates a sense of ownership. Owners have a vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to the police. Second, the sense of owned space creates an environment where “strangers” or “intruders” stand out and are more easily identified.

By using buildings, fences, pavement, signs, lighting and landscape to express ownership and define public, semi-public and private space, natural territorial reinforcement occurs. Additionally, these objectives can be achieved by assignment of space to designated users in previously unassigned locations.

Maintained premises and landscaping such that it communicates an alert and active presence occupying the space.

Provide trees in residential and commercial areas.

Research results indicate that, contrary to traditional views within the law enforcement community, outdoor residential spaces with more trees are seen as significantly more attractive, more safe, and more likely to be used than similar spaces without trees.

Restrict private activities to defined private areas.

Display security system signage at access points.

Placing amenities such as seating or refreshments in common areas in a commercial or institutional setting helps to attract larger numbers of desired users.

Scheduling activities in common areas increases proper use, attracts more people and increases the perception that these areas are controlled.

Territorial reinforcement measures make the normal user feel safe and make the potential offender aware of a substantial risk of apprehension or scrutiny.

A4 SuPPLEMENTAL AND EXAMPLE MATERIAL

Attachment B. Past Performance Questionnaire

Name of Offeror ________________________ SECTION #7 – Past Performance

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104)

Response to Phase I Solicitation 13-102-SOL-00001

Section 1: To Be Completed by the Offeror

Project Title:

Total Project Price/Cost:

Period of Performance:

Date of Completion:

Project Description:

Section 2: To Be Completed by the Owner/Customer

Name and Title of Evaluator

Evaluator Contact Information (Phone Number, Email):

Overall Performance of the Contractor (Choose One):

Excellent Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Please provide a short narrative regarding the Offeror’s performance on this project:

1. What aspects of the project did the Offeror perform well?

2. What aspects of the project were problematic for the Offeror?

3. Would you utilize this Offeror again and why?

The Evaluator is directed to submit this completed past performance questionnaire directly to IHS via email to Contract Specialist Jane.Stuessy@ihs.gov no later than February XX, 2013. If you have questions, Ms. Stuessy can be reached at 206-615-2533.

mailto:Jane.Stuessy@ihs.gov

Attachment C. Similar Project Template

Name of Offeror ________________________ SECTION #8 – Project Listing

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104)

Response to Phase I Solicitation 13-102-SOL-00001

Project Title, Location and Number:

Project Owner and Contact Information:

Please ensure this has same contact information as on Past Performance Questionnaire.)

Total Project Price/Cost:

(Include original contract price, modification information and final price) Original Period of Performance:

Date of Completion:

Contractor(s) Performing Work:

(Include which business(es) participated, what percentage of the work was accomplished by whom (Team participants), etc. This should be very clear.)

Project Description:

(Include project scope and relevance to the Kayenta Staff Quarters project. Suggest including key components and characteristics of the project, etc.)