Public Notice 002_1333ND26QNB190168 NIST GC IDIQ.pdf

General Construction Multiple Award IDIQ

Public Notice 002:

Project ID: 1333ND26QNB190168 Location: NIST CAMPUS GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

Date of this Notice: June 9, 2026

I. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Page Limit: Please note, schedule submissions, cover page, table of contents, figures, tabs, figures, charts, and graphs DO NOT count towards any listed page limit.

2. Section M.1 – Evaluation of Offerors and Basis for Award: Remains the same except for the addition of Federal Facility to Evaluation of Factor 2 – Relevant Multidisciplinary Experience (Pass/Fail): 1(iii).

a. For consistency, Section M.1 – Evaluation of Offerors and Basis for Award is attached to this notice.

Thank you for your continued interest.

Section M – Evaluation of Offerors and Basis for Award #1333ND26QNB190168 GC IDIQ

Section M.1 – Evaluation of Offerors and Basis for Award

Evaluation of Offerors The Government will individually evaluate Offerors based on technical (non-price) factors and price.

Price Proposals will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness determination, but not scored.

Technical Proposals will be evaluated with respect to the following technical (non-price) factors.

Prospective offerors will be evaluated based on technical (non-price) factors and price for the type of professional services required. Price Proposals will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness determination, but not scored. Technical proposals will be evaluated with respect to the following technical (non-price) factors below. Awards will be made to offerors that are determined to be the most highly qualified and provide the best value to the Government.

Evaluation Factor 1 followed by Evaluation Factor 2 is of most importance and is a pass/fail criteria factor. Offerors who fail to meet the minimum requirements for Factor 1 and Factor 2 shall not be evaluated any further and will not be considered for award. All other Evaluation Factors criteria are listed in the chart below in descending order of importance and how they will be rated:

FACTOR- ORDER OF IMPORTANCE RATED

Factor 1 – Bonding Pass/Fail Factor 2 – Relevant Multidisciplinary Experience Pass/Fail Factor 3 – Technical Approach Adjectival (Section E – Table 1) Factor 4 – Offerors Past Performance Adjectival (Section E – Table 2) Factor 5 – Experience Modification Rating (EMR) Adjectival (Section E – Table 3)

After all Offerors have been evaluated, the Government will perform a price/technical tradeoff analysis. All Technical (non-price) Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. As the difference in technical factor ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinctive, the difference in price may become the discriminating factor in determining the most advantageous proposal.

To be considered for award, an Offeror must be determined responsible. In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1.

Offerors are reminded that pages exceeding the stated limits in Section L.1 – Instructions to Offerors will not be evaluated by the Government.

Evaluation of Technical Proposals Technical factors shall be evaluated and scored using the following rating methodology:

EVALUATION OF MANDATORY PASS/FAIL FACTORS

Factor 1 and Factor 2 is a Pass/Fail factor. Offerors who fail to meet the minimum requirements for Factor 1 and Factor 2 shall not be evaluated any further and will not be considered for award.

Evaluation of Factor 1 – Bonding (Pass/Fail):

The Government will initially evaluate Factor 1 by reviewing submissions and assigning a rating of either “PASS” or “FAIL”. An Offeror that receives a rating of “FAIL” will not be evaluated any further and will not be considered for award. To receive a rating of “PASS”, an Offeror must meet the following:

1. A notarized statement or letter from their Surety indicating:

a. Per contract bonding capacity greater than or equal $3,000,000.00; and,

b. Aggregate bonding capacity greater than or equal to $10,000,000.00.

2. Surety must be certified by the U.S. Department of Treasury and licensed to operate in the state of Maryland.

3. Statement of an original document with a raised seal or embossed stamp.

4. A Power of Attorney form must be attached.

Evaluation of Factor 2 – Relevant Multidisciplinary Experience (Pass/Fail):

For all Offerors who have received a rating of “PASS” from Factor 1, the Government will then evaluate Factor 2 for all remaining Offerors and assign a rating of either “PASS” or “FAIL”. An Offeror that receives a rating of “FAIL” will not be evaluated any further and will not be considered for award. To receive a rating of “PASS”, an Offeror’s multidisciplinary experience must provide and meet the following:

1. Provide at least three project (3) examples, but not more than five (5) that must have been completed within the past 72 months from the RFP issuance date demonstrating:

a. Completed Construction

b. Operational (occupied facility)

c. One or more of the following facilities:

i. Commercial Facility

ii. Industrial Facility

iii. Government Laboratory or Federal Facility

iv. Hospital

2. A narrative describing their experience with:

a. Planning

b. Organizing

c. Executing the project to ensure completion of work and allowed sustainment of building occupancy during construction

d. Construction Sequencing

e. Work Control

f. Quality Assurance

g. Inspecting/Testing Protocols

3. Project value of at least $200,000.00 or higher at time of award

4. Construction involved fit-out that must include at least five (5) of the six (6) following elements:

a. Modification to HVAC system

b. Piping installation and/or modifications

c. Electrical wiring devices and/or raceways

d. New partition walls or modifications to existing

e. Interior flooring and ceiling work

f. New finishes and/or modifications (i.e., painting)

EVALUATION OF ADJECTIVALLY RATED FACTORS

The Government will only evaluate Factors 3, 4, and 5, for Offerors who have received a passing rating for Factor 1 and Factor 2. Factors 3, 4, and 5 will be evaluated and scored adjectivally in accordance with Section E- Adjectival Rating of this document using the following rating methodology:

Evaluation of Factor 3 – Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s submitted technical approach to planning, organizing, and executing the SEED Project- Task Order 001 using an ADJECTIVAL RATING.

The Government will rate an Offeror more favorably who presents a comprehensive, detailed, and logical technical approach that clearly and concisely addresses their approach to planning, organizing, and executing the SEED project and whose narrative:

1. Includes the method for:

a. Construction sequencing,

b. Work control,

c. Meeting specific critical schedule milestones,

d. Purchasing materials,

e. Quality assurance,

f. Inspection/testing protocols (included in both drawings and specification sets).

2. Describe the specific control measures for sustaining critical operation throughout each phase of construction with minimal downtown.

Evaluation of Factor 4 – Offerors Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate the past performance of an Offeror by reviewing past performance information on relevant projects using an ADJECTIVAL RATING. The Government will review an Offeror’s following submissions:

1. CPARS reports on projects completed by the Federal Government, and;

2. Customer completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) for projects where no

CPARS is available.

Projects that have a difference in contract value between award and completion will be rated less favorably. If an explanation for the difference is provided, then a rating to not be less favorable will be considered.

Offerors who provide the following will be reviewed more favorably:

1. At least two (2) projects that have a contract value of $1,500,000 or greater.

2. At least two (2) projects that have been completed at a federal facility.

3. Projects that demonstrate all six (6) of the fit-out elements.

If an Offeror submits incomplete past performance or fails to submit any past performance information, the Government may evaluate relevant past performance based on information obtained utilizing the following resources for evaluation:

1. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies,

2. Interviews within NIST if Offeror holds/held previous contracts,

3. Interviews with program managers and Contracting Officers, and;

4. Other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

In the case of an Offeror without a CPARs record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Government shall rate them as “NEUTRAL”. A rating of “NEUTRAL” will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Evaluation of Factor 5 – Experience Modification Rating (EMR):

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s Experience Modification Rate (EMR) using an ADJECTIVAL RATING by reviewing an Offeror’s following submission:

1. Offeror shall submit a letter from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) or its calculating State Agency verifying the Offerors’ EMR for the last rating period only.

2. The Offeror’s rating shall be at least an EMR of 1.0 or less. If the EMR is above 1.00, the Offeror’s proposal will be rated less favorably.

3. In the event that the Offeror is ineligible for an EMR, the Offeror shall provide a signed letter from their insurance company dated within 90 days of the RFP. The letter must be signed by an authorized individual from the insurance firm on letterhead company letterhead.

If an Offeror is ineligible for an EMR, the Government shall rate them as “NEUTRAL” for this factor. A rating of “NEUTRAL” will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Evaluation of Price Proposals Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Offeror’s cost breakdown for the SEED project shall be evaluated to determine price reasonableness but shall not be scored. The Government may evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal by comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items; and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

Offerors price proposals will be used for price comparison and Best Value Trade-off decisions.

Basis for Award The Government intends to award multiple Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsive, responsible Offerors whose offer conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering all price and non-price technical factors described herein.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. The Government reserves the right to seek proposal clarifications and hold communications as described in FAR 15.306(b)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal shall contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

TABLE 1 - FACTOR 3 Technical Approach:

Adjectival Rating Description

Excellent (Blue)

The proposal demonstrates a superior understanding of the requirements, exceeding all minimum requirements. It includes strengths that will significantly benefit the

Government. No weaknesses or deficiencies identified. High probability of success.

Good

(Green) The proposal demonstrates a considerable understanding of the requirements, and the approach includes strengths that will benefit the Government. Any identified weakness has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. There is above average probability of success Acceptable (Yellow)

The proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets the Governments’ requirements. The submission has no deficiencies but may include some weakness that can potentially cause disruption of schedules or degradation of performance. With corrections, the submission has an average probability of success.

Marginal (Orange)

The submission demonstrates a marginal understanding of the requirements, and fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements. There is a low probability of success.

Unacceptable (Red)

The submission fails to demonstrate a basic understanding of the requirements and/or the approach fails to meet the requirements. There is no probability of success.

TABLE 2 – Factor 4 Offerors Past Performance

Rating Symbol Definition

Neutral N No past performance available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding O Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good G The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance.

Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable A The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory U The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the delivery order.

TABLE 3 – Factor 5 Experience Modification Rating (EMR)

ACCEPTABLE (A) The proposal meets the stated requirements and is considered complete in terms of providing the requested information to support the Government evaluation.

NEAUTRAL (N) The proposal neither meets nor fails to meet the stated requirement due to ineligibility.

UNACCEPTABLE (U) The proposal either fails to meet the stated requirements, or the response is considered deficient in terms of providing the requested information to support the Government evaluation.