B09_PreBid_Presentation_0001.pdf

Pre-Proposal Site Visit

Repair and Rehabilitation George Washington Carver Museum

Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site

FP

Solicitation: 140P2023R0029

NPS PMIS #: TUIN 231534

THIS MEETING WILL BE RECORDED

January 18, 2023 E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

LOCATION

SITE LOCATION REFERENCE

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

AGENDA AND

INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL

AGENDA

• INTRODUCTIONS

• Attendees List will be included in an Amendment

• Please ensure you sign in

• HOUSEKEEPING

• Two Parts: 1) Meeting and 2) Site Walkthrough

• Sign-In

• PART 1 – MEETING

• SOLICITATION OVERVIEW – DSC Contracting

CARVER MUSEUM SIGNIFICANCE AND PROJECT OVERVIEW – PARK

• PROJECT TECHNICAL OVERVIEW AND SCOPE REQUIREMENTS - DSC

• CONTRACTING: SOLICITATION INFORMATION AND CRITERIA - DSC

• PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE QUESTIONS

• CONCLUSION

• PART 2 – SITE WALK

• CARVER MUSEUM

• SITE ACCESS AND STAGING AREAS

• CONCLUSION

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

INTRODUCTIONS

• NPS DENVER SERVICE CENTER (DSC) - Project Team - based out of Denver

• Romorno Coney - Project Manager

• Rex Canady - Project Specialist

• Donna Prock - Contract Specialist

• Anne LaPorta - Contracting Officer

• NPS Park – TUIN

• Joy Kinard - Superintendent

• Andrew Callens – Facilities Manager

• Robyn Harris – Cultural Resources Specialist

• TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY

• HOUSKEEPING ITEMS

• Since March 2020, in keeping with CDC Guidelines, the Museum and site are temporarily closed. Access to the building for this site visit is during this meeting and site walk only. No other access will be granted during the solicitation phase.

• Masks are required for this meeting and the site walk in accordance with CDC guidelines.

• Breaks, restrooms, meeting place for Museum and outdoor site walk.

SOLICITATION NO.140P2023R0029

SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION AND AWARD INFORMATION - Refer to the

Solicitation for complete information.

• PRE-BID VIRTUAL MEETING and SITE WALK – January 18, 2023

• PRE PROPOSAL QUESTION CUTOFF DAY– January 23, 2023 5:00 PM MT

• OFFERS DUE – January 31, 2023 3:00 PM MT

• SECTION L – 52.216-1 – Type of Contract – Firm Fixed Price

• NAICS Code: 236220 - Small Business Size Standard: $39.5M

• THIS IS A COMPETIVE PROCUREMENT

• 365 calendar day period of performance from (estimated) Construction notice to proceed date of approximately April 1, 2023

• Notice of award (estimated) to be approximately March 1, 2023

SOLICITATION INFORMATION & CRITERIA

THE PARK

TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

CARVER MUSEUM SIGNIFICANCE AND PROJECT

OVERVIEW – PARK

• NPS Park – Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site (TUIN)

• National Park Service – Manages Site

• Site Overview and Natural Resources

• CARVER MUSEUM

• History

• Museum Significance

• Cultural Resources

• Visitors

• TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY

• Location on University Campus

• Relationship with Park and Museum

THE PROJECT

SCOPE OF WORK - OVERVIEW

This project will preserve the existing George Washington Carver Museum at Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, Tuskegee, AL. Completion of this work will provide a visitor experience that will meet NPS standards for safety, accessibility, and historic preservation of this National Historic Landmark building.

Drawings and Specifications are included with the solicitation issued December 20, 2022.

PROJECT TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

• SPECIFICATION HIGHLIGHTS

• 01 11 00 – 1 SUMMARY OF WORK

• 1.2.B - The Work consists of selective demolition and rehabilitation of the site, interior, and exterior of the George Washington Carver Museum building including upgrades to life safety, accessibility, masonry, structure, and systems.

• 1.2.C - Project will be constructed under a single prime contract.

• 1.3 - CONTRACTOR USE OF SITE (select subsections)

• Storage of Materials and Staging

• Parking

• Preservation of Natural Features

• Driveways and Entrances

SITE ACCESS, STAGING, AND PARKING

KEY TO MAP

1. _________

2. _________

3. _______

INSERT MAP

KEY SCOPE OF WORK REQUIREMENTS

The major Scope of Work items include:

• corrections to water infiltration due to poor drainage and deferred building maintenance, which may include site work;

• outdated lighting systems;

• improperly designed, outdated and ineffective HVAC system;

• a main floor structure and emergency egress paths that are not code compliant;

• brick pointing and foundation underpinning;

• window and door repairs, glazing and sealants;

KEY SCOPE OF WORK REQUIREMENTS

The major Scope of Work items include:

• HVAC equipment and ductwork replacement;

• reinforcing steel joist structure;

• energy/code upgrade to the electrical and lighting systems;

• roof truss repairs, including temporary shoring with approved work plan;

• moving and temporary storage of historic artifacts from the museum, required to complete the work, storage and preservation during the construction phase, and return/reinstall the artifacts to the building.

SITE SCOPE REVIEW – KEY ITEMS

KEY SCOPE ITEMS - DETAILS

Schedule

• Estimated one-year period of performance

• Contract Award

• Division One Submittals

• Preconstruction Conference

• Notice to Proceed

• Substantial Completion

• Final Inspection

• Closeout

• Warranty Period

SCHEDULE

• The House-Walker will provide architect/engineer (AE) Title 3 support services during the construction phase.

• A Construction Management Representative (CMR) will be assisting NPS in project oversite and will be on-site during the construction phase.

• The NPS/DSC Project website which will be managed by the CMR is to be determined; but it will not be the MSTeams share site that is being used for the Solicitation documents.

• Submittal list will be reviewed by CMR and AE prior to formal approval by NPS

• Preinstallation conferences typical contractor preinstallation conferences will be attended by the CMR and potentially the Park. Items that have closure restrictions will require Park signoff from the preinstallation conferences to ensure all Park, operations, and the University is properly notified prior to work commencement.

Project Oversite

CONTRACTING

SOLICITATION NO.140P2023R0029

SUMMARY OF SOLICITATION AND AWARD INFORMATION

• Refer to the Solicitation for complete information.

• This summary, the agenda, and information provided at this pre-bid conference is not a substitute for the Solicitation documents.

• Contractor is responsible for all requirements as stated in the solicitation as amended.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF OFFERS AND

OTHER INFORMATION – COMPETITIVE SOURCE SELECTION

1. This procurement is for a single, Firm-Fixed-Price contract to be issued to a small business based on the evaluation of responsive proposals as per the Solicitation posted to SAM.gov

2. Submit a proposal that conforms to the Solicitation documents. By submission of a proposal, the offeror unconditionally assents to the terms and conditions in this solicitation and in any solicitation attachments.

3. In accordance with FAR 36.209, all firms, prime contractors or subconsultants, involved in developing the design or specifications for this construction solicitation are not eligible and prohibited from receiving any part of this construction award. Proposals from or containing firms under these circumstances will not be considered for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will conduct a source selection using the Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process as defined in FAR Part 15.101-1. The Contracting Officer (CO) will obligate and award a contract to the offeror who submits a proposal the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to solicitation requirements; is fair and reasonable; and provides the best value to the government considering all evaluation factors combined as detailed below. For this acquisition, the CO is the SSA.

EVALUATION PROCESS

All proposal evaluations will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identifies of offerors and proposal contents will be revealed only to individuals involved in the evaluation process. No information will be revealed to other offerors.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process is as follows:

Initial Review: Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the solicitation to verify that all submission requirements are met; all certifications are complete, and the offeror is responsive and otherwise eligible to receive award of a Federal contract. If the proposal does not comply or lacks sufficient information to be meaningfully evaluated, it may be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Technical Evaluation: A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprised of Government personnel, will conduct a technical evaluation of proposals.

The TEP will review, evaluate, assess risk, and rate all acceptable proposals against the technical factors contained in this solicitation. The TEP will not have knowledge of any pricing until the technical evaluation is complete.

Past Performance Evaluation: The TEP and CO/SSA will also evaluate offerors’ past performance. The evaluation will assess the government’s confidence level for offers to successfully perform contract requirements based on survey responses, PPIRS data, and other pertinent, relevant information.

Consensus Rating:

Price Evaluation: Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the TEP and CO/SSA will review pricing as evaluated in Volume 2 below. The TEP will make an award recommendation to the CO/SSA.

Tradeoff Analysis: The CO/SSA will review the TEP’s award recommendation and independently perform a tradeoff analysis between each proposal’s

(1) demonstrated technical advantages, disadvantages, strengths, weaknesses; (2) past performance confidence assessment; and (3) proposed pricing.

Selection: The CO/SSA will select the proposal that provides the overall best value, considering all evaluation factors, to the Government for award.

The Government may elect to accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal merit the price differential.

EVALUATION PROCESS CONTINUED

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. EVALUATION OF ACCEPTABILITY. Non-Price Factors: Submittals in Volume I will not be rated. Submittals in Volume 1 will be evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-price factors.

2. EVALUATION OF PRICE. Proposed pricing is an evaluation factor. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest-evaluated price of proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

3. SPECIAL PROVISION 1: EVALUATION OF OPTIONS. Except when it is determined not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Best Value Analysis: The CO/SSA will review the TEP’s award recommendation and independently perform an analysis of acceptability of each proposal’s (i) technical submittal; and

(ii) proposed pricing.

Selection: The CO/SSA will select the proposal that provides the overall best value, considering all evaluation factors, to the Government for award. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest-evaluated price of proposal meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-price factors. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should 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.

TECHNICAL FACTORS

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

A. SUBFACTOR 1.a. – TECHNICAL APPROACH: Technical approaches that comply with applicable contract requirements; are realistic, appropriate, and efficient; and demonstrate clear logic and scope understanding present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Approaches not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

A. B. SUBFACTOR 1.b. - SCHEDULE: Construction schedules and narrative descriptions documenting: (1) a construction schedule that is realistic, appropriate, and efficient; (2) clear and efficient critical path and logical sequencing; (3) accounts for procurement lead-time, subcontractor/trade coordination, on-site storage and staging, resource and time constraints; and (4) demonstrates risk mitigation and successful completion within the required period of performance present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Schedules which do not demonstrate these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

TECHNICAL FACTORS

FACTOR 2 – PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE

Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

A. SUBFACTOR 2.a – PROJECT EXPERIENCE: Project experience demonstrating (1) capability as the prime contractor to successfully complete relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (2) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this solicitation; and (3) effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Those offerors not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

NOTE: The same projects evaluated for experience under this factor shall also be evaluated for Past Performance (Factor #4). Projects determined more relevant under this factor will be given more weight in the Past Performance evaluation.

B. SUBFACTOR 2.b. – KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE: Key Personnel experience demonstrating (1) capability in same or similar key personnel positions on successful relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (2) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this solicitation; and (3) effective problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Those not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

TECHNICAL FACTORS CONTINUED

FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND SAFETY

Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

A. SUBFACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH: Management approaches demonstrating (1) sound management practices and business processes; (2) effective cost and quality control; and (3) clear corporate and project team commitment, hierarchy and lines of communication, roles, responsibilities, and relationships present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Plans not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

FACTOR 4 - ARTIFACTS AND MUSEUM COLLECTION HANDLING: Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

A. SUBFACTOR 4.a - PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ARTIFACTS AND MUSEUM COLLECTIONS HANDLING:

Offeror or subcontractor experience may be listed to satisfy this subfactor (see NOTE below). Project experience demonstrating (1) appropriate professional certifications for artifacts and museum collections handling; (2) capability to successfully complete relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (3) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this portion of the work; and (4) effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and quality control, present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated.

Those offerors not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

NOTE: The same subcontractor listed for experience must be the same as the firm listed in the Key Trades form required to be submitted with the proposal and specified in the Special Requirement 3: Key Trades section in this Solicitation. NOTE: The same projects evaluated for project experience under this subfactor shall also be evaluated for Past Performance (Factor #6). Projects determined more relevant under this subfactor will be given more weight in the Past Performance evaluation.

FACTOR 4 - ARTIFACTS AND MUSEUM COLLECTION HANDLING:

B. SUBFACTOR 4.b – TECHNICAL APPROACH – ARTIFACTS AND MUSEUM COLLECTIONS HANDLING:

Technical approaches that comply with applicable contract requirements; are realistic, appropriate, and efficient; and demonstrate clear logic and scope understanding present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated.

Approaches not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

FACTOR 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE:

Past performance demonstrating higher levels of success and quality on recent and relevant projects similar in scope and magnitude to this solicitation present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Projects that are more relevant to the requirements of this solicitation will be given more weight in the overall past performance rating.

Experience ratings (subfactor #2.a) will be considered in determining relevancy for projects submitted under this factor. If an offeror has no past performance on similar work relevant to this solicitation, they will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

FACTOR 6 - PAST PERFORMANCE OF ARTIFACTS AND MUSEUM COLLECTIONS HANDLING

CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR:

Past performance demonstrating higher levels of success and quality on recent and relevant projects similar in scope and magnitude to this solicitation present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Projects that are more relevant to the requirements of this solicitation will be given more weight in the overall past performance rating.

Experience ratings (subfactor #4.a) will be considered in determining relevancy for projects submitted under this factor. If an offeror has no past performance on similar work relevant to this solicitation, they will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Past performance on contracts with the Federal Government, other public agencies, or private organizations will be considered. All submitted references may not be contacted. Sources other than submitted references may be contacted. During proposal evaluations, exchanges between the Government and offerors may occur to clarify the relevance of past performance information and/or address adverse past performance information which an offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond to.

VOLUME II, BUSINESS AND PRICE PROPOSAL – FORMAT, ORGANIZATION, CONTENTS

1. FORMAT: Submit (1) one electronic copy. No hard copies shall be submitted.

2. VOL 2: BUSINESS AND PRICE PROPOSAL:

a. Proposal Letter: Submit completed and signed SF1442 and proposal.

b. Contract Price Schedule. Submit completed Contract Price Schedule in accordance with the Bid Schedule

i. Reference Section H.11.9 of the MATOC. Offerors shall clearly show how they used their location multiplier applicable to the geographical location of the project to develop their task order pricing.

3. EVALUATION: Price will be evaluated inclusive of the bid options. A price evaluation will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price. Reasonableness will be determined considering other competitive prices received and comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

SOLICITATION INFORMATION & CRITERIA (Refer to the Solicitation for complete information).

VOLUME II, BUSINESS AND PRICE PROPOSAL – FORMAT, ORGANIZATION, CONTENTS

(continued)

Submittals in Volume II will not be rated.

REQUIRED SUBMISSIONS:

a. Standard Form (SF) 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, (Construction, Alteration, or Repair): The SF-1442 will be reviewed for completeness.

b. AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Amendment acknowledgements will be reviewed for timely and proper acknowledgement.

c. SECTION B PRICE SCHEDULE: Proposed pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness.

Reasonableness will be determined considering comparisons to competitive pricing and to the independent Government estimate (IGE). Proposed pricing that differs significantly from the competition or IGE will be reviewed to assess potential performance risk and the offeror’s understanding of contract requirements. If multiple contract line items are included in the price schedule, prices will be evaluated to determine whether any line items are unbalanced. Offerors are cautioned to distribute costs appropriately.

SOLICITATION INFORMATION & CRITERIA (Refer to the Solicitation for complete information).

PROJECT BID SCHEDULE

CONTRACT PRICE LIST (Refer to the Solicitation for complete information).

CONTRACT PRICE SCHEDULE

The Definition of Contract Line Items may be found at Specification Section

CONCLUSION AND QUESTIONS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE QUESTIONS

• Please state your name and company before you ask your question. the question will be repeated and responses provided for administrative-type questions. For all other questions, the CO requests that they be submitted in writing via email to both the CO, Ms. Anne LaPorta, and the CS, Mr. Michael Smith as follows:

anne_laporta@nps.gov donna_prock@contractor.nps.gov

• Responses to questions that may be stated during the pre-solicitation site visit do not change the Solicitation document.

• Changes to the Solicitation document shall only be made by written amendment posted as an amendment to the solicitation document. Offerors are required to fill out and sign the acknowledgment of amendments received (SF1442 Section 19) and include this when submitting our offer on the Form 1442.

• Questions and answers will be issued by written amendment posted as an amendment to the solicitation. Offerors are required to fill out and sign the acknowledgment of amendments received (SF1442 Section 19) and include this when submitting our offer on the Form 1442.

QUESTIONS AFTER PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

• Direct all questions the CO requests that they be submitted in writing via email to both the CO, Ms. Anne LaPorta, and the CS, Ms. Donna Prock as follows:

donna_prock@contractor.nps.gov anne_laporta@nps.gov

• Questions and answers will be issued by written amendment posted as an amendment to the solicitation. Offerors are required to fill out and sign the acknowledgment of amendments received (SF1442 Section 19) and include this when submitting our offer on the Form 1442.

• The DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS IS: January ##, 2023 at 3:00 PM MT

• This presentation and the recorded pre-proposal site visit meeting will be available by link to be provided by Amendment.

PART 2 OF THE SITE VISIT WILL START PROMPTLY AT 1:00 PM TODAY

Please arrive a few minutes early to sign-in for Part 2. Participants will meet at Tuskegee Institute NHS, 1212 W.

Montgomery Rd., Tuskegee, AL 36088 (this is the Administration Office, which is two building down from the entrance gate to Tuskegee University and where the George Washington Carver Museum is located). Participants will walk together to the Museum escorted by NPS Staff. Parking is available at Tuskegee University.

Thank You For Your Interest in This Project

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A