Amendment 1_RFP 15F06725R0000020_GMACC Phase I.pdf

Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity Regional Multiple Award Construction Contract Federal Bureau of Investigation Solicitation No. 15F06725R0000020 Request for Proposal - Phase I Amendment 1

Table of Contents

I. General Information A. The Program B. Delivery Method Goals and Objectives C. The Solicitation and Contract D. List of Phase I Solicitation Documents E. Authorized Representatives F. Estimated Pricing G. Questions Regarding Phase I H. Submission of Phase I Proposals

II. Contract Clauses

III. Phase I Instructions to Offerors & Evaluation Factors A. Proposal Content B. Proposal Format C. Requirements for Joint Venture Offerors D. Definitions E. Phase I Evaluation Factors

IV. Evaluation Ratings and Criteria A. Factor 1 – Proof of Bonding Capacity B. Factor 2 – Security Facility Clearance C. Factor 3 – Past Performance Qualifications D. Factor 4 – Key Personnel Qualifications E. Factor 5 – Team Organization and Program Management Approach F. Basis of Advancement to Phase II

V. Solicitation Provisions

I. General Information

A. The Program

Preliminary Scope of Work The purpose of this solicitation is to award multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for anticipated construction needs over the next five years. Named the Global Multiple Award Construction Contract (GMACC) program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an ongoing requirement for a wide range of construction including but not limited to general construction, new construction, real property demolition and repairs, retrofit/renovation of complete building systems, site work, site utilities, and roadways. The type of real property includes but is not limited to operations buildings, hangars, commercial buildings and their mechanical and electrical systems, administrative offices, training centers, data centers, and firing ranges. Project delivery methods include, but are not limited to, Design-Build (DB), Design-Bid-Build (DBB), and Progressive Design- Build (PDB). Due to the nature of these construction methods, a combination of General Contractor and Architectural/Engineering (A/E) services are expected over the life of the program. Performance location is categorized by region between the National Capital Region (Washington, D.C, Quantico, VA, and Clarksburg, WV); Redstone Arsenal, AL; other sites across the domestic United States; and/or foreign overseas locations as needed. Contractors are required to provide all labor, supervision, equipment, materials, and design services required to perform construction task orders resulting from the IDIQ. Inherent in providing these services, Contractors shall provide the supervision and management effort necessary for efficient, safe, and effective administration and control of work performed.

The total IDIQ ceiling across all contracts and all regions is $600 million. The individual task order limit is $18 million. Notwithstanding any use of the GMACC by other agencies, across all regions the FBI anticipates approximately 7 possible projects between $10M and $18M in individual value, and 42 possible projects between $750K to $9.99M in individual value.

Multiple Award IDIQ Contract Regional Pool Structure:

GMACC Region 1 will be a total small business set-aside with the primary areas of responsibility being the National Capital Region (NCR), which includes Washington, DC, Quantico, VA, and Clarksburg, WV.

GMACC Region 2 will be a total small business set-aside with the area of responsibility being Redstone Arsenal, AL.

Miscellaneous FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) projects across the continental US (CONUS) may be solicited to GMACC Region 1 and Region 2 contract holders.

GMACC Region 3 will be a full and open competition with the area of responsibility being legal attaché (LEGAT) requirements outside the United States (OUS).

The FBI anticipates a majority of projects over the course of the GMACC to be located in the

NCR. These requirements will primarily consist of Embassy/Consulate renovation, secure vault construction, maximum demolition, and work in Controlled Access Area (CAA) space.

The GMACC may be used by other customer agencies. Specifically, the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the U.S. Army may use the vehicle for future construction needs at Redstone Arsenal, AL. Other Department of Justice agencies may also use the GMACC for requirements at Redstone Arsenal, the National Capital Region, and/or overseas. The scope of other customer projects will match that described for the GMACC. The Government reserves the right to procure projects which otherwise match the scope of the GMACC via other means if deemed necessary and appropriate to the needs of a particular project.

Hereafter, “Offeror” is defined as the principals of the offering entity who will have primary management or supervisory responsibilities within the offering entity. If the Offeror is a newly formed business entity, established solely for pursuit of GMACC participation, then the Government will evaluate those corporations, LLCs, Partnerships, Joint Ventures, etc., which contribute managerial expertise for the newly formed Offeror. The Offeror is the entity contractually responsible for all aspects of development and completion of awarded GMACC task order projects and must be legally established.

B. Delivery Method Goals and Objectives

Task order projects to be awarded under the GMACC will be accomplished primarily using a delivery methods including Design-Build (DB), Design-Bid-Build (DBB), and possibly Progressive Design-Build (PDB), dependent on each task order project’s needs, scope, magnitude, and complexity. A successful project outcome will depend on the trust and collaboration between the project stakeholders: Tenants, consultants, and delivery team. The FBI’s commitment to excellence places a strong emphasis on design quality and construction functionality and aesthetics. GMACC awardees are expected to understand and be prepared to follow the principles of the Design-Build Institute of America’s (DBIA’s) Design-Build Done Right™ Best Practices.

A design-build Statement of Work, Division One Specification, and Program of Requirements (POR) will serve as the technical basis for any Design-Build task order.

C. The Solicitation and Contract

This solicitation describes the methodology to be used in the evaluation of Phase I proposals and provides instructions for the submission of the Phase I proposals. Instructions for submission of Phase II proposals and method of evaluation will be provided in the Phase II solicitation.

This is a two-phased Best Value Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff process. Qualifications will be evaluated in Phase I to determine which offerors are most highly qualified to submit price and technical proposals for Phase II.

Evaluation of Phase II proposals shall result in a multiple award IDIQ to establish three pools of contract holders: “Region 1 (NCR),” “Region 2 (Redstone Arsenal),” and “Region 3

(OUS).”

All responsible sources may submit a Phase I proposal. In Phase I, seven (7) to twelve (12) offerors per region will be advised to continue into Phase II based on their qualifications including past performance, key personnel & team organization, and organization & management plans.

Only the firms which receive the highest confidence ratings across Factors 3-5 in Phase I will be encouraged to continue and submit a proposal in response to the Phase II RFP. The FBI seeks only the most highly qualified firms as business partners for the life of this program.

The Phase II evaluation will be conducted using the methodology in FAR 15.3, Source Selection. A best value-tradeoff source selection in Phase II will include Price as a factor.

Evaluation of Phase II proposals will result in multiple IDIQ contract awards to the five (5) to seven (7) best-value offers per region, and one Task Order Award to the single best value offeror overall. If a real-life seed task order project is not available at the time of Phase II Solicitation, then a mock task order will be used as a measure of competition.

D. List of Phase I Solicitation Documents

The Phase I Solicitation is comprised of:

Request for Proposal (RFP) Document - Solicitation No. 15F06725R0000020 RFP Attachment 1 - Request for Information (RFI) Form RFP Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) RFP Attachment 3 - Resume Template RFP Attachment 4 - Phase II RFP Information

E. Authorized Representatives

The following individuals are designated as the authorized FBI representatives under this Solicitation:

1. Contracting Officer

Name: Amanda Mobley Email: almobley@fbi.gov

2. Contracting Officer Name: Eric Thomas Email: ejthomas3@fbi.gov

3. Contract Specialist

Name: Ezekiel Galyon Email: ecgalyon@fbi.gov

F. Estimated Pricing

The anticipated IDIQ ceiling amount is $600 million across all contract holders and all customer agencies. Minimum Guarantee funds in the amount of $1,000.00 will be obligated for each successful offeror upon contract award. This is with the exception of the successful Seed Task Order awardee, who will receive an obligation for the full firm-fixed-price amount of the Seed Task Order in lieu of the Minimum Guarantee.

Funds will be obligated on each individual task order. The anticipated individual task order limit is $18 million. The FBI projects 7 possible task orders between $10M and $18M, and 42 possible task orders between $750k to $9.99M. The number of other agency task orders is unknown and not guaranteed. Task orders with other agencies will be subject to the same $18 million limit.

G. Questions Regarding Phase I

Questions regarding the Phase I submission may be submitted via email to the Contracting Officers Amanda Mobley (almobley@fbi.gov), Eric Thomas (ejthomas3@fbi.gov), and Contract Specialist Ezekiel Galyon (ecgalyon@fbi.gov) on or before May 22, 2025. Any responses provided by the FBI will be posted on SAM.gov as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

H. Submission of Phase I Proposals

1. In order to be considered for Phase II and award, Phase I qualifications proposals conforming to the requirements of this Solicitation must be received by 3:00 pm Central Time on June 24, 2025, via email to the Authorized Representatives listed above.

2. All submissions must clearly indicate the solicitation number with the subject line

“Submission for GMACC RFP #15F06725R0000020 Phase I – (company name)”

3. E mail is the only acceptable means of submission. Offers sent by United States mail, commercial package delivery, hand delivery or facsimile will not be accepted.

II. Contract Clauses

To be issued with RFP Phase II.

III. Phase I Proposals

A. Proposal Content

Phase I proposals shall consist of the following volumes, completed in accordance with the instructions in this solicitation. Phase I proposals have a maximum of 40 pages total, except for the volumes specified below as “not included in page count.” Offerors are encouraged to make their proposals only as voluminous as is necessary to respond to the preparation instructions set forth in the solicitation. Pages in excess of page count requirements will not be reviewed or evaluated.

1. Cover Letter (1 page; Not included in page count)

a. Specify the GMACC region or regions (1, 2, and/or 3) for which your firm is competing.

b. Identify business size and any small business socioeconomic categories, if applicable.

c. Provide System for Award Management (SAM) UEID and CAGE code.

d. Provide Physical Address of entity location responsible for administration or management of this program.

2. Factor 1 – Proof of Bonding Capacity (Not included in page count)

3. Factor 2 – Facility Security Clearance (Region 3 offerors only; Not included in page count)

4. Factor 3 – Past Performance Qualifications

5. Factor 4 – Key Personnel Qualifications (2 pages maximum per resume)

6. Factor 5 – Team Organization & Program Management Approach

B. Proposal Format

Proposals must meet all of the following criteria to be considered responsive:

1. The submission must contain all the necessary information to address the evaluation factors as set forth in the solicitation including evidence of bonding capacity, and for Region 3, evidence of a Top Secret Facility Clearance (TS-FCL) as authorized by Defense and Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA).

2. Each Offeror shall submit a proposal electronically via email in a format readable by Adobe Acrobat Pro 2020 and the latest version of Microsoft (MS) Office suite applications and not password protected. Only one (1) proposal shall be submitted per Offeror in response to this solicitation, regardless of the number of regions the Offeror is competing for. Proposals received after the due date/time specified in the RFP will not be evaluated.

3. Proposal text shall be single-spaced, submitted on 8 ½ x 11 sheets with a minimum one-inch margin on the top, bottom and both sides with the header and footer one half inch from the edge. Font shall be Times New Roman and no less than 11-point.

Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size, no less than 8-point. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume with the Offeror’s name and RFP number in the header or the footer. Each paragraph shall be numbered, single spaced and separated by at least one blank line.

4. Any changes made through proposal revisions should be in a font of a different color and have each page with changes clearly marked to include the date of the change.

5. The page limits prescribed are maximums. Pages submitted in excess of these limits will be removed from the back of the proposal, not read or evaluated by the Government.

C. Requirements for Joint Venture Offerors

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 of 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.

3. Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture. This information may be included as an addendum to the cover letter, and will not be counted against the 40 page total maximum.

D. Definitions

1. Definition of Project of Relevant Scope, Size and Complexity

To be rated with high confidence, Offerors must demonstrate successful projects of a variety of sizes, scope, and complexity, must demonstrate a combination of successfully accomplishing new construction and repair/renovation/retrofit, and must demonstrate successful performance history utilizing multiple delivery methods including Design Bid Build, Design-Build, or Progressive Design Build.

Projects used for demonstration examples must have been started and completed within 10 years of the date of this solicitation. Projects will be considered more relevant if they exhibit some or all of the following characteristics:

● Site development/civil work

● Delivery methods consisting of either Design Bid Build, Design-Build, or

Progressive Design Build

● Both New Construction, and Renovation of Existing Occupied Facilities

● Facility types including but not limited to: Class A office space, conference spaces, classrooms, amenities, gym/workout/physical training, laboratory, firing ranges (including design), specialty storage, cafeteria, dormitory, secured spaces, and support spaces

● Federal Government Facilities

● Data Centers

● Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing System Upgrades

● Variety of project sizes, including both small and large

● Region 3 OUS only: Overseas work, Embassy/Consulate renovation, secure vault construction, maximum demolition, and work in Controlled Access Area (CAA) space

● LEED certification (higher certifications are more favorable)

● High performance and sustainable facility requirements

● Federal Facility Standards (i.e., PBS P100)

● Experience working within a 150-mile radius of Washington, D.C., Quantico, VA, Clarksburg, WV, and/or Redstone Arsenal, AL, and/or Pocatello, ID.

2. Definition of a Project of Similar Design

The design of a project of similar size, scope and complexity is as described in section V.B.1 above.

3. Definition of a Project of Design-Build Similarity

Design-Build means combining integrated project design and construction services in a single contract. The prime contractor could be a single entity, including a Joint Venture, consisting of a General Contractor and A/E.

E. Phase I Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Phase I qualifications proposal using the evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. The evaluation factors for Phase I, listed in descending order of importance, are outlined as follows:

Table 1 - Phase I Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factor Type of Evaluation Relative Importance Factor 1: Proof of Bonding Capacity Pass/Fail N/A Factor 2: Facility Security Clearance (OUS Region 3 Only)

Pass/Fail N/A

Factor 3: Past Performance Qualifications Confidence Rating Equal Importance Factors 3-5 Factor 4: Key Personnel Qualifications Confidence Rating Equal Importance Factors 3-5

Factor 5: Team Organization & Program Management Approach

Confidence Rating Equal Importance Factors 3-5

1. FACTOR 1 – Proof of Bonding Capacity

Factor 1 Submission Requirements Firms shall submit a signed and stamped letter from their Bonding Company certifying capability of fulfilling the bonding capacity of at least $4 million for single projects, and $25 million aggregate.

The Factor 1 submission will not be counted against the 40-page maximum.

2. FACTOR 2 – Facility Security Clearance (REGION 3 ONLY)

Factor 2 Submission Requirements The Offeror shall provide verification or evidence of an active DCSA Facility Clearance (FCL), at the “Top Secret” level. Appropriate verification or evidence of an Offeror’s FCL shall consist of a printout from the National Industrial Security System (NISS) in Adobe PDF format. The Government will not accept interim facilities clearances.

The Factor 2 submission will not be counted against the 40-page maximum.

3. FACTOR 3 – Past Performance Qualifications

Factor 3 Submission Requirements The following must be provided for evaluation under this factor:

Offerors shall provide a minimum of (3) and no more than five (5) recent and relevant facilities, started and completed within the last 10 years (from date of solicitation issuance), where they have performed as a prime contractor for projects varying in size, scope (relevant scope listed above), and complexity. Projects for government offices, training facilities, classified facilities, indoor and outdoor firing ranges, as well as Operation Centers and IT requirements will be considered more relevant. Completed projects within a 150-mile radius of NCR, Clarksburg, WV, or Redstone Arsenal, AL, or Pocatello, ID will be considered more relevant. Reference checks demonstrating good working relationships between Designer and Builder as well as Builder and Sub-consultants on DB and PDB projects will be evaluated more favorably. Past Performance demonstrating timely and satisfactory work performance, a record of outstanding performance and positive references; as well as strong working relationships with key trade partners will be evaluated more favorably. Failure to provide two (2) design-build projects will be evaluated less favorably. Offerors are advised that the Government may consider and evaluate any other past performance data obtained from other sources and use the obtained information in the evaluation and rating of the Offeror’s past performance.

For each project, submit the following data/information:

Project title;

Location of project;

Services provided by the firm (design/build, design only, construction only);

The Offeror’s level of authority on the project (prime contractor, joint venture partner, major subcontractor, etc.);

Total dollar value of the project (awarded price and final contract price);

Dollar value of the Offeror’s effort on the project;

Type of contract (e.g. firm fixed price, cost reimbursable, incentive fee, award fee, time and materials, etc.);

Dates of contract start and completion (planned vs actual);

Project facts including type of facility, features, tenant mission and population, square footage, security level, LEED certification, etc.;

A scope narrative explaining how the characteristics of the submitted project relate to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation;

Name, title, address, phone number and email address of the customer contact and building owner who can attest to the quality of the work provided. (It is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure the information submitted is current and accurate).

Past performance shall demonstrate present/past performance on projects of similar size, scope, cost, and complexity through the Offeror’s proposal narrative and submission of RFP Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire.

Each Offeror shall instruct the reference to complete Attachment 2 and send the completed PPQ via e-mail to Ezekiel Galyon, Contract Specialist (ecgalyon@fbi.gov), Eric Thomas, Contracting Officer (ejthomas3@fbi.gov), and Amanda Mobley, Contracting Officer (almobley@fbi.gov).

4. FACTOR 4 – Key Personnel Qualifications

Factor 4 Submission Requirements The Offeror shall submit Key Personnel Resumes in accordance with the Government-provided Resume Template (RFP Attachment 3). The Offeror’s qualifications proposal shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the program requirements. Key Personnel resumes shall clearly demonstrate experience of key team leadership members successfully performing on programs or projects similar to those described in this solicitation. Key Personnel with licenses, registrations & credentials such as DBIA, PMI, RA, PE, and LEED will be evaluated more favorably.

Qualifications of Minimum Key Personnel – Provide a resume with relevant project experience at least one of each of the following key personnel. Additional Key Personnel positions may be submitted at the discretion of the Offeror, but all Key Personnel positions submitted must meet solicitation requirements.

Program Executive Project Executive Project Manager Design Manager Construction Manager Quality Control Manager Safety Manager

One (1) personal reference should be provided for each of the Key Personnel. The Government may contact the references to determine the relevance and quality of the key personnel’s project experience. Key personnel should have at least ten (10) years of relevant experience. The resumes submitted shall include all information in Attachment 3, Resume Template. Each resume shall not exceed 2 pages. Pages in excess of page count requirements will not be reviewed or evaluated.

5. FACTOR 5 – Team Organization & Program Management Approach

Factor 5 Submission Requirements

Team Organization. The Offeror shall provide Organization Chart(s) identifying how the Offeror will organize its team and staff the leadership team during the program.

Identify the General Contractor, Designer, and Key Trade Partners the Offeror will work with on individual projects. The chart(s) should identify the title of key positions in the organization with the name of personnel proposed to fill those positions, for positions at the GMACC program level. The identification of specific project managers, site supervisors, and similar positions at the project level is not necessary for the purpose of Phase I Factor 5. At a minimum, the chart(s) shall address key GMACC program leadership personnel required for evaluation under this factor. The reporting relationships between these functions and the company’s senior management shall also be defined.

Different Organization Charts may be submitted by the same Offeror for different delivery methods, such as Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build.

Note: Offerors submitting a proposal in response to the Phase II Solicitation will be required to submit specific key personnel for evaluation of its design and construction field leadership team personnel.

Program Management Approach. The Offeror shall provide a narrative explaining how the various team members will work together and the methodology and processes that will be used to manage the program. It should define the roles, responsibilities and authority delegated to the incumbent of each position and discuss how work flows through the organization to effectively integrate the team to successfully deliver projects under this program. This should describe how the Offeror intends to communicate with the Government during task order solicitation/proposal, as well as lines of communication during task order performance.

IV. Evaluation Ratings and Criteria

A. FACTOR 1 – Proof of Bonding Capacity

Factor 1 Rating Methodology & Evaluation Criteria Individual Project Bonding Capacity Minimum Requirement: $4 million. This assesses the Offeror’s ability to provide an offer guarantee and performance and payment bonds sufficient to cover the 2/3 of the maximum task order amount.

Aggregate Bonding Capacity Requirement: $25 million. This assesses the Offeror’s ability to perform multiple projects concurrently.

Bonding Capacity will be evaluated on a “Pass/Fail” basis. Offerors shall submit the bonding requirement and receive a “Pass” rating to be eligible for further evaluation. Both bonding capacity requirements must be met to achieve a Pass rating. If an Offeror receives a “Fail” rating for the Factor, they will not be evaluated further.

Each Offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings based on comparison of the Offeror’s proposal to the above Factor submission requirements:

Factor 1: Proof of Bonding Capacity Pass The Offeror’s ability to provide an offer guarantee and performance and payment bonds sufficient to cover a program of this magnitude.

Fail Proposal does not clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to provide an offer guarantee and performance and payment bonds sufficient to cover a program of this magnitude.

B. FACTOR 2 – Security Facility Clearance (REGION 3 ONLY)

Factor 2 Rating Methodology & Evaluation Criteria If the Offeror fails to provide all required items for this Volume, or does not have the appropriate FCL, their proposal will not be considered for further evaluation.

Each Offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings based on comparison of the Offeror’s proposal to the above Factor submission requirements:

Factor 2: Security Facility Clearance

Pass The Offeror provided verification or evidence of an active DCSA FCL, at the “Top Secret” level in the form of a printout from the NISS in Adobe PDF format.

Fail The Offeror did not provide verification or evidence of an active DCSA FCL, at the “Top Secret” level in the form of a printout from the NISS in Adobe PDF format.

C. FACTOR 3 – Past Performance Qualifications

Factor 3 Evaluation Standard This standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates a history of successful past performance on relevant projects.

The evaluation will include: an assessment of the overall quality of past performance; record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; creative problem solving, the adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the responsiveness of management; the history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; the business-like concern for the interest of the customer and; the firm’s overall performance on their contracts.

The Government will consider the Offeror’s proposal narrative, information presented on the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) to be provided by references, or CPARS, and may consider other available information relevant to the Offeror’s past performance.

In addition to the information in the Offeror’s proposal itself, the Government may consider information obtained through interviews with the Offeror’s customers and/or the building’s owner or a representative of the owner. The Government may consider the past performance of managers, key personnel or other affiliates playing a significant role in contract performance.

In addition to any information contained in or referred to in the Offeror’s proposal, the Government may consider the past performance of the Offeror or its team members on any other projects performed within the past ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation of which the Government has knowledge. The Government has no obligation to ensure that an equal number of references are obtained for each Offeror.

An Offeror who has no record of past performance will receive a neutral rating.

If the FBI receives negative past performance information, the Offeror may be given an opportunity to respond.

Evaluation of Past Performance will result in assignment of one the following confidence ratings to each offeror:

PAST PERFORMANCE

CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING

High Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, very little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

No Past Performance History In those cases where there is no relevant information, the Offeror’s lack of past performance will be treated as an unknown performance risk, having no positive or negative evaluative significance. Firms without relevant performance history must be neither rewarded nor penalized and a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned.

Factor 3 Rating Methodology & Evaluation Criteria The Government will use the below criteria for Relevancy to establish Confidence Ratings in the evaluation of each Offeror’s Phase I qualifications proposal.

1. Definition of Project of Relevant Scope, Size and Complexity

To be rated with high confidence, Offerors must demonstrate successful projects of a variety of sizes, scope, and complexity, must demonstrate a combination of successfully accomplishing new construction and repair/renovation/retrofit, and must demonstrate successful performance history utilizing multiple delivery methods including Design Bid Build, Design-Build, or Progressive Design Build.

Projects used for demonstration examples must have been started and completed within 10 years of the date of this solicitation. Projects will be considered more relevant if they exhibit some or all of the following characteristics:

(Listed in no particular order of preference)

● Site development/civil work

● Delivery methods consisting of either Design Bid Build, Design-Build, or

Progressive Design Build

● Both New Construction, and Renovation of Existing Occupied Facilities

● Facility types including but not limited to: Class A office space, conference spaces, classrooms, amenities, gym/workout/physical training, laboratory, firing ranges (including design), specialty storage, cafeteria, dormitory, secured spaces, and support spaces

● Federal Government Facilities

● Data Centers

● Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing System Upgrades

● Variety of project sizes, including both small and large

● Region 3 OUS only: Overseas work, Embassy/Consulate renovation, secure vault construction, maximum demolition, and work in Controlled Access Area (CAA) space

● LEED certification (higher certifications are more favorable)

● High performance and sustainable facility requirements

● Federal Facility Standards (i.e., PBS P100)

● Experience working within a 150-mile radius of Washington, D.C., Quantico, VA, Clarksburg, WV, Redstone Arsenal, AL, and/or Pocatello, ID.

2. Definition of a Project of Similar Design

The design of a project of similar size, scope and complexity is as described in paragraph V.B.1 above.

3. Definition of a Project of Design-Build Similarity

Design-Build means combining integrated project design and construction services in a single contract. The prime contractor could be a single entity, including a Joint Venture, consisting of a General Contractor and A/E.

There are three levels of relevancy as shown below, which will be determined based on comparison of the Offeror’s proposal to the above criteria for relevancy.

PAST PERFORMANCE

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

D. FACTOR 4 – Key Personnel Qualifications

Factor 4 Rating Methodology & Evaluation Criteria This factor considers the Offeror’s Key Personnel Resumes. The Offeror’s proposed team members will be evaluated as to their qualifications and experience necessary to effectively perform the required work anticipated under this program.

This standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates a project team that is staffed with key personnel experienced on projects of similar size, scope and complexity who are qualified to execute on this program. Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

Higher quantity of similar program/project experience Higher quality of program/project experience more relevant to this solicitation.

Evidence of prior program/project experience common with one or more of the proposed key personnel and/or team member firms (joint experience).

Evaluation of Key Personnel will result in assignment of one the following confidence ratings to each offeror:

KEY PERSONNEL

CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING

High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s proposal, very little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s proposal, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s proposal, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

E. FACTOR 5 – Team Organization and Program Management Approach

Factor 5 Rating Methodology & Evaluation Criteria

This factor will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the program by examining its proposed management approach, organization chart, and narrative description of its approach to executing projects on a program comparable to this scope, magnitude, and complexity.

This standard is met when the team organization and program management approach is structured to facilitate effective and efficient project integration of design and construction activities to provide high-quality projects that achieves all the Government’s technical and administrative requirements.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the program by examining the Offeror’s organization chart and how its organization structure supports the Program Management Approach. The Government will assess how the various team members will work together and the methodology and processes that will be used to manage the program.

It should define the roles, responsibilities and authority delegated to the incumbent of each position and discuss how work flows through the organization to effectively integrate the team to successfully deliver projects under this program.

Evaluation of Team Organization & Program Management Approach will result in assignment of one the following confidence ratings to each offeror:

TEAM ORGANIZATION & PROGRAM MANAGEMENT APPROACH

CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING

High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s proposal, very little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s proposal, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s proposal, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully deliver Government requirements under this program.

F. Basis of Advancement to Phase II

This is a two-phased Best Value Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff process. Offerors are encouraged to put forth their best effort in Phase I to allow the evaluation team to determine offerors’ performance capabilities.

Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal. Evaluation of the submitted proposals for Phase I will be conducted in accordance with the FAR and the Evaluation Factors described in this solicitation. The Contracting Officer, based on an integrated assessment of proposals and exercising prudent business judgment, intends to issue the Phase II Request for Proposal (RFP) to seven (7) to twelve (12) of the most highly qualified Offerors per region. Offerors not considered most highly qualified will be advised against participating in the Phase II RFP. The Government reserves the right to advise more or less offerors to move to Phase II.

After the Government completes the evaluation for Phase I, Offerors will receive an advisory notification via e-mail from the Contracting Officer. This notification will advise the Offerors of the Government’s advisory recommendation to proceed or not to proceed with Phase II submission. Offerors who are rated most highly for Phase I will be advised to proceed to Phase II of the proposal submission process. Offerors who were not among the most highly rated will be advised that they are unlikely to be viable competitors, along with the general basis for the Government’s advisory recommendation. The Government’s advice will be a recommendation only, and those Offerors who are advised not to proceed may elect to continue their participation in the procurement. The intent of this advice is to minimize proposal development costs for those Offerors unlikely to receive an award. Offerors should note that Phase I evaluation factors will be considered and incorporated as part of the Phase II evaluation.

Failure to participate in Phase I of the procurement precludes further consideration. Phase II submissions will not be accepted from Offerors who have not submitted responsive Phase I proposals by the due date and time stated in this solicitation. For those Offerors that are rated most highly and advised to proceed to Phase II of the proposal submission process, the Contracting Officer will include the Phase II submission instructions with the advisory notification. The Government recommends Offerors to begin preparation of Phase II proposals only after receipt of the Phase II advisory down-select notice.

The down-select notifications will include further information, but the Government anticipates allowing Offerors 48 - 72 hours to decide whether to participate in Phase II.

V. Solicitation Provisions

To be issued with RFP Phase II.