A01_DRAFT ONLY Phase 2 Pre-Qualified Contractors Teams Submission and Short-List.docx

19AQMM20R0047

Department of State 2020 Design-Build Construction Contract For Adana New Consulate Compound (NCC)

DRAFT ONLY

Phase 2: Pre-Qualified Contractors Teams Submission and Short-List

Please Note this submission requirements and evaluation criteria for Phase 2 is ONLY a DRAFT. This Phase 2 draft does NOT replace the requirements in the Phase 1 Pre-Qualification announcement. The intention of providing the draft Phase 2 requirements and evaluation criteria is for the Government to solicit and consider contracting community feedback for future solicitation criteria.

The final Phase 2 submission requirements and evaluation criteria will be released/posted after Phase 1 has been completed.

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Adana, Turkey NCC

SECRET FACILITY AND PERSONNEL SECURITY CLEARANCES ARE REQUIRED

Property Description: The NCC property is located centrally in the Yuregin business district of the Adana Municipality. The “L” shaped property has a total size of approximately 13.5 acres. The property fronts four (4) existing streets, and is adjacent to a small municipal park, and a high-rise residential campus. The site, formally occupied by a textile factory, is vacant and level.

Project Scope: This project includes the design and construction of a New Office Building, Support Annex, Compound Access Pavilions (including Main, Housing, Consular, and Service), Mail Screening Facility, Utility Building, Bathhouse/Cabana, and Housing (Marine Security Guard Quarters, Consul General Residence, and 5 Staff Housing apartments). The total building program is approximately 14,432 GSM. Non-Building program includes perimeter fencing, a swimming pool, and parking.

The project will be designed in accordance with The International Building Codes/OBO Codes and Standards that also include meeting or exceeding local Turkish codes and requirements. The contractor will be responsible for design and construction, as well as obtaining all building and construction permits for the project. This includes obtaining Diplomatic Security design certification and project accreditation.

Estimated design-build construction cost: $160-195 million

Estimated period of performance for the design-build contract from the issuance of the Notice-to-Proceed – Design through project substantial completion is 60 months

Phase 2: Pre-Qualified Contractors Team Submission and Short-List

Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria (DRAFT)

Phase 2 submission shall be submitted using the following organizational structure:

a. Section 1 – COVER LETTER. Provide a cover letter consisting of no more than one (1) single sided page on Letterhead referencing the announcement posted on beta.sam.gov, identifying the Design-Build Team, and identifying the offeror’s point of contact, address, phone/fax numbers, and email address.

b. Section 2 –EVALUATION FACTOR 1: Lead Designer

c. Section 3 –EVALUATION FACTOR 2: Constructor

d. Section 4 –EVALUATION FACTOR 3: Management and Approach to Design-Build

I. Phase 2 TECHNICAL EVALUTION FACTORS: Proposals must address all of the Phase 2 Technical Evaluation Factors stated herein. Any proposal that does not meet all of the following criteria required may be deemed non-responsive and may not be eligible for evaluation. All responsive proposals shall be evaluated and rated against the following (3) Technical Evaluation Factors:

Evaluation Factor 1 – Lead Designer

Evaluation Factor 2 – Constructor

Evaluation Factor 3 – Management and Approach to Design-Build

The Factors are listed in descending order of importance (1 is the highest and 3 is the lowest) as are the subfactors. The order of importance for the subfactors is identified within each of the factors having subfactors, again – 1 designates the subfactor with greater importance.

Standard for evaluation for all factor and subfactors: The standard for evaluation is met when all items identified as Submittal requirement(s) are submitted by the offeror for evaluation within the identified parameters. If an offeror does not meet the identified requirements this may result in a lower evaluation rating for that factor or subfactor.

II. Definition of “SIMILAR PROJECT” For the purposes of this solicitation, Phase 2: Pre-Qualified Contractors Teams Submission and Short-List, a SIMILAR PROJECT is defined as a project that is similar in size, type and complexity. To qualify as a SIMILAR PROJECT, the project must meet all three elements as further defined here.

To be considered similar in size, project(s) must exceed $116,250,000 in initial construction award amount and be completed in the last ten (10) years. To be considered similar in type, project(s) must include new construction and represent institutional and or governmental facilities, campuses or compounds. To be considered similar in complexity, project(s) must include work as the Primary General Contractor or Lead Designer performing in a new multi-functional government or other institutional use buildings or compounds.

III. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: Lead Designer 1.1.a Subfactor 1.a: Lead Designer Portfolio 1.1.a.A Description: This evaluation factor considers the Lead Designer’s portfolio in context with OBO’s goal to continue a legacy of outstanding diplomatic facilities and vision to construct, maintain, and manage facilities that represent American values and the best in American architecture, design, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution. The portfolio should portray creative and appropriate responses to client criteria and needs, demonstrate design leadership, and clearly demonstrate the designer’s personal level of commitment to design quality. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “Lead Designer” means an individual who will have the primary responsibility to develop the concept and the project design.

1.1.a.B Submittal requirements: Offeror shall submit the identified items set forth below.

a. Submit a biographical summary (maximum of four (4)) pages including education, professional experience, and recognition for design efforts inclusive of the portfolio examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

b. Submit a design project portfolio representative of the Lead Designers abilities to produce outstanding design. The portfolio shall include three (3) SIMILAR PROJECTS (See II above) where the design has been completed in the last ten (10) years. Each project submitted shall be limited to a total of two (2) pages for a total limit of six (6) pages.

c. Each shall address the following:

i. Project program and function and function

ii. Project budget and schedule

iii. Lead Designer’s role and area(s) of responsibility

iv. The overall design philosophy and salient features of each project

v. How the design approach/planning solution(s) address the client’s mission/project goals (program, image, mission, economic, schedule, maintenance, functional, and operational objectives) were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution.

vi. National or International Design Awards for project

1.1.a.C Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

a. The Lead Designer completed all projects in the portfolio in the same role proposed on this project.

b. Project narrative(s) include supplemental project information to more clearly illustrate the projects’ design (i.e. representative floor plan(s), site plan(s), rendered 3-D model, building section(s), photograph(s), or other information deemed appropriate for each project.

c. Portfolio includes project(s) that exceeds the definition of a SIMILAR PROJECT with regards to size or complexity (see II above).

d. SIMILAR projects presented are within the last 5 years.

e. Portfolio includes project(s) delivered via design-build or other Integrated Project Delivery methods as described in this solicitation.

f. Experience that demonstrates integration of security criteria and requirements

g. Creative and innovative design solutions led to National or International Design Awards for project.

1.1.b Subfactor 1.b: Lead Designer Past Performance and Design Execution 1.1.b.A Description: This evaluation factor considers the Lead Designer’s past performance on the projects submitted by the offeror under Subfactor 1.a: OBO is seeking to determine whether the offeror has met or exceed the client’s program, functional requirements, image, mission, economic, performance schedule, cost control, and operational objectives. In evaluating, the Government may consider the information in the offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases and other references.

1.1.b.B Submittal Requirements: Offeror shall submit the identified items set forth below.

a. Offeror shall submit three (3) Architect/Engineer (A/E) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)s for 3 different projects. Each project submitted must identify at least one (1) reference, including name, address, telephone number and email address. DOS will only review the first 5 PPQs received.

b. Offerors shall distribute the Past Performance Questionnaire to each reference for completion and submission to the Contracting Officer via email only at LeungJB@state.gov. The Contracting Officer must receive these submissions by no later than 3:00pm local time on XX/XX/XXXX. No exceptions will be made therefore offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The email subject line must contain the name of the offeror, the name of the reference, and the solicitation number. Questionnaires submitted directly by an offeror will not be considered. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure these reviews are submitted to and received by the Contracting Officer. The government reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an offeror’s proposal.

c. As defined by FAR 2.1, past performance refers to the Offeror’s performance on active and physically completed contracts. An Offeror who has no record of past performance or for whom past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating for this factor. If the government receives negative past performance information, the offeror may be given an opportunity to respond.

1.1.b.C Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

a. Better than Satisfactory ratings received from owner references, CPARS.

b. PDQs received better than Satisfactory rating for projects submitted in portfolio.

c. Certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating outstanding design, and or design management. May include tangible evidence that demonstrates design expertise may be copies of articles or review in trade publications, periodicals, etc.

1.1.c Subfactor 1.c: Core Design Team Profile 1.1.c.A Description: This evaluation factor considers the entire Core Design Team and Firms for all disciplines proposed for the project demonstrating the breadth of design and engineering expertise.

a. Core Team Members

i. Lead Designer + Firm

ii. Project Manager + Constructor

iii. Project Architect + Firm

iv. Design Project Manager + Firm (if different than the Project Architect)

b. Design Disciplines

i. Structural

ii. Mechanical

iii. Plumbing

iv. Landscape

v. Civil Engineer

vi. Fire Engineer

vii. Interior Design

1.1.c.B Submittal Requirements: Offeror shall submit STANDARD FORM 330 ARCHITECT-ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS PART II for the Core Design Team Members (only) plus a list of proposed firms to support additional design and engineering discipline/services.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: Constructor 2.2.a Subfactor 2.a Constructor Experience 2.2.a.A Description: This evaluation factor considers the past experience of the offeror’s General Contractor with completing SIMILAR PROJECTS (See II above). Projects that do not meet the definition of SIMILAR PROJECT will not be considered and may result in a lower evaluation rating for this specific factor.

2.2.a.B Submittal Requirements: Offeror shall submit the identified items set forth below.

a. Submit three (3) projects for which the Constructor has served as the prime contractor which meets the definition of a SIMILAR PROJECT (see II above). Each project shall be limited to a total of two (2) pages. If the offeror submits more than the required number of project examples, DOS will evaluate only the stated number of projects, in the order presented in the offeror’s submittal.

b. Each submitted project shall identify the following:

i. Description of the overall project scope of work

ii. Contract award date and amount

iii. Final contract completion date and amount

iv. Project construction challenges, construction remedies, and successful implementation during construction

v. Lead Designer and/or Architect of Record

vi. Awards or recognition for project **Note that if the offeror is a Joint Venture, the submitted projects must be those of the primary General Contractor identified in the agreement.

2.2.a.C Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

a. Projects that exceed the definition of a SIMILAR PROJECT with regard to size of complexity

b. Projects where the Constructor has worked previously with the identified Design Team

c. Projects that utilized the Design-Build project delivery method or other Integrated Project Delivery methods. For purposes of this evaluation factor, Integrated Project Delivery is defined as the execution of a multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single offeror to provide all, or substantially all of the design and construction services for that project.

d. Experience that demonstrates integration of USG physical and technical security criteria and requirements.

e. Experience that included residential and/or mixed use building types in a single project and/or compounds that contain similar building types of this project as described above.

f. Innovative and successful implementation to construction challenges

g. Awards or other forms of public recognition from nationally or internationally recognized organizations demonstrating construction excellence 2.2.b Subfactor 2.b Constructor Past Performance 2.2.b.A Description: This evaluation factor considers the Constructor’s past performance on the SIMILAR PROJECTS (see II above) submitted by the offeror under Subfactor 2a. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction, timely delivery of services, adherence to contract schedules, subcontractor management, safety management, quality control programs, good workmanship, conformance to specifications, and fair and reasonable prices. In evaluating the Government may consider the information in the offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases and other references.

2.2.b.B Submittal requirements: Offeror shall submit the identified items set forth below.

a. Offeror shall submit three (3) Constructor Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)s for 3 different projects. Each project submitted must identify at least one (1) reference, including name, address, telephone number and email address. DOS will only review the first 5 PPQs received.

b. Offerors shall distribute the Past Performance Questionnaire to each reference for completion and submission to the Contracting Officer via email only at LeungJB@state.gov. The Contracting Officer must receive these submissions by no later than 3:00pm local time on XX/XX/XXXX. No exceptions will be made therefore offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The email subject line must contain the name of the offeror, the name of the reference, and the solicitation number. Questionnaires submitted directly by an offeror will not be considered. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure these reviews are submitted to and received by the Contracting Officer. The government reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an offeror’s proposal.

c. As defined by FAR 2.1, past performance refers to the Offeror’s performance on active and physically completed contracts. An Offeror who has no record of past performance or for whom past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating for this factor. If the government receives negative past performance information, the offeror may be given an opportunity to respond.

2.2.b.C Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

a. Better than Satisfactory ratings from owner references, CPARS

b. PDQs received better than Satisfactory rating for projects submitted in portfolio

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: – Management and Approach to Design-Build 3.A Description: This evaluation factor considers the offeror’s approach to establish, and manage its design-build team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the OBO’s Objectives as Stewards of US Diplomatic Missions overseas creating both secure and resilient facilities. For purposes of this evaluation it considers a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, landscape design, interior design, security, sustainability, constructability, maintainability, operability, and construction) that delivers value by producing high quality, high performance facilities on budget and on time. The program also seeks to commission our Nation’s most talented constructors, designers, and artists to design and construct Diplomatic Facilities of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of integrated design that balances aesthetics, cost, security, functionality, constructability, and reliability; creating secure facilities that are resilient and provide for environmentally superior workplaces for employees.

3.B Submittal requirement(s): Offeror shall submit the identified items set forth below.

a. Submit a written narrative identifying its approach to the design-build process and discuss each of the subjects set forth below. The narrative shall be limited to a total of five (5) pages. The offeror may allocate the pages in any manner they choose.

b. Management Process – Describe the management process and how the offeror would typically manage a project of this type and size. Provide a narrative on the project organization, defining the roles, responsibilities, and authority to be delegated to the staff in each position. Discuss the process for the following:

i. Lines and methods of communication;

ii. Decision making and risk management;

iii. Client/stakeholder integration and input;

iv. Management of project safety, security, cost, schedule, and risk

v. Business practices overcoming challenges, quality control, construction material quality and craftsmanship, performance testing and verification, and performance training for owner operations.

vi. Incorporating Design philosophy and commitment to integrated and sustainable design; value management and total cost of ownership; and a commitment to meeting energy and performance goals to include operations and maintenance considerations.

vii. The Offeror shall describe the benefits they have brought to previous construction projects of similar size and complexity.

viii. Describe project trade-offs made to ensure program and budget alignment.

c. Design Approach - The offeror shall describe their design approach, and integration of design philosophy for this project. Application of design philosophy to local context as well as OBO’s mission.

3.C Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

a. The proven, successful implementation of the Management Process on any of the projects listed under Evaluation Factor 2, Subfactor 2a;

b. Developed/integrated innovative tools to improve design and construction quality and performance such as: utilizing BIM to simplify fabrication, assembly, and future maintenance; or virtual reality to improve design quality;

c. Entities that have developed/integrated a process on which the design-builder intends to rely in performing the project identified such as BIM to integrate simplified fabrication, assembly and future maintenance performance; and/or virtual reality tools to improve design quality and performance.

d. The offeror demonstrates superior approaches to the challenge of civic architecture on this project through stakeholder interaction, public recognition, schedule performance, etc.;

e. Provided project examples that reduced the total cost of ownership.

f. The Management Process demonstrates the ability to overcome challenges overseas.

g. Demonstrated partnering for successful project.

2. CLOSING DEADLINE for SUBMISSIONS

ALL SUBMISSIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 3:00 PM Eastern Time on XX/XX/2020.

U.S. Department of State:

A/LM/AQM/FDCD/CON, 4th Floor 1735 North Lynn Street Arlington, VA 22209

(DO NOT USE THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (P.O. Box) ADDRESS) Include the project solicitation number(s) on the face of the package.

REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS must be submitted in writing to writing to Jennifer Leung at LeungJB@state.gov.