1OR2098 US Courts Medford OR - RLP Amendment 6 - 1.11.24.pdf

Amendment Number 6 Request for Lease Proposals No. 1OR2098

United States Courts, USMS, USAO, Senate – Medford, OR January 11, 2024

Please refer to Request for Lease Proposal No. 1OR2098 and Lease #GS-10P-LOR00444 that solicits lease proposals for space in Medford, OR.

RLP paragraphs 4.04C, 4.05A, 4.06, 4.07A, and Lease paragraph 3.48 are hereby deleted and replaced with this RLP Amendment.

Changes are listed here for convenience as follows (changes bolded):

RLP (R100) CHANGES:

4.04 OTHER AWARD FACTORS (OCT 2016)

C. The following award factor(s) will be considered in descending order of importance.

1. Factor 1: Proposed Design Concept – 50% Sub-Factor 1(i) - Proposed Design and Narrative - 80% Sub-Factor 1(ii) - LEED BD+C - 20%

2. Factor 2: Development Team Personnel Experience/Team Past Performance – 35% Sub-Factor 2(i) – Development Team Personnel Experience – 60% Sub-Factor 2(ii) – Development Team Past Performance – 40%

3. Factor 3: Amenities/Public Transit Options - 15% Sub-Factor 3(i) – Amenities – 70% Sub-Factor 3(ii) – Public Transit Options – 30%

4.05 FACTOR DESCRIPTIONS (OCT 2016)

A. Factor 1 – Proposed Design Concept

This factor considers the proposed Design Concept and LEED designation.

This factor is comprised of the sub-factors listed below. Sub-Factor 1(i) is more important than Sub-Factor 1(ii).

Sub-Factor 1(i) - Proposed Design and Narrative Sub-Factor 1(ii) - LEED BD+C

Sub-Factor 1(i) - Proposed Design and Narrative

This factor considers the extent to which the proposed Design Concept meets the technical requirements and design goals for the Medford Courthouse project. This factor also considers the quality of the project as described in a narrative, which should give a general description of the building to be constructed, materials used, general architectural style and features. This description must be supplemented with an exterior rendering, architectural drawings, or other visual aids. The design shall reflect the dignity, dedication, and openness of the tenant agencies and of the Federal Government as a whole. Additionally, this factor considers the quality of the finishes proposed, including but not limited to site materials, exterior building materials and interior building materials, and features which enhance the aesthetics of the interior space.

Sub-Factor 1(ii) - LEED BD+C

This factor considers the performance of the offerors building core and shell and its impact on the tenant's overall health and well-being during the lease term by addressing carbon, energy, water, waste, transportation, materials, health, and indoor environmental quality for the proposed building.

This factor will be based on the Offerors ability to provide Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED-NC) credits for Silver Level certification.

Offerors will be more favorably evaluated for higher levels of LEED BD+C certifications to include LEED- NC Gold or Platinum, and LEED NZ Energy or Carbon.

4.06 FACTOR MINIMUM STANDARDS (OCT 2016)

Subfactor 1(i) - Proposed Design and Narrative

A proposal will be considered to meet the minimum standards for this factor when all the technical requirements of the Agency Specific Requirements (ASR) are achieved through the design given the level of design definition at the time of submission, and the design concept drawings and renderings are consistent with the written narrative. All required adjacencies and floor levels must be achieved. The offeror must display an acceptable understanding of the operations of a Courthouse, with limited gaps.

The layout provided shall support the operations of a Courthouse. The Government may give additional consideration to design concepts for any or all of the following reasons:

1. The degree to which the design enables greater functionality than is required by the ASR.

2. The degree to which the design enables greater flexibility than is required by the ASR.

3. The degree to which the design concept exceeds the minimum requirements for this project.

4. Demonstration of creativity and innovation in meeting those requirements.

5. Balancing design opportunities with budget limitations

6. The degree to which the design is integrated with the site, neighborhood, and surrounding environment.

7. The degree to which the design represents sustainable design.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION

Excellent

The narrative exceeds the evaluation standard. No deficiencies or significant weaknesses have been identified. Many or all desired adjacencies are achieved.

There is a very low risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Offeror displays a thorough understanding of the operations of a Courthouse. The test fit provided is indicated as one of many possibly successful designs indicating great flexibility of the space to change over time. The layout provided would significantly enhance the operations of a Courthouse.

Very Good

The narrative exceeds the evaluation standard. No deficiencies or significant weaknesses have been identified. There is a very low risk of unsuccessful contract performance. All required and some desired adjacencies and floor levels are achieved. Offeror displays a good understanding of the operations of a Courthouse.

The test fit provided is indicated as one of a few possibly successful designs indicating some flexibility of the space to change over time. The layout provided would enhance the operations of a Courthouse.

Satisfactory

The narrative has minimal weaknesses that have been identified. All required adjacencies and floor levels are achieved. Offeror displays an acceptable understanding of the operations of a Courthouse with limited gaps. The test fit provided is indicated as one of a few possibly successful designs indicating some flexibility of the space to change over time. The layout provided would support the operations of a Courthouse. The Offeror meets the minimum standard.

Marginal

The narrative marginally addresses the minimum requirements. Offeror displays a marginal understanding of the operations of a Courthouse with many gaps. The test fit provided is indicated as one of a very limited number of successful designs indicating little flexibility of the space to change over time. The layout provided would hinder the operations of a Courthouse.

Unacceptable

The narrative is confusing and does not address any or most of the minimum requirements. Required adjacencies or floor levels are not achieved. Offeror displays a poor or non-existent understanding of the operations of a Courthouse. The test fit provided is indicated as the only successful design indicating no flexibility of the space to change over time. The layout provided would significantly hinder or prohibit the operations of a Courthouse.

Subfactor 1(ii) – LEED BD+C

The minimum standard is met when the Offeror provides documentation of the proposed LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (LEED-NC) credits for Silver level certification.

Offerors will be more favorably evaluated for higher levels of LEED BD+C certifications to include LEED- NC Gold or Platinum, and LEED NZ Energy or Carbon.

Excellent The offeror’s building is LEED BD+C Platinum, LEED NZ Energy, or LEED NZ Carbon certified.

Very Good The offeror’s building is LEED BD+C Gold certified.

Satisfactory The offeror’s building is LEED BD+C Silver certified.

Marginal The offeror’s building is LEED certified.

Unacceptable No certification.

B. Factor 2 – Development Team Personnel Experience/Team Past Performance

Sub-Factor 2(i) – Development Team Personnel Experience

The following list of team members are considered the list of Key Personnel for purposes of this Solicitation.

Below are certain minimum qualifications of the individuals.

1. Offeror’s Principal in Charge (PIC)

a. The PIC must be an officer and/or owner of the offering entity with at least 10 years’ experience in commercial office development which includes asset management, design and construction, or project management.

b. The PIC must have the ability to make legal commitments on behalf of the Offeror and must be responsible for coordinating all aspects of the project team.

2. Project Manager

a. The Project Manager should have at least 10 years’ experience in commercial office development.

b. The PM must demonstrate that s/he was personally responsible for the overall project management delivery activities of two similar projects completed within the last 10 years.

c. The PM must be available and able to commit to the Project, if required by the Government, up to 70 percent of a typical forty-hour workweek between Lease award and construction completion.

3. Lead Architect – The Lead Architect is the individual, employed by the Offeror, who shall have primary responsibility to conceive the design concept, site development, and the building’s interior and exterior architecture and translate these into Design Intent Drawings and Construction Documents.

a. The Lead Architect must be licensed to practice Architecture. If the Lead Architect is not registered to practice architecture in Oregon, then Offeror must provide the name of the Architect and Engineer of Record who are registered in Oregon.

b. The Lead Architect must possess a minimum of 10 years’ experience designing commercial projects, including two similar projects completed within the last 10 years.

c. Past Project - One Courthouse: Lead Designer must provide one past project in their resume for the design of a courthouse (federal, state, or local), in which they were the Lead Designer, responsible for conceiving the design concept.

Renovation or tenant improvement projects for a courthouse(s) can be included provided that the design includes experience with security requirements and circulation requirements.

4. General Contractor’s Project Manager - The General Contractor’s Project Manager is the individual directly responsible for the quality and timeliness of the construction of the building interior, exterior, and all required site development. The General Contractor’s Project Manager will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the construction site from development of construction documents through the final acceptance of the project by the Government.

a. The General Contractor must be licensed in Oregon.

b. The General Contractor’s Project Manager must have a minimum of 10 years’ experience in construction of commercial development.

c. The General Contractor’s Project Manager demonstrates that s/he has managed the construction of two similar projects completed within the last 10 years.

5. Millwork Contractor. The Millwork Contractor is the individual in charge of the team that will fabricate and install interior finish cabinetry and millwork.

a. Must have a Commercial Carpenter Contractor’s License and be licensed in Oregon.

b. The Millwork Contractor must possess a minimum of 10 years’ experience in commercial carpentry projects, including two similar projects completed within the last 10 years.

c. The Millwork Contractor’s firm must demonstrate Quality Certification Program (QCP)

Licensure with the Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI).

d. The Millwork Contractor must demonstrate experience completing at least one project in the past 5 years that was AWI-certified.

The proposal will be considered to meet the minimum standards for this factor when all of the above information is submitted, and the minimum qualifications of the Key Personnel have been met. A proposal will be considered Acceptable when the Lead Architect, Lessor’s PM, General Contractor’s PM, and Millwork Contractor have completed two (2) “Similar Projects”, constructed within the last ten (10) years;

also, that the individuals proposed for the Key Personnel have the requisite experience to satisfactorily perform the functions required by the positions proposed.

Please Note: SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL:

1. The Key Personnel cannot change after receipt of offers without prior written approval of the LCO.

Written notification and a submission of a change in Offeror’s Key Personnel must be timely to allow for proper evaluation by the Government.

2. If there is a change in the Lead Architect prior to lease award, the substituting Lead Architect must submit either a new design philosophy meeting the requirements stated elsewhere in the section or a statement on how they plan to use the existing philosophy identified and/or evaluated.

3. If a change in the Key Personnel occurs either after the determination of a competitive range or after the receipt of Final Proposal Revisions, the Government, at its sole discretion, may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. At the Government’s sole discretion, the substituting Key Personnel may be reevaluated. If there is a change in Key Personnel, the Offeror must submit resumes (of substituting personnel) that reflect, at a minimum, equal experience, education, and training as evaluated for the position prior to lease award.

4. If a change in the Key Personnel occurs after lease award, no increase in contract prices or delay in contractor performance will be allowed as a result of the Offeror’s substitution, addition, or replacement of Key Personnel. If there is a change in the Lead Architect after lease award, the design philosophy submitted and evaluated, and which provided the basis for lease award must be used.

The Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience are superior with respect to this evaluation factor and a significant majority of the “similar projects” exceeds the submittal requirements. A high majority of the proposed team members are highly qualified beyond the requirements of the RLP. There are no deficiencies or significant weaknesses and there is a very low risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Very Good

The Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience meet and to some extent exceeds the minimum requirements with respect to this evaluation factor and a majority of the “similar projects” exceed submittal requirements. A majority of team members exceed the qualifications listed in the RLP. There are no deficiencies or significant weaknesses and there is a low risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Satisfactory

The Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience meet the minimum requirements with respect to this evaluation factor and the majority of “similar projects” meets submittal requirements. All of the proposed team members meet the qualifications required in the RLP. There are no deficiencies. There is a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Marginal

The Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience do not fully meet the minimum requirements. The submission lacks essential information and contains deficiencies and/or significant weaknesses which may be correctable. There is a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Unacceptable

The Key Personnel’s qualifications and experience fail to meet the minimum requirements, and/or there are informational deficiencies so numerous that corrections would require major rewriting of the proposal. There are major deficiencies and/or significant weaknesses that are not readily correctable. There is an unacceptably high risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Sub-Factor 2(ii) – Development Team Past Performance

The proposal will be considered to meet the minimum standards for this factor when the minimum number of required references is submitted and the majority of the references gave a satisfactory response to a majority of the questions on the past performance questionnaire and when providing reference information to the Government stated that they would again do business with that Key Personnel/Development Team.

For each Key Personnel, all or almost all of the ratings were above satisfactory on the past performance questionnaire and gave a positive response to the question on whether or not they would do business again with all Key Personnel

Very Good For each of the Key Personnel, a significant majority of the ratings were above satisfactory on the past performance questionnaire and gave a positive response to the question on whether or not they would do business again with all Key Personnel

Satisfactory

For each of the Key Personnel, the minimum requirements for Past Performance are met when a majority of the references gave a satisfactory response to a majority of the questions on the past performance questionnaire and gave a positive response to the question on whether or not they would do business again with that Key Personnel.

Marginal

For each of the Key Personnel, a majority of the ratings were less than satisfactory on the past performance questionnaire and gave negative responses to the question on whether or not they would do business again with all Key Personnel. Alternatively, negative references were received for projects that were not listed in the offeror’s proposal.

Unacceptable References indicated negative evaluations for specific projects for each Key Personnel.

C. Factor 3 – Amenities/Public Transportation Options

Sub-Factor 3(i) – Amenities

The proposal will be considered to meet the minimum standards for this factor when a scalable map shows 2 office related amenities within 1 mile of the front entrance of the building. Office related amenities defined as restaurants, cleaners, banks, etc. More variety in the amenities available will be considered more favorably.

5 or more office related amenities within 1 mile (restaurants, cleaners, banks, etc.) or 3-4 office related amenities within ½ mile.

Very Good 3-4 office related amenities within 1 mile (restaurants, cleaners, banks, etc.) or 2 office related amenities within ½ mile.

Satisfactory 2 office related amenities within 1 mile (restaurants, cleaners, banks, etc.).

Marginal 1 office related amenities within 1 mile (restaurants, cleaners, banks, etc.).

Unacceptable 0 office related amenities within 1 mile (restaurants, cleaners, banks, etc.).

Sub-Factor 3(ii) – Public Transit Options

The proposal will be considered to meet the minimum standards for this factor when a scalable map shows 1 public transit option within ½ walkable mile of the front entrance of the building with a schedule of 30 minute intervals. Please note that the Offeror could provide a letter showing city transit authority would improve the schedule to meet this requirement.

Excellent 2 or more public transit options within ¼ mile with schedule of 15 minute intervals

Very Good 1-2 public transit options within ¼ walkable mile with schedule of 30 minute intervals

Satisfactory 1 public transit option within ½ walkable mile with schedule of 30 minute intervals

Marginal Can only be reached by Dial-A-Ride Public Transit Service or with public transit options exceeding 30 minute intervals.

Unacceptable Public Transit is not available within ½ walkable mile

4.07 FACTOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (OCT 2016)

Sub-Factor 1(i) – Proposed Design & Narrative

The offeror must submit design documentation that explains the conceptual design approach that is proposed by the Offeror to deliver the project. The offeror must submit a combination of drawings and narrative as follows:

1. Design Concept Drawings – Offeror shall submit drawings for the proposed building and structured parking garage electronically. The contents must include at a minimum the information listed below.

a. Architectural site plan showing the surrounding neighborhood context of the proposed site.

b. Architectural site plan showing property lines, parking, easements, drainage, utilities, and site improvements.

c. Architectural block plans for each occupied floor showing the demised area allocated to each of the following tenant groups:

i. Judiciary Tenants:

1. District Judge Chambers and Courtrooms

2. Probation

3. Magistrate Judge Chambers

4. District Clerk

5. Pre-Trial Services

ii. DOJ tenants:

1. US Marshals Service

2. Office of US Attorneys

iii. Two (2) Senate Offices

d. Circulation diagrams showing the three types of circulation: paths of travel for members of the public, federal employees using restricted circulation corridors, and prisoners and law-enforcement personnel using secure circulation corridors.

e. Architectural elevations (drawings drawn to scale showing exterior materials, dimensions, openings, and architectural features).

f. Roof plan.

g. At least 6 perspective renderings in total, including at least:

i. One interior perspective showing the interior of the entrance lobby.

ii. One exterior perspective of each elevation (4 total) from the street level looking towards the building.

iii. One exterior perspective from an aerial point of view looking towards the building.

2. Narrative – Offeror shall submit design narratives electronically. The contents must include at a minimum the following:

a. Design vision statement, explaining in the Lead Designer’s words how the proposed design meets the design goals for the project.

b. Narrative explaining the zoning analysis for the site and the extent to which entitlement for this project has been established.

c. Sustainable design narrative including a preliminary LEED scorecard.

d. Building enclosure design narrative explaining thermal performance objectives, moisture control, and durability.

e. Accessibility narrative describing site access design and key accessibility issues.

f. Mechanical design narrative describing the proposed systems and performance.

g. Electrical design narrative describing the proposed systems and performance.

h. Civil engineering design narrative.

i. Building Operations & Maintenance (O&M) narrative explaining the offeror’s general approach to designing the building in consideration of maintainability.

Sub-Factor 1(ii) – LEED BD+C

The Offeror must provide documentation of the proposed LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (LEED-NC) credits for Silver Level certification. For LEED, this documentation is the LEED-NC scorecard. Along with the proposed scorecard or checklist, the Offeror shall submit a brief statement outlining how each of the proposed credits will be achieved. The Offeror must identify the USGBC LEED Accredited Professionals (APs) as team members, including their roles throughout the project.

--------------------------------------------END OF RLP CHANGES--------------------------------------------------------------

LEASE (L100) CHANGES:

Lease paragraph 3.48 is deleted and replaced with the following:

3.48 GREEN BUILDING RATING CERTIFICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION (OCT 2016)

A. Within 12 months of occupancy, the Lessor shall obtain certification at the Silver level from the U.S.

Green Building Council (USGBC) -- LEED→-NC program. For requirements to achieve the Silver certification, Lessor must refer to the latest version at the time of submittal of the LEED→-NC Reference Guide (at HTTP://WWW.USGBC.ORG/). At completion of all documentation and receipt of final certification, the Lessor must provide the Government two electronic copies on compact disks, flash drives, or appropriate electronic media of all documentation submitted to USGBC. Acceptable file format is Adobe http://www.usgbc.org/

PDF from the LEED–Online workspace and templates. In addition, the Lessor will provide the Government viewing access to the LEED-Online workspace during design and through the term of the Lease.

B. Prior to the end of the first year of occupancy, if the Lessor fails to achieve LEED→ Silver certification, the Government may assist the Lessor in implementing a corrective action program to achieve a LEED→ Silver certification and deduct its costs (including administrative costs) from the rent.

----------------------------------------------------END OF LEASE CHANGES--------------------------------------------------

Please acknowledge receipt of this Amendment No. 6 by signing and dating below. Please return this page no later than January 19, 2024.

Sincerely, Frances Manning GSA Lease Contracting Officer

RECEIPT OF AMENDMENT NO. 6

IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED:

OFFEROR’S SIGNATURE:

DATE:_________________________________