36C24419R0060-0001002.pdf

Replace Interior Signage Project No. 542-19-201 Revised Evaluation Factors 04/25/2019

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

This section of the solicitation outlines the competitive source selection process which will result in one (1) award to an eligible Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB) concern. The selection process is structured based on a two-phase Design-Build selection process in accordance with FAR Subpart 36.3. In addition, the evaluation incorporates the procedures in FAR Subpart 15.1 utilizing a “Best Value” source selection process with the option of a trade-off strategy for all non-cost/non-price evaluation factors. The Government intends to award, without discussions to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.1 and FAR 52.215-1. The offeror’s proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements and be judged to represent a “Best Value” to the

Government. The “Best Value” is the most advantageous offer, design concepts, proposed technical solutions, key personnel, construction management and price considered and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE LOW-

PRICED OFFERORS. This may result in award being made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror(s) where the Contracting Officer determines that an offeror's proposal offers a “Best

Value” that outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, an integrated assessment between all non-cost/non-price evaluation factors and price will be conducted.

Phase 1 of the selection process includes the receipt of offers from all interested firms eligible to receive an award set-aside exclusively for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB) concerns. NO PRICING INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED DURING

THIS PHASE 1 PROCESS. The Phase 1 evaluation will consist of a review and evaluation of each offer against the Phase 1 evaluation factors. Thereafter, proposals shall be ranked and the three (3) most highly rated offers shall be selected to participate in the Phase 2 of this process.

All offers not selected to participate in Phase 2 shall be notified that no further consideration of their proposal will be given.

The Phase 2 evaluation process will exist amongst the three (3) most highly rated offers selected from Phase 1. The Phase 2 proposals shall be submitted in two parts: Volume 1-Technical

Proposal and Volume 2-Price Proposal. The Phase 2 evaluation process will consist of an in-depth review of an offeror’s technical approach, as well as an examination of the offeror’s response to each evaluation criteria as compared to the solicitation requirements. In the final selection, proposals will be ranked based on an offeror’s demonstration of technical understanding by the thoroughness, soundness, comprehensiveness and price reasonableness of its technical approach.

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Design Build Solicitation

This project will be solicited as a firm fixed price best value contract. The solicitation will be conducted as a two-phase design / build in accordance with FAR 36.3. The A/E and construction contractor team shall be required to submit information in two phases.

Revised Evaluation Factors 04/25/2019

A. Under Phase I of the solicitation the contractor Design-Build Team shall be required to submit detailed information on the following as explained later in the solicitation:

a) Technical approach

b) Technical competence

c) Past performance

The factors are of equal weight of importance, and an overall rating shall be assigned.

The following information/documentation is required as part of the offeror’s Phase

I proposal:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS for Phase I: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work shall submit one (1) hard copy along with one (1) electronic (CD) copy. Submissions by electronic means i.e. e-mail are NOT permitted. Additionally, the submission shall include an insert detailing the following information:

1. Dun & Bradstreet Number

2. Tax ID Number

3. The e-mail address and phone number of the Primary Point of Contact

4. A printed copy of the firm’s VetBiz Registry

5. A printed copy of the firm’s SAM Registry

6. Certification of OSHA and EPA violations

7. EMR Rating

8. VETS 4212 filing

9. Contractor shall provide detailed information for each of the following factors that the Government will evaluate. Information shall be presented in a manner that highlights your firm’s capabilities in meeting the specific areas that are listed under each evaluation factor. Detailed information of Phase I:

a) Technical Approach – provide design and construction approach; roles and responsibilities; quality control policies and standards; scheduling methodology; and considerations for fast tracking.

b) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence to include general renovations; number and duties of proposed staff: addressing function, responsibilities and authorities of key personnel designing and constructing to signage and wayfinding design and installation.

c) Past Performance of at least three but no more than five projects similar in size and scope.

This information will then be evaluated, and the Government shall select the three most highly qualified offerors. The Contracting Officer will then issue a Request For Proposal to the three most highly qualified offerors to provide the information per Phase II of the solicitation. All questions are to be sent to the attention of Elizabeth.Morin3@va.gov.

2. Phase I Rating Guidance:

There are three (3) non-priced evaluation factors for Phase I. There are two (2) technical and one past performance. Each factor will receive a rating with an overall total rating established for

Phase I.

Phase I Evaluation Factors

The factors are of equal weight of importance

Revised Evaluation Factors 04/25/2019

1) Technical Approach:

This factor evaluates how the individual offeror will approach the design and construction of this project. The offeror shall provide detailed information addressing the organization and the roles and responsibilities of the various sub-contractors for both the design and construction. Offeror shall also provide adequate detail on the offeror’s policy about Quality Control (QC) and how the offeror intends to achieve this standard on the project. The offeror is to provide the scheduling methodology and demonstrate an understanding of its limitation and success. The offeror shall also include considerations of “Fast Track” construction whereby preliminary site construction activities can begin prior to the completion of the accepted 100% design documents.

2) Technical Competence:

This factor evaluates the experience of the construction firm and design team in completing projects requiring skills like those anticipated for this contract. This includes design of signage using Veterans Affairs criteria from the VHA Technical

Information Library, wayfinding studies with relation to a hospital environment, installation of signage, electrical, carpentry, and finish repair. This factor also evaluates offeror’s number of personnel and the duties of proposed technical staff to determine if offeror can manage projects within the area of consideration without significant difficulty. Offeror should adequately address functions, responsibilities and authorities for performing such duties as overall project management, site superintendence, quality control, safety, administration and in-house trade capabilities. Offeror shall provide a minimum of three (3) project examples of the type that best represents the proposed Coatesville VA Medical Center Replace

Interior Signage.

3) Past Performance

The Past Performance proposal evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, quality, customer relationship, and ability to successfully perform as proposed and other considerations considering currency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends. Past Performance includes current on-going (present) performance.

To conduct the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided by the offeror, and data obtained from other sources. An offeror with no Past Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors. These ratings may have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as "Neutral”. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past Performance history, while rated” Neutral” in Past Performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government. For this solicitation, currency is performance occurring within the last five years through the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period. For example, performance information for work occurring during 2015 may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring during 2010.

In assessing relevancy, the Government may evaluate an offeror's references for similarity of the construction methods to the scope of this solicitation, (multi-discipline or specialized area), scope/type of contracts/projects, cost magnitude of projects as it relates to price. Performance on managing multiple multi-disciplined projects at one time may also be considered.

PHASE 1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Offerors shall be evaluated according to the following evaluation factors for Phase 1:

1. Technical Approach: Technical approach to performing the work as outlined in the

Scope of Work.

2. Technical Competence: Specialized experience of the A/E in designing similarly scoped projects.

3. Past Performance: Experience of contractor team in performing the installation of signage and wayfinding systems in healthcare facilities.

Phase 1-The Phase 1 evaluation will result in the selection of the three (3) most highly rated offers for participation and proposal submission in the Phase 2 process. During the Phase 1 evaluation process, only technical evaluation factors will be considered. No consideration of pricing will occur during this phase. The evaluation factors under consideration for Phase 1 are listed below, and will be evaluated as Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and

Unsatisfactory.

Factor 1: Technical Approach a.) Offerors shall provide a written narrative approach proposed to accomplish the statement of work. Discussion of the technical approach shall contain explanations of proposed approaches to performing and accomplishing the work.

b.) Include as part of the narrative a statement of any problems anticipated in accomplishing the work and an evaluation of the various methods considered for resolving the problems/difficulties c.) Include a proposed project plan which outlines the work to be accomplished to include a start/completion schedule.

d.) Offeror shall include the extent of anticipated subcontracting together with a list of work to be subcontracted.

Factor 2: Technical Competence

Offeror shall describe their specialized experience and technical competence of key personnel proposed for this project to include both Design and Construction

Period services. Offerors shall also describe the resources that will be applied to this project and describe the unique capability they offer to the VA. Offer shall describe the areas of work that will be subcontracted to specialty contractors.

Factor 3: Past Performance

Offerors shall describe a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) completed Design/Build projects within the past 5 years. The projects listed under this factor shall be similar in scope and complexity as the subject project

(Replace Interior Signage). Information listed under this factor must be

Revised Evaluation Factors 04/25/2019 completed projects. Projects listed under this factor that are not completed will seriously affect the rating of the offer. The following format must be followed in providing Previous Experience/Past Performance information:

a. Government Agency/Company which awarded contract to offeror

b. Contract Number

c. Complete Description of Contract Scope

d. Total Dollar Value Performance Period

e. Place of Performance

f. Contracting Officer/Procurement Official

a. Name

b. Email

c. Phone Number

d. Address

When combined all non-cost/non-price evaluation factors are significantly more important than price and may be used as a tradeoff for a higher rated higher priced technical proposal.

PHASE 2 EVALUATION FACTORS

Technical proposals for Phase 2 shall be evaluated according to the following evaluation factors:

1. Design Concepts/Proposed Technical Solution.

2. Construction Management.

3. Ability to complete all design services within 60 days of receipt of Notice to

Proceed and complete all construction activities within 120 days of design approval.

4. Price.

Phase 2- The Phase II proposals shall be submitted in two parts: Volume 1-Technical Proposal and Volume 2-Price Proposal. Evaluators will initially be provided for only the technical proposal of the offerors selected for participation in Phase 2. Following completion of the technical evaluation, the SSEB will be provided pricing information for further consideration.

An integrated assessment of design concept/proposed technical solution, construction management, key personnel, capability to perform and price will be conducted, and the results ranked. A trade-off may occur, if the Contracting Officer determines that an offeror's proposal offers a “Best Value” that outweighs a higher price.

The “Best Value” is the most advantageous offer, design concept/proposed technical solutions, construction management, key personnel, capability to perform and price considered and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria.

The Phase 2 evaluation factors are:

Volume 1-Technical Proposal:

Revised Evaluation Factors 04/25/2019

Factor 1: Design Concepts/Proposed Technical Solutions

a. Offerors shall provide a detailed approach proposed to accomplish the statement of work.

Discussion of the technical approach shall contain explanations of proposed approaches to performing and accomplishing the work including communications, quality control, cost controls, review/oversights, inspections, safety and infection control.

b. Discuss in detail problems anticipated in accomplishing the work and an evaluation of the various methods considered for resolving the problems/difficulties

c. Include a proposed project plan which outlines the work to be accomplished to include a start/completion schedule, based on a Notice to Proceed date. Offeror shall submit a complete schedule that will include the design period through construction period services.

d. Offeror shall include the extent of anticipated subcontracting together with a list of work to be subcontracted.

e. The offeror shall submit conceptual drawings, renderings, product data sheets, one-line diagrams, etc.

Factor 2: Construction Management

a. Sub-factor: Coordination of Contract Work

Provide and describe where your company engaged in special coordination (involving multiple trades) of installation timeliness so as not to interrupt services or operations of facilities, including required overnight or evening installation.

Information listed under this factor must show completed projects of this magnitude. In addition to the previously stated information for this factor, the following information must be provided with your response to this factor:

1. Government Agency/Company which awarded contract to offeror

2. Contract Number

3. Complete Description of Contract Scope

4. Total Dollar Value

5. Performance Period

6. Place of Performance

7. Contracting Officer/Procurement Official

i. Name

ii. Email

iii. Phone Number

b. Sub-factor: Quality Control & Risk Assessment

Offeror must submit a written plan which demonstrates the ability to:

1. Complete the project and all requirements within the contract terms and conditions.

2. Demonstrates techniques for maintain quality control for workmanship, material, and work progress.

3. Demonstrates in detail office procedures that ensure all contractual requirements will be completed on time and all written documents and records

(e.g., certified payrolls, daily logs, submittals, insurance certificates, payments, change orders, supplemental agreements, correspondence, etc.) are easily accessible.

4. Demonstrates techniques for work coordination with Subcontractors.

Describe what is in place to monitor performance of Subcontractors and guarantee performance. Describe how contract requirements flow down to the lowest level of Subcontractor.

5. Demonstrates in detail a written Risk Assessment on this project to include an understanding of the site conditions and plans to deal with varying elements and factors affecting the work (e.g, weather, local obstacles, public access and other conditions, inflation, cost of fuel, length of contract performance as it relates to offering a firm-fixed-price without the ability to make inflationary adjustments). The Risk Assessment shall include what contingencies are being anticipated and what plans are proposed to address them.

c. Sub-factor: Safety Procedures

Offeror must submit a complete Safety & Infection Control Plan which describes the following:

1. Methods to be used to ensure that an OSHA certified Competent Person will maintain a presence at the work site whenever work is being done

2. Methods to be used to ensure that supervisors have the 30-hour OSHA training and all workers shall have received the required minimum 10-hour

OSHA training

3. Measures to be taken to protect VA Patients, Personnel, Visitors, and the

General Public under this contract. The new VHA construction safety specification is to be included in to the design for construction related activities.

4. Measures to be taken to provide security to the construction area to protect from theft and vandalism, and unauthorized entry.

5. Their continuing education program(s) for personnel assigned to perform services under this contract.

6. Their current insurance Experience Modification Rate and discuss their experience with on-the-job injuries during the last two calendar years.

7. Knowledge of and experience with the American Society of Healthcare

Engineer’s (ASHE) Healthcare Contractor Certification Program.

8. Familiarity with Healthcare Construction, along with applicable JCAHO standards, ABAAS regulations, AIA guidelines, ASHRAE guidelines, EPA

IAQ guidelines, and CDC guidelines.

Revised Evaluation Factors 04/25/2019

Factor 3: Must demonstrate the ability to complete the project within 180 calendar days from Notice to Proceed.

Provide a schedule to meet the criteria of all design services within 60 days of receipt of Notice to Proceed and all construction activities to proceed after approval of drawings and submittals and completed within 120 days.

Volume 2-Price Proposal:

Price Evaluation: The CO will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

NOTE: Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the

SSEB will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and weigh against the prices. Statement of Work (SOW) identifies project scope. The SSEB will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

Evaluation Criteria:

This factor evaluates the Price to provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed pricing by the offeror. Pricing will be evaluated by the SSEB to determine whether or not the proposal complies in accordance with “Reasonableness” as defined in the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price will be determined on the Best Value to the

Government. The SSEB will use the following definitions when making their determination:

Price Fair and Reasonable:

Reasonableness of an offeror’s proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in “FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1). For Price to be reasonable, the it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals), technical and functional capabilities of the offeror.