36C24425R0027.docx

Presolicitation Notice Presolicitation Notice

GENERAL INFORMATION

University Drive

Pittsburgh PA

COUNTRY

CONTACT INFORMATION

Network Contracting Office 4

POINT OF CONTACT*

Contract Specialist John Mignogna John.Mignogna@va.gov 412-377-9786

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

AGENCY’S URL

URL DESCRIPTION

AGENCY CONTACT’S EMAIL ADDRESS

EMAIL DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION

This announcement is for the selection of an Engineering Services (ES) Firm for Construction Period Service for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Pittsburgh VA Medical Center located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price Contract. All potential offerors must provide a SF 330 containing all required information listed below. The form format must be the General Services Administration SF 330 found on the website http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116486 Forms Library.

CONTRACT INFORMATION: The project consists of construction period services for 646-14-102 Renovate B1 2E for Clinics AE at the Pittsburgh VAMC campus. The contract award will incorporate the attached Statement of Work.

This contract is being procured in accordance with the Brooks Act as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6, Veterans Administration Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) 836.6 and the Veterans Administration Acquisition Manual (VAAM) Part M836 . The firm will be selected for presentations based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for required work. This contract is set-aside 100% for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business’s (SDVOSB) capable of completing work under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 541330. The small business standard is $22.5 million dollars.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit an electronic copies of Standard Form 330 (SF 330). Standard Forms 330’s must be received no later than 16:30 EST on December 6th, 2024. The submittal packages are to be sent to the following:

Email submission of the SF 330 are to be submitted to John Mignogna at John.Mignogna@va.gov Additionally, the submissions must include an insert detailing the following information placed at the front of the Submission.

1. SAM Unique Identity Number

1. Tax ID Number

1. The E-mail address of the Primary Point of Contact.

1. A printed copy of the firms VetBiz Registry.

1. A copy of Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy for the SDVOSB Prime.

1. A copy of the firm’s Pennsylvania State Licensure for the SDVOSB Prime or a statement indicating how the provided drawings will be sealed by a PA licensed Engineer.

1. A statement indicating what office the Engineering Services firm will utilize as its primary design office.

Special Note: An Engineering Services Firm failing to provide any of the documentation detailed in the Pre-Solicitation Notice may be determined as Non-Responsive and may not be considered.

Please note this is not a request for proposal. Eligible responses received will be evaluated and the most highly qualified will be compiled on a shortlist of candidates who will be contacted for an interview. For the evaluation, Professional Qualifications to Perform the Services Required, Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, Past Performance, and Experience in Construction Period Services are more important than the other three (3) factors and are of equal weight. The remaining three (3) factors are of equal weight among themselves. The following evaluation criteria shall be used to evaluate firms and determine the most highly qualified firm for possible contract award.

Evaluation Factors

6.2.5 Evaluation Grading Method

There are seven (7) evaluation factors which will be used for the evaluation of both Phase I and Phase II of this solicitation. The evaluation factors will use words for adjectival rating.

The following rating scale will be used for each factor:

· Outstanding: SF 330 meets solicitation requirements, demonstrates an excellent approach understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

· Good: SF 330 meets requirements and indicates a through approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. .

· Acceptable: SF 330 meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

· Marginal: SF 330 does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one of more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

· Unacceptable: SF 330 does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

6.2.6 Weighting of Criterion – Phase I and Phase II

For the evaluation, Professional Qualifications to Perform the Services Required, Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, Past Performance, and Experience in Construction Period Services are more important than the other three (3) factors and are of equal weight. The remaining three (3) factors are of equal weight among themselves.

6.2.7 Evaluation Factors – Phase 1 and Phase II:

A. Professional Qualifications to Perform the Services Required:

This is intended to evaluate the personnel and their related qualifications. The key positions, at a minimum, should include Project Managers, Quality Assurance Manager, Architects, Structural Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Civil Engineers, Fire Protection Engineers, Environmental Engineers, and Interior Designers. Firm shall indicate whether these personnel have professional certifications in particular field, i.e. PE in Mechanical Engineering and the state(s) the individuals are licensed in. The evaluation board shall consider the specific experience and qualifications (i.e., education, training, registration, certifications, overall relevant experience, and longevity with the firm) of personnel proposed for assignment to the project, and their record of working together as a team when evaluating professional qualifications. The lead designer in each discipline must be registered but does not have to be registered in the particular state where the project is located.

UNACCEPTABLE: The majority of personnel assigned to the key positions do not appear to have any experience in designing the type of facilities and systems anticipated in this contract or, none of the key personnel listed appear to work in the firm’s designated project office.

MARGINAL: The majority of personnel assigned to the key positions appear to have experience on one or fewer of the type anticipated in this contract.

ACCEPTABLE: The majority of personnel assigned to the key positions appear to have experience on one to three projects of the type anticipated in this contract or at least four of the key personnel are subcontractor personnel.

GOOD: The majority of personnel assigned to the key positions appear to have experience on at least three projects of the type anticipated in this contract or any of the key personnel are subcontractor personnel.

OUTSTANDING: All personnel assigned to the key positions appear to have experience with more than three projects of the type anticipated in this contract and are employees of the prime ES firm.

B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence:

This factor evaluates the experience of the firm and design team in completing projects requiring skills similar to those anticipated for this contract. This may include general renovation of medical center space to include architectural changes of walls, ceilings, floors, finishes, masonry, doorways including hardware, plumbing including storm sewer, sanitary, hot and cold water, Heating, ventilating, Air conditioning (HVAC) to include, package units, variable air and constant air volume terminals with reheat, Variable frequency drive air handlers, steam and condensate piping, primary and secondary electrical circuits, digital controls, fire protection to include sprinkle system, central fire and security alarms, audio paging systems, asbestos abatement and all work to return space to finished, functioning condition. Offerors will be evaluated on the team’s demonstrated experience, performance, technical abilities, and relevant project work of similar scope, budget and complexity as the Statement of Work. For new construction, renovations, major modernizations, building additions, hospital design and VA projects. Experience providing drawings in 3D. The evaluation board shall consider at least five, similar projects and how well the proposal addresses technical capabilities in design quality management procedures, Computer-Aided Design and Drafting/Building Information Modeling, equipment resources, and laboratory requirements for the firm and any proposed subcontractors. Where appropriate, also evaluate their experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and the use of recovered materials. The effectiveness of their proposed project team (including management structure, coordination of disciplines, subcontractors, and prior working relationships) should also be examined.

NOTE: Extra consideration may be given for projects completed by the firm as the prime contractor and not as a subcontractor or projects completed by key personnel while employed by another firm.

UNACCEPTABLE: The firm has nearly no specialized experience and technical competence in completing projects of a similar type as necessary for this contract and do not include the majority of the skills required.

MARGINAL: The firm has limited specialized experience and technical competence in completing projects of a similar type as necessary for this contract and do not include the majority of the skills required.

ACCEPTABLE: The firm has adequate specialized experience and technical competence in completing projects of a similar type as necessary for this contract and do include the some of the skills required.

GOOD: The firm has good specialized experience and technical competence in completing projects of a similar type as necessary for this contract and do include the many of the skills required.

OUTSTANDING: The firm has significant specialized experience and technical competence in completing projects of a similar type as necessary for this contract and do include the majority of the skills required.

C. Past Performance:

Past performance on contracts with Government agencies (Particularly Department of Veterans Affairs) and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work and compliance with performance schedules. The evaluation board shall consider superior performance ratings on recently completed VA projects as well as the reputation and standing of the firm and its principal officials with respect to professional performance, general management, and cooperativeness. Also, consider, as appropriate, the record of significant claims against the firm because of improper or incomplete architectural and engineering services.

UNACCEPTABLE: Past performance evaluation reports indicate significant negative information or board members have firsthand knowledge of significant poor performance.

MARGINAL: Past performance evaluation reports indicate serious negative information or board members have firsthand knowledge of serious poor performance.

ACCEPTABLE: Past performance evaluation reports contain satisfactory performance or board members have firsthand knowledge of adequate past performance with only minor problems indicated.

GOOD: Past performance evaluation reports indicate some instances of favorable information or board members have firsthand knowledge of some instances of favorable past performance.

OUTSTANDING: Past performance evaluation reports indicate multiple instances of Very Good / Exceptional information or board members have firsthand knowledge of multiple instances of Very Good / Exceptional past performance. No negative past performance information was found.

D. Experience in Construction Period Services:

Experience in construction period services to include professional field experience during the construction period, review of construction submittals, support in answering requests for information during the construction period, and support of construction contract changes to include drafting statements of work, and cost estimates. Offerors shall provide projects demonstrating experience in construction period services to include professional field inspections during the construction period, review of construction submittals, support in answering requests for information during the construction period, and support of construction contract changes to include drafting statements of work, and cost estimates.

UNACCEPTABLE: The firm has demonstrated nearly no professional field experience in construction period services and support of construction contract changes, review of submittals, answering questions for information and drafting SOW and cost estimates.

MARGINAL: The firm has demonstrated limited professional field experience in construction period services and support of construction contract changes, review of submittals, answering questions for information and drafting SOW and cost estimates.

ACCEPTABLE: The firm has demonstrated acceptable professional field experience in construction period services and support of construction contract changes, review of submittals, answering questions for information and drafting SOW and cost estimates.

RATE GOOD: The firm has demonstrated good professional field experience in construction period services and support of construction contract changes, review of submittals, answering questions for information and drafting SOW and cost estimates.

OUTSTANDING: The firm has demonstrated significant professional field experience in construction period services and support of construction contract changes, review of submittals, answering questions for information and drafting SOW and cost estimates.

E. Use Of Small Business The contractor shall provide a summary identifying the extent to which potential contractors identify and commit to the use of Service-Disabled Small Business, Veteran Owned Small Businesses, and other types of small businesses as subcontractors. Proposed subcontractors shall be identified by business type, SAM Unique number and percentage of work to be performed.

MARGINAL: Use of one or no SDVOSB, VOSB or small business subcontractors the offeror identifies in their proposal.

ACCEPTABLE: Use of SDVOSB, VOSB and small businesses for some of the subcontractors the offeror identifies in their proposal.

GOOD: Use of SDVOSB, VOSB and small businesses for most of the subcontractors the offeror identified in their proposal.

OUTSTANDING: Use of SDVOSB and VOSB firms for all of the subcontractors the offeror identified in their proposal.

F. Capacity to Accomplish Work:

This factor evaluates the ability of the ES firm to, given their current projected workload and the availability of their key personnel, to accomplish the project in the required time. The evaluation board shall consider the volume of work awarded by VA during the previous twelve (12) months. Use data extracted from the Federal Procurement Data System. Consider the full potential value of any current indefinite delivery contracts that a firm has as well. Also, assess the available capacity of key disciplines to perform the work in the required time.

UNACCEPTABLE: The firm's past history or current/projected workload indicates that the firm does not have the capacity to accomplish work in accordance with required design schedules.

MARGINAL: The firm's past history or current/projected workload indicates that the firm has minimal capacity to accomplish work in accordance with required design schedules.

ACCEPTABLE: The firm's past history or current/projected workload indicates that the firm has some capacity to accomplish work in accordance with required design schedules.

GOOD: The firm's past and the current/projected workload indicate that the firm has considerable capacity to accomplish the work in accordance with standard design schedules.

OUTSTANDING: The firm's past and the current/projected workload indicate that the firm has the significant capacity to accomplish the work in accordance with standard design schedules.

G. Geographical Location:

Location in the general geographic area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project: This factor evaluates the response time from the ES firms design office to the location of work (VAPHS and BVAMC). The personnel identified as the design team staff are expected to work in the design office identified for evaluation of this factor. When evaluating location, the evaluation board shall consider knowledge of the locality separately from geographic proximity. Examples include knowledge of geological features, climatic conditions, or local construction methods that are unusual or unique as well as bidding and construction related to the key disciplines. This may include everything from supply, labor force, weather and seismic conditions, to the construction climate’s impact on cost estimating.

NOTE: Distance will be measured in driving from the Lebanon VAMC, Lebanon, PA.

UNACCEPTABLE: The firm demonstrated no knowledge of the geographical area, climate conditions, labor force, supply, and the design office is over 800 miles from the project location MARGINAL: The firm demonstrated minimal knowledge of the geographical area, climate conditions, labor force, supply, and the design office is between 600 miles and 800 miles from the project location ACCEPTABLE: The firm demonstrated average knowledge of the geographical area, climate conditions, labor force, supply, and the design office is between 400 miles and 600 miles from the project location.

GOOD: The firm demonstrated good knowledge of the geographical area, climate conditions, labor force, supply, and the design office is between 200 and 400 miles from the project location.

OUTSTANDING: The firm demonstrated complete knowledge of the geographical area, climate conditions, labor force, supply, and the design office is less than 200 miles from the project location

See attached document: SOW AE CPS.

See attached document: UD B1 Reno 2East_BidSet_Consolidated.

See attached document: 2E Revised Bid Drawings_Walkway_200930.

See attached document: UD B1 Reno 2East_BidSet_Specifications.

See attached document: WG 7.22.2024.

End of Document

Presolicitation Notice