36C25622R0003 Pre-Award RFI Register.docx

Solicitation No. 36C25622R0003 RFI Register Project 629-22-123 Replace OR/Cath Lab Flooring

3. Including other equivalent manufactures – The only manufacture included in the final specifications, Div. 096700 section 2.1(B)(1) (Page 104 of 123) is Stonhard, Inc.; Stonres RTZ®. We suggest that other manufactures of equivalent products are included in this section. Such as: 1. POLY-CRETE® MDC from Dur-A-Flex or FasTop Multi Topfloor SL23 from Sherwin Williams.

Specification Section 09 67 00 has been deleted as per Rev. 1 dated 1/25/22. The specification section 09 67 23. 30 paragraph 2.1 titled System Description For Resinous Flooring.

As indicated in the response to RFI #2, if an equal product meets all of the specifications and characteristics as defined in paragraph 2.1 then it will be an acceptable equal.

19. Electric connection capacity considerations. Does the facility have access to connections of multiple outlets that can power 30 amp – 125/250-volt equipment? Also 3 and 4 prong connections such as the pictures below? Suggestions: External power source is highly recommended such as generator or equipment that is powered by natural gas/liquid propane Allowing the contractor to connect to the hospital’s power grid is high risky for both the VAMC and the contractor. Power overload and logistics of connecting the equipment could cause delays and damage to the power grid.

Access to multiple outlets that can power 125/250-volt equipment can be found in the D,E, and F Electrical rooms on the floor. The Contractor shall isolate the power from the Hospital Critical Loads and install a separate electrical sub panel for each area as needed. An electrical outage is required 2 weeks in advance and coordinated with the VA Electrical Shops. No generator is feasible.

20. If use of external generator is allowed. What will be the designated location of the generator during each phase? The location during each phase should be one that is at the outside of the building withing the minimum distance that safety laws require, and consideration of noise pollution, fumes and potential trip hazard caused by the cable of the equipment. Suggestion: Allow a portable 12-14 kW, Diesel Generator similar to the picture below. This generator is an efficient diesel engine with quiet operation for powering tools and other equipment. The generator will be moved to designated areas assigned by the contracting officer representative for each phase. Electrical cables should be covered and bundled together along the hospital halls towards the jobsite or permit access via the closest window, tape and free of damage to avoid trip hazards.

See Response to RFI 19 above. No generator is feasible.

All current facility COVID-19 regulations in place should be followed by staff working on project. Staff are to enter facility at first floor visitor screening stations. Contractors are to wear a mask at all times while within the facility except for when taking breaks to eat or drink. Fabric face coverings are not permitted on the SLVHCS campus. Please perform hand hygiene upon entering and exiting the OR area. Please cover all vents and equipment that cannot be removed.

FACTOR 1— Technical Factor 1

Evaluations will be based on the following subfactors and are in descending order of importance:

SUBFACTORS:

· Subfactor 1a. Management Approach Narrative

· Subfactor 1b. Schedule

Subfactor 1a Management Approach Narrative: Contractor shall demonstrate/explain how this project will be accomplished, based on the contractors best interpretation of the solicitation documents, with no interruptions of services in adjacent patient care areas. Provide techniques for maintaining on-time schedule performance and provide a detailed explanation as to how the project will be implemented and managed to ensure compliance with all OSHA Construction Standards, Fire and Life Safety Issues, and Security Measures.

Subfactor 1b – Schedule: Contractor shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements including critical milestones provided in a Proposed Draft Project Schedule with a January 03, 2022 Notice to Proceed fictitious Start Date (for purposes of the Proposed Draft Schedule only) that covers the project’s entire period of performance (to include the completion of any anticipated Punch List Items within the period of performance).

FACTOR 2— Technical Factor 2:

Evaluations will be based on the following subfactors and are in descending order of importance:

SUBFACTORS

· Subfactor 2a. Key Prime Contractor Staff

· Subfactor 2b. Subcontractors

Subfactor 2a – Key Prime Contractor Staff: Provide names on an Organizational Chart (structured with the below Subcontractors) and Resumes of the offeror’s proposed project management personnel (i.e. Site Superintendent, Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, etc.);narrative description of the individual’s management and construction capabilities and how they will be best utilized to obtain project completion with the proposed subcontractors.

· Project Manager and Project Superintendent shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience managing or supervising multiple projects of similar size, scope, and complexity (or greater). If the person listed as proposed Project Manager or Project Superintendent is not a current employee of the offeror but intends to become one upon award of the contract, OFFEROR SHALL SUBMIT A COPY OF A COMMITMENT LETTER FROM THAT PERSON AS A PART OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL to verify Offeror will be hiring him/her and he/she intends to accept the position.

Subfactor 2b – Subcontractors: Identify the key subcontractors and its associated socioeconomic status for the chosen for the project. Submit no more than five (5) Subcontractor Consent Forms (Exhibit C) for each Key Subcontractor. Each consent form shall have a narrative consisting of the locality, experience with construction at medical centers, and resumes of the proposed staff of the subcontractor.

Factor 3— Past Performance Vol 2:

Evaluations will be based on the following subfactors and are in descending order of importance.

Subfactors:

· Subfactor 3a. Previous Recent/Relevant construction experience with VA Construction Contracts

· Subfactor 3b. Demonstrated Past Performance Information

Tab A Subfactor 3a Previous Recent/Relevant construction experience with VA Construction Contracts completed at VA Medical Centers.

· List of Contract Names (and Brief Description) & Contract Numbers

· Date of Contract Awards

· Contract Dollar Amounts & Date Completed

· Contract Completed in Delinquent Status: Yes or No

Tab B Subfactor 3b – Demonstrated Past Performance Information

· Letters of Recommendation and/or Referrals from previous customers

· Letters and/or Referrals

· Names, Phone Numbers, & Email Addresses of Persons Authoring Letters and/or Referrals

· Previous Contractor Performance Assessments Reports

· Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit B): Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit B) – Offerors shall prepare and forward to prior client(s) for submission to the Contracting Office EXHIBIT B PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE for all the projects listed by contractor and submitted using EXHIBIT A PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY SURVEY. This includes correspondence explaining the requirement to obtain an independent evaluation of prior contract performance and the Past and Present Performance Questionnaire for use in evaluating Past Performance. It is preferred that these are the same projects for ease of evaluation and comparison.***PPQ may have been completed be no later than one (1) year prior to the effective date of this action***

· Performance Relevancy Survey (Exhibit A): Utilizing Performance Relevancy Survey (Exhibit A). The offeror shall demonstrate completed/or ongoing (>50% complete) recent and relevant projects at a hospital/ medical center (VA or Non-VA) project of this same size, scope, and complexity (or greater). Note: Clearly identify those examples where an Offeror’s proposed Subcontractor was the Prime (or the Subcontractor) on the Project Examples if utilizing Subcontractor Construction Project Capability.

· An offeror with limited or no past performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its subcontractors and/or key personnel, provided an EXHIBIT C SUBCONTRACTOR INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORM has been executed and included in the proposal for proposed subcontractors and/or potential key personnel not employed by the offeror. These ratings shall have the same weight as the ratings of the offeror. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will be assigned a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). 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 and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors.

The Government may evaluate Past/Present Performance information through the use of Exhibit A & B completed by the offeror's references; The Government may evaluate Key Staff-Subcontractor Performance information through the use of Exhibit C completed by the offeror; use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, including, but not limited to, Government databases; and/or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror. The evaluation may take into account Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

Past Performance information on contracts not listed by the offeror, or that of planned subcontractors, may also be evaluated. The Government may contact references and contact parties other than those identified by the offeror and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the offeror. The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, an offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (i.e. the relevance of an offeror's past performance information) as related to this acquisition, address adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

Performance Currency, Trends, and Relevancy: The Government will consider the currency, trends and relevancy of the performance information while conducting its performance evaluation. For the purpose of this solicitation, performance currency is performance occurring within the last five (5) years from the proposal issuance 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 March 2020 may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring during March 2017. Performance Trends may, depending upon the circumstances, have greater significance than sporadic incidents of "Exceptional" or "Unsatisfactory" performance. For the purpose of this solicitation, Performance Relevancy is defined as contracts (ongoing or completed) which are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current requirement. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are similar to the effort, or portion of effort, for which that contractor is being proposed, and may contribute to an overall higher relevancy score for the offeror. Based on the evaluation of offers, the Government will assign a performance confidence rating for each proposal at the factor level. The evaluation will consider the sub-factors as described herein. Following assignment of the performance confidence rating for each proposal, each offeror will receive a final risk rating for performance based on the cumulative rating of performance currency, trends, and relevancy.

Factor 4 – Price Vol 3: Offerors shall submit pricing in the Schedule, the SF1442 Back, and in the continuation page of SF 1442 (Block 17) as a part of their price proposal. The purpose of the price evaluation is to provide an assessment of the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed price in relation to the solicitation requirements. Price proposals will be evaluated to determine if the prices and support costs areas are:

· Complete – The proposal contains costs to perform all tasks required by the Scope of Work (SOW), specifications, and design drawings if provided.

· Reasonable – The price is determined fair and reasonable using cost or price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Phase 1 - Area D Rooms and Perimeter Corridors;

Phase 2 - Area E Rooms and Perimeter Corridors;

Phase 3 - Area F Rooms, Perimeter Corridors, and 3 Procedure Rooms West;

Phase 4 - Area F Rooms, Perimeter Corridors, and 3 Procedure Rooms East;

Phase 5 - Areas D and E Clean Corridor; and Phase 6 - Area F Clean Corridor

image2.png image3.png image4.emf image1.png