Revised Information Regarding Bidding Material Bid Guarantee and Bonds.docx

INFORMATION REGARDING BIDDING MATERIAL, BID GUARANTEE AND BONDS

This acquisition will use best value tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR (Overhaul) Part 15, based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the non-price and price factors. This acquisition is a 100% set-aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns.

The following items are required to be submitted with the proposal for the proposal to be determined responsive/acceptable. It is the responsibility of each offeror to ensure that its proposal reaches the designated point of submission in a timely manner. Proposals received that do not provide all requirements of the solicitation may be deemed nonresponsive/unacceptable and removed from further consideration at the discretion of the Government.

1. Standard Form (SF) 1442, completed and signed. Note: Contractor’s signature shall be in accordance with FAR (Overhaul) Part 4.102 (e.g., proper signature and format of person who is able to bind an individual, partnership, corporation, etc.).

2. Amendment(s). All solicitation amendments must be acknowledged in accordance FAR (Overhaul) Clause 52.215-1(b). Acknowledgement of All Amendments: The Offeror shall acknowledge all amendments.

3. A Bid Guarantee, SF 24, is required. The Offeror must furnish a bid guarantee (see FAR (Overhaul) 52.228-1). The bid guarantee must be provided on Standard Form 24.

4. Complete Technical Proposal Volume 1. A complete Volume 1 Technical and Past Performance Proposal addressing each Factor needs to be submitted per the submission requirements.

5. Complete Price Proposal Volume 2. A complete Volume 2 price proposal shall be submitted per the submission requirements.

· Offerors shall submit a completed and signed SF 1442.

· Offerors are recommended to submit other pricing information that assists the Government in evaluation.

6. Completed Representations and Certifications. Provisions or clauses incorporated by full text and/or reference in this solicitation requiring completion by the offeror must be completed and submitted with the offer.

7. Information Regarding Responsibility Matters:

The Offeror must provide their response to FAR (Overhaul) 52.209-7(b).

8. Violation of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements:

The Offeror must provide their response to FAR (Overhaul) 52.209-13(b) Certification.

9. Post-Award Small Business Program Representation:

The Offeror must provide their response to FAR (Overhaul) 52.219-28(h), if applicable.

10. Notice to SDVOSB Joint Venture/Mentor Protegee:

Any Offeror submitting a bid proposal as a joint venture must provide a certification from each SDVOSB joint partner, signed by an authorized official of each partner to the joint venture, stating that the parties to the joint venture (1) have entered into a joint venture agreement that fully complies with paragraph (c) of 13 CFR § 128.402 and (2) will perform the contract in compliance with the joint venture agreement. Failure to properly certify is a material defect; if not certified, offeror is ineligible for award.

11. Limitations on Subcontracting Certificate of Compliance. The offeror must complete and sign the VA Notice of Limitation on Subcontracting Certificate of Compliance for Services and Construction required in VAAR 852.219-75 as provided in a separate document (Attachment 8 – 668-21-100 Limitations on Subcontracting) and return it with their proposal submission. The document must be completed correctly in its entirety with the company name inserted twice in the certification paragraph, each of the five lines below the certification paragraph completed correctly and signed by an authorized signatory. Failure to properly certify is a material defect and will not be considered for award.

12. Divisional Price Breakout.

Offer shall complete the price schedule division breakout found at Attachment 7 of the solicitation.

13. Contractor Rules of Behavior.

Offers must complete the Contractor Rules of Behavior as required by VA Handbook 6500.6. offers must initial and date each page and can be found at Attachment 6 of the solicitation.

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.1.1 Intent: The intent of this solicitation (please note that the words solicitation and request for proposal (RFP) may be used synonymously throughout the solicitation documents) is to select one contractor to provide professional construction services in accordance with the attached documents. The period of performance is 650 calendar days from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.

1.1.2 Method of Award: The Government intends to use the “Best Value” tradeoff process source selection approach in accordance with FAR (Overhaul) 15.101-1. A firm fixed price award will be made to the responsive, responsible offeror whose offer/proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government based on all factors outlined in this Solicitation.

1.1.3 Negotiations: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without negotiations with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR (Overhaul) 15.202(b)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly evaluated proposals.

1.1.4 Non-responsive/Unacceptable Proposal: Offerors must comply with all detailed instructions in this Solicitation for format and data content of the proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and data content of the proposal may be considered non-responsive and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

1.2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION

1.2.1 These instructions prescribe the format and other essential information for preparation/development and presentation of proposal data to ensure the submission of necessary information for the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals. Carefully review this section prior to commencing proposal preparation. In order for proposals to receive full consideration for award, offerors should ensure that the information furnished in support of the proposal is factual, accurate, and complete.

1.2.2 Proposal submission should be in PDF Format compatible with the latest version of Adobe Acrobat. Offeror’s proposals shall be submitted in two (2) separate Volumes: Volume 1 – Technical and Past Performance Proposal and Volume 2 – Price/Cost Proposal with strict adherence to the format, data, and other requirements of this Solicitation. Please title files in the following format:

· Solicitation Number Company Name Volume 1 Technical and Past Performance Proposal

· Solicitation Number Company Name Volume 2 Price Proposal

1.2.3 Written proposals shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper (charts may be landscaped but must be on 8.5 x 11-inch paper), text lines shall be single-spaced and shall have a font size no smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 11-point font. Type that is smaller will be considered illegible. All pages of each proposal shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the RFP number. For ease of reviews, consecutive page numbering is required.

1.2.4 Indexing: Each Volume shall contain a “Table of Contents” for that volume. The “Table of Contents” shall identify major areas, paragraphs and subparagraphs by number and title as well as by page number and volume locations.

1.2.5 Offerors responding to this Solicitation with a proposal/offer to provide the work set forth in the Solicitation documents should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals, so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP shall be deemed nonresponsive.

Offerors are reminded of their responsibility to submit a proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented that will enable the Government to easily understand and perform a thorough and fair evaluation. All commitments made in the proposal may become a part of the resultant contract. The data submitted with each proposal should be complete and concise, but not overly elaborate. Excessive reliance on promotional brochures is discouraged. In order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include sufficiently detailed information to clearly address all of the evaluation criteria factors described in the Solicitation.

Offerors must comply with all detailed instructions in this Solicitation for format and data content of the proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and data content of the proposal may be considered technically unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

**ALL PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY; NO HARD COPY OR FACSIMILE PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED**

1.3 FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

The following Points of Contact (POC) are provided for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to both listed POCs via email with the subject line Project 668-21-100 – 36C26026R0044 – Upgrade AHU 18, 20, and 22, no later than May 18, 2026, at 10:00 AM (PST). The government is not obligated to answer any questions submitted after this date. Furthermore, all questions shall be submitted by the prime contractor(s) on behalf of their subcontractor(s) and supplier(s). Questions submitted by subcontractors and/or suppliers directly to the POCs above, or if applicable, the AE of Record, will be rejected and not answered.

Clarifications and answers will be provided only in response to written requests for clarification and will be made available to all Offerors simultaneously by Amendment to this solicitation. Written requests for clarification should be emailed to the addresses indicated below. The government assumes no responsibility for non-delivery due to problems with email servers, and no extensions will be granted for these issues.

Quyen Mai Contract Specialist Quyen.Mai@va.gov

Dennis Einarson Contracting Officer Dennis.Einarson@va.gov

1.4 PRE-BID SITE VISIT

A formal site visit has been scheduled for this project. This will be the only opportunity for potential Offerors to visit the site. All potential Offerors, subcontractors, and suppliers are strongly encouraged to attend this site visit.

Site Visit Information Date: May 11, 2026 Time: 10:00 AM PST Location: Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center

1.5 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will use best value tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 15, based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the non-price and price factors.

1.61.5 EVALUATION FACTORS

This acquisition will use best value tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 15, based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the non-price and price factors.

During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating for Factors 1-3. The following factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Factors 1 and 2 are of approximately equal importance, and when . All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price (Factor 3).

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL AND PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL

The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Factor 1 will be evaluated using the ratings and descriptions outlined below.

The following definitions apply to the ratings described in Table 1:

“Strength” means an aspect of the proposal that benefits the Government or exceeds requirements; “Weakness” means a flaw that may increase the risk of unsuccessful performance; and “Deficiency” means a material failure to meet a requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases risk to an unacceptable level.

Descriptions

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

Factor 1: Technical Rating Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Each Offeror will receive a rating based upon an evaluation of its proposal for this factor.

This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s narrative describing its approach for accomplishing the work identified in the Statement of Work (SOW) and project documents. The Offeror shall provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the project requirements, constraints, and risks, and to describe the specific methods, procedures, resources, and sequencing it will use to complete the work successfully.

To be considered acceptable, theThe offeror must do more than restate the requirements; it must demonstrate in detail how it will meet those requirements through a well-defined and feasible approach. Generic statements indicating the ability to perform the work without supporting explanation will be evaluated as lacking sufficient detail or understanding.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the narrative:

· Is logical and free of contradictory or conflicting information.

· Describes an approach to resourcing, organizing, and communicating on the proposed project that is consistent with requirements in the project description.

· Provides a level of detail and specificity to this project that demonstrates the Offeror understands the requirements in the attached SOW, specifications, and drawings.

· Reduces the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Is realistic and achievable, e.g., does the offeror’s stated technical approach, to include their overall structure and management of their project team, correlate to a high probability of success during contract performance?

· The approach minimizes impact and disruption to clinical operations If an offeror’s proposal is deemed “unacceptable” for Factor 1, the evaluation process will stop, and the government will no longer consider the offeror within the competitive range for award consideration.

Subfactor 2: Key Personnel The Offeror shall propose one (1) team that consists of key personnel (Project Manager, Quality Control Manager, Site Superintendent, Site Safety & Health Officer) for the project and meet the minimum qualifications of the Specifications.

The Offeror shall submit one (1) resume for each position. Resumes shall address functions and responsibilities of the resume holder relevant to general construction, renovation, maintenance, minor repair, and ancillary construction services with an emphasis on experience working active health care. A strength may be assessed for experience in VA Healthcare settings.

Each resume must be no more than two (2) pages and provide the following minimum information:

· Name and title(s).

· Years’ experience in each role identified.

· Years’ experience with the Offeror and with other entities.

· Education including degree(s), year, and specialization (if applicable).

· Experience in projects relevant to the Technical Evaluation Factor 1.

· Other experience, certifications, and qualifications relevant to solicitation requirements.

· Two (2) professional references with telephone number and email address.

The Offeror shall also provide an Organizational Chart listing key company personnel and their role. The proposed Key Personnel will require prior written approval of the Contracting Officer on substitutions and modifications.

Factor 2: Past Performance Each Offeror will receive a rating from Tables 2 and 3, below, based upon an evaluation of its proposal for this factor.

When evaluating past performance, the role performed by the Offeror or its subcontractor(s) will be considered for consistency with the proposed role to be performed by the offeror or subcontractor(s) under this contract. The evaluation will consider recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance, which are combined to establish an overall performance assessment for each Offeror. The evaluation will be based on projects submitted by the Offeror and any relevant past performance information available from Government sources.

· Provide a list of a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) recent (defined as within the last 5 years from the date of solicitation issuance) that are similar in size, scope, and complexity. At least two (2) projects should demonstrate experience with the installation and start-up of similar large air handling equipment.

· Offeror shall use the attached form titled “Past Performance/Experience Questionnaire” (PPQ) form to obtain information from at least three (3) of the five (5) projects listed above. Completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) may be submitted in lieu of a PPQ where available. The PPQ identifies mandatory information; failure to provide that information may result in the PPQ not being considered for evaluation. If fewer than three (3) PPQs or CPARSs are received, the Government will evaluate all available PPQs, CPARS, and other relevant past performance information.

If an Offeror does not have any past performance record, a neutral rating will be assigned for this evaluation factor.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

· Offeror-Provided Information: The Offeror shall identify the required projects and submit completed PPQs using the VA-provided form to ensure consistency of information.

· Other Available Sources: The Government may obtain and consider past performance information from any available sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), interviews with Program Managers, CORs, and Contracting Officers. Technical evaluators and the Contracting Officer may also use personal knowledge of the contractor’s prior VA contracts to assist with the evaluation.

Recency:

Each past performance submission will be assessed either as recent or not recent. To be considered recent, projects provided must be completed or are at least 75% complete, within the past five (5) years, as of the issue date of the solicitation.

Relevancy:

Each past performance submission will be assessed either as relevant or not relevant.

To be considered relevant, submitted projects must be at least 75% complete, similar in scope, complexity, size and cost or price to the solicitation requirement.

The proposal must demonstrate a clear connection between the entity performing the work under this solicitation and the entity whose past performance is being submitted. If an offeror relies on an affiliate (such as a parent company, subsidiary, or joint venture partner) or a proposed subcontractor to demonstrate past performance, the proposal must clearly describe the relationship and the extent to which that affiliate or subcontractor will participate in contract performance in order to receive credit.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Quality of Performance:

The final aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment:

Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. An offeror must receive an integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment of “Substantial Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating for this evaluation factor to be included in the competitive range for award consideration. Any proposals receiving a past performance evaluation rating of "Limited Confidence" or "No Confidence" for this factor will not be included in the competitive range for contract award consideration.

Proposals may be rated higher for the performance confidence assessment if they include projects that demonstrate any of the following:

1. If the offeror is a JV, recent and relevant projects where the JV entities have previously worked together may be considered more favorably than a JV where the entities have not previously worked together.

1. Projects demonstrating the experience past performance of the offeror or JV entities (i.e. self-performed work) may be more highly rated than projects demonstrating the experience past performance of proposed subcontractors. Relevant experience past performance of parent companies or affiliates will be considered equivalent to experience past performance of the offeror only if the proposal clearly demonstrates the connection between the affiliate's proposed role on the solicitation project and the role of the affiliate on the past performance submitted.

1. Projects where the offeror demonstrates recent and relevant construction experience past performance with The Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran Health Administration (VHA), may be more highly rated than recent and relevant construction past performance with entities outside of VA VHA.

1. Projects where the offeror demonstrates experience in the same geographical region as the solicitation project may be rated more favorably.

Table 3 – Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

* Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

VOLUME 2 – PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor 3: Price Price reasonableness analysis will be performed by the Government to determine that the proposal prices offered are complete, fair, and reasonable. Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with FAR (Overhaul) 15.202(d). Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Comparison of the proposed prices is expected to satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, however, the Government may, if necessary, request and analyze the Offeror’s price breakdown to establish reasonableness of an otherwise successful Offeror’s price.

SeconFor purposes of award, the total evaluated price will include the total price noted in the price schedule.

EVALUATION PROCESS AND FINAL SELECTION

The Government will review each timely proposal received to ensure it conforms to the solicitation requirements. The proposals that conform to the solicitation requirements will be evaluated, starting with Volume 1, Technical and Past Performance Proposal. Proposals that are not timely or do not conform to the solicitation requirements will not be evaluated nor considered for award.

During evaluations, the Government will note the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies found in each Offeror’s proposal, which will correlate to the ratings assigned to each Offeror’s Volume 1 proposal (Factors 1-2).

Next, the Government may establish a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals and will evaluate those Offerors’ Volume 2 (Factor 3: Price) proposals. The Government will conduct a price reasonableness analysis to determine that the proposal prices offered are complete, fair, and reasonable, and if necessary, deemed realistic. Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with FAR (Overhaul) 15.202(d).

Once evaluations are complete, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will determine the Offeror’s proposal that is most beneficial to the Government, which may include awarding to a higher-priced proposal with a significantly higher-rated technical proposal in accordance with FAR (Overhaul) Part 15.