Amend 0001 - Instructions to Offerors.docx

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PART I. GENERAL

This procurement will follow the Two-Phase Design-Build selection procedures in accordance with FAR 36.3. The Government will evaluate Phase-One proposals and select a maximum of five (5) most highly qualified offerors to submit Phase-Two proposals. Phase-Two will select the best value offeror using the trade-off source selection process.

In Phase-One, the Government intends to select a maximum of (5) most highly qualified offerors to submit proposals for Phase-Two without conducting discussions with any offeror; therefore, the initial Phase-One proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer. The Government intends to evaluate Phase-Two proposals utilizing the Best Value Trade Off procedures outlined in FAR Part 15 and award a contract without conducting discussions; therefore, the initial Phase-Two proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and shall contain the best offer from a non-price and price standpoint.

The Government intends to award without discussions the proposal offering the Best Value to the Government. Award will be made on a Best Value trade off basis where all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal in importance with cost or price. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

The RFP can be accessed at https://beta.sam.gov. Printed copies of the RFP will not be issued.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUESTIONS REGARDING SOLICITATION

Questions regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing in WORD format via electronic mail to maxwell.derck@va.gov. Questions shall reference the drawing/detail and/or the specification section including paragraph number. Verbal queries will not be entertained. Responses to the properly submitted questions will be provided in the form of an Amendment posted to the web site https://beta.sam.gov. It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the website periodically for any amendments to the solicitation. The Government may not respond to questions submitted less than 10 days before the proposal receipt due date.

COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions during Phase-One and/or Phase- Two if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with offerors determined to be in the competitive range. 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 rated proposals.

ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The Government shall consider the “offeror” to be the legal entity identified in Block 14 of the SF1442 of the Phase-One proposal. The legal entity that submitted the Phase-One offer shall not be changed, assigned, or otherwise substituted prior to award under any circumstances. The proposal must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed in response to the evaluation factors (including subcontractors with teaming agreements, project schedule, building design etc.) will be enforced for the duration of the contract. Any substitutions after contract award will be equal or better than as proposed and shall require Contracting Officer's approval prior to implementation.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

Offeror packets will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

a. Definitions:

Size is defined as any project over $1,000,000.00 Complexity is defined as a design build project that includes several specialty trades and some engineering.

Scope is defined as work or activities related, or closely related to that which is outlined in the Statement of Work such as but not limited to; construction of new asphalt paving, compaction, grading, seal coating, striping, electrical and solar.

Recency is defined as a project completed in the previous five (5) calendar years. Relevancy is defined as for purposes of this evaluation, as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five years of the proposal issue date of this RFP. Infrastructure is defined as: 1) construction of a healthcare facility; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or 4) improvements such as utilities, landscaping, and roadways. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction does not include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility nor does it include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure.

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.3, this acquisition is based upon two- phase design-build selection procedures. The term “technical factors” refers to any non-price factor other than past performance. Factors 1-4 will be evaluated in Phase-One and Factors 5-6 will be evaluated in Phase-Two. Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an Offeror is rated Unacceptable in Factor 1, then they will not be considered for Phase-Two. In making the best value award decision after Phase-Two, the Government will consider Factors 2-6 and price. The relative importance of evaluation factors 2-6 is as follows: Technical factors (Factors 2, 4, 5, 6,) are of equal importance to each other, and when combined, are equal in importance to the past performance factor (Factor 3). When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance factor combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are approximately equal to price.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest non-price rated offeror. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.

PHASE-ONE and PHASE-TWO SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. All proposals shall be submitted in one part, a Technical Proposal. Your submittal must include a one-sided original to be emailed to the Contract Specialist maxwell.derck@va.gov. Emails cannot contain attachments that exceed 5MB.

b. All pages containing text shall be consecutively numbered, type-written to fit paper size indicated in each factor. Submissions shall be made electronically in pdf format. Past performance information shall be submitted separately. All technical proposals shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 Microsoft Word.

c. The format used for the areas and factors above shall be strictly adhered to. All responses in the offeror’s package shall clearly indicate the applicable Evaluation Area, and Section, if applicable.

d. It is the offeror’s responsibility to insure the completeness of the proposal. The evaluation panel for the Government may evaluate solely on the information provided in the initial proposal and will not assume that an offeror possesses any capability that is not specifically identified in the proposal.

e. Only one technical proposal will be evaluated for each offeror. Alternate methods of accomplishing the work required by this solicitation will not be evaluated.

Please Note: Missing, incomplete, or ambiguous information could result in an offer deemed deficient. The Government may NOT make an Award to a Deficient Offer; In addition, there may not be an opportunity to remedy deficiency if Government deems to make award without discussions.”

NOTE: DO NOT SUBMIT THE SF1442 OR BID GUARANTEE DURING PHASE-ONE. A COVER PAGE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY ISSUED AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED INSTEAD. NO PRICING OR COST INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED DURING PHASE-ONE OF THE SELECTION PROCESS.

NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase-One:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Safety

Phase-Two:

Factor 5: Key Personnel Factor 6: Project Schedule

***PHASE-ONE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) EVALUATON CRITERIA***

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(b)

The Offeror (as identified on the SF1442) shall provide a narrative describing the general technical approach for accomplishing the requirements of this contract based on the General Requirements outlined in the statement of work. This is high level and does not require referencing specifications. The narrative shall include the roles and responsibilities of the offeror and the partnering firm. If the offeror is made up of more than one legal entity (e.g. Joint- Venture, Limited Liability Company, Limited Partnership, etc.), the narrative shall describe the roles and responsibilities of each legal entity(s) comprising the offeror. Provide an organizational chart, clearly depicting the offeror (including each legal entity comprising the offeror), the partner firm, and the lines of authority of the various entities. The narrative and organizational chart shall be limited to four (4) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10- point font or larger.

(c) Basis of Evaluation:

The offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the General Requirements of the contract, the roles and responsibilities of the offeror and lead design firm to accomplish the requirements of the contract. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – Experience:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide information on relevant and recent experience on design-build contracts of comparable size, complexity and scope within the last five calendar years as described in the below requirements. The Offeror shall complete the attached Phase-One Factor 2 Spreadsheet (Attachment A) for each project submitted. The attached (Attachment A) is structured to allow for the entry of up to six (6) total projects as requested in items 1 thru 3 below. The use of (Attachment A) and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in (Attachment A) and all other information provided on other than (Attachment A) will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual cells on the (Attachment A). (Attachment A) submittals that do not comply with these requirements WILL NOT be evaluated.

1. Submit a maximum of Two (2) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Architect-Engineering Firm that will be designing the project. Examples should demonstrate offerors experience as the Prime Contractor on recent, relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

2. Submit a maximum of Two (2) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Construction Contractor that will be performing the largest construction effort on the project. Examples should demonstrate offerors experience as the Prime Contractor on recent, relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP

3. Submit a maximum of Two (2) example design/build projects that the prime contractor and the partner firm have completed together. Examples should demonstrate offerors and partner firm’s coordination and teamwork leading to successful completion on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing recent, relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements of similar size, scope and complexity. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. Offeror’s projects will be rated individually and then combined to achieve an overall factor rating. Offeror’s demonstrating recent and relevant design-build experience; project completion within initial stated period of performance; recent and relevant design/construction of surface parking; recent and relevant examples of offeror and partner firm demonstrating a successful contractor team arrangement; and, recent and relevant projects completed in the NCO 21 Geographic location may be rated more favorably.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included for Phase-One Factor 2 for Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ - Attachment B) for each project submitted for Phase-One Factor 2. PPQs will not be accepted from the designer on a design-build project or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. PPQs shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. The offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offeror’s may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations as long as complete, required information is included.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Phase-One Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed four (4) single-sided pages in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience, AND past performance on other relevant projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or joint venture identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

In rating Phase-One Factor 2 and Factor 3, the Government will evaluate for recency, relevancy, and quality of contractor performance. In reference to Factor 3 specifically, offerors who do not have relevant past performance will receive a neutral rating (neither favorable nor unfavorable) (FAR 15.305)(a)(iv). However, the Offeror with favorable past performance may be considered more favorably than an offeror with Neutral rating.

There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance”. Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

Factor 4 – Safety:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall complete Attachment “D” “Contractor Certification Regarding Safety and Environmental” document. Offeror shall have no more than three serious, or one repeat, or one willful OSHA or EPA violation(s) in the past 3 years and have an EMR of equal to or less than 1.0. Documentation shall include all open and final OSHA violations for the 3 previous calendar years.

***PHASE-TWO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NON-PRICE, TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA***

The Bid Guarantee shall be submitted with the Phase-Two requirement.

Responses to Phase-Two Request for Proposal shall only be accepted after Phase-One is complete, and only from the selected offerors.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. Evaluation will be based on the following evaluation factors:

Factor 5 – Key Personnel Experience/Qualifications:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall submit the information shown in Attachment (C) for their Key Personnel (Design-Build Prime Project Manager, Partner Firm Project Manager, Construction Superintendent, Civil Engineer, and Electrical Engineer). Roles as Prime Project Manager and Construction Superintendent may be completed by one individual if evidence of sufficient qualifications is provided. Submission of information on each of the key personnel’s experience is limited to a maximum of five (5) projects. If the Offeror submits more than five (5) projects for each key personnel, the Government will evaluate the first five (5) and disregard any other project information after the first five (5). In addition, the proposal shall also clearly indicate the number of years of experience for the key personnel in each of their respective positions. In order to properly evaluate the proposals, the proposal shall clearly indicate the number of years of experience, and shall NOT show combined experience, such as, Project Manager/Project Engineer for three years. The proposed key personnel shall be employees of the Offeror’s firm. If the proposed key personnel are not an employee of the Offeror’s firm at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror shall obtain a letter of intent to be employed by the Offeror, signed by the key personnel and the Offeror, and shall submit it with the proposal. Submissions for each individual key personnel shall be limited to five (5) single-sided pages, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger.

In addition, the offeror shall submit the information shown in Attachment (C) for the Quality Control Manager of Prime and Partner Firm. Submission of information to demonstrate experience for the Quality Control Manager of the Prime and Partner Firm will be limited to five (5) projects as outlined above. Please note: As stated in the Specification titled (01 45 00 Quality Control), the individual/individuals submitted as potential QC Managers are required to be a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate of construction management, with a minimum of 3 years construction experience on projects of similar size, scope and complexity. Please note: A single person can cover more than one area provided that the single person is qualified to perform QC activities as designated.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The above listed key positions are listed and will be rated in descending order of importance. The Offeror's key personnel shall be evaluated based upon experience in civil work (e.g. civil work for utility systems (e.g., structural, electrical or solar systems); or site improvements (e.g., mass grading, roadways and paving) construction, demonstrated by a maximum of five (5) projects for each person. Each project shall have a dollar value of approximately $1.0M or more, completed within the last ten (10) years. Each person shall have a minimum of two years of construction experience in their respective positions and five years in their respective fields.

Key personnel with demonstrated experience in the specific civil and site improvement disciplines outlined in this paragraph may be rated more favorably. Likewise, key personnel with 5 or more years in their respective positions and 10 or more years in their respective fields may be rated more favorably.

Factor 6 – Project Schedule:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a high-level Project Schedule summary, identifying major design and construction activities, highlighting Critical Path items. Project Schedule shall assume and depict contract award on 30 September 2020 with Notice to Proceed of 15 October 2020. Project Schedule shall demonstrate the Offeror’s strategy to ensure successful completion of the project within the time specified period of performance. The schedule shall not exceed 4 pages (single-sided, 11” x 17”). The assumed award date is stated for proposal evaluation purposes only and does not infer or guarantee that an award will be made by that date. Provide a supplementary narrative committing to meeting the proposed construction duration. Provide an explanation for minimizing delays caused by unforeseen conditions. The narrative shall not exceed four (4) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11”, 1” margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger). The schedule and narrative shall, at a minimum, provide the following information:

· Design start and completion date;

· Date for Government Acceptance of the Contractor’s Final Design;

· Contractor Quality Control reviews;

· Schedule must clearly indicate timeframes for Government design submittal review and scheduling of Government design review conferences, in accordance with Specification requirements.

· Construction start and completion date with phasing plan.

· If Offeror proposes to start Construction prior to Government Acceptance of the Contractor’s Final Design, proposal shall clearly indicate construction activities that will occur before the Government Acceptance of the Final Design. Proposals that indicate Construction start prior to Government Acceptance of the Contractor’s Final Design must clearly explain risks and mitigations associated with this approach.

· Describe how project will be staffed at the workforce execution level to ensure and validate that the project schedule can be met; i.e., plan to adequately staff the project throughout the duration of construction; plan to mitigate risk of slow construction start and construction progress from challenges in labor shortage and sourcing; plan to train, develop, and maintain skilled labor force; etc.

Narrative and schedules shall not propose variances from Contract requirements. For example, Offerors shall not propose contractual conditions that shift schedule risk to the Government or propose limitations on the ability of the Government to properly administer the contract.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Offeror's project schedule will be evaluated for coordination, staffing, and scheduling of the work to ensure timely completion of the project, demonstrating the Offeror’s understanding of the major design and construction activities and Critical Path items to successfully execute the project.

NOTE:

(1) The performance period proposed by the Offeror cannot exceed the time specified in Solicitation, and FAR 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work.

(2) Completion dates that are shorter than specified in the solicitation and FAR 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work, may be given more favorable consideration if supported by narratives that explain methodologies and innovative approaches to accelerate delivery, while fully mitigating risks to the execution and quality of design and construction. Proposed accelerated project schedule and completion dates shall become contract requirements upon award.

(3) In accordance with the RFP, the Government prefers to review for Quality Assurance (QA) as few submittal packages as possible. Design submittal packages must be correlated to the Critical Path items depicted on the proposed Project Schedule; otherwise, design shall not be packaged separately.

PHASE-TWO PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

Price will be evaluated separately from Technical and other non-cost/price factors.

(a) Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

(b) Vendors Shall complete and submit with proposal Attachment “F” Supplemental Pricing Breakdown