Instruction to Offerors DESIGN BUILD 10-5-2026.docx

<Page Break Before> <New Section: 2>

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS TO BIDDERS/OFFERORS

Please refer to the attachment for statement of work.

PART I. GENERAL

1.1. SOLICITATION INTRODUCTION

This procurement will follow the Two-Phase Design-Build selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) RFO 36.101-2. The Government will evaluate Phase‑One proposals and down‑select a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to participate in Phase Two. Phase‑Two proposals will then be evaluated using a Best‑Value Trade‑Off source‑selection process to determine the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

During Phase One, the Government intends to make the down‑select decision without conducting discussions. Offerors are therefore advised that Phase‑One proposals must be complete, compliant, and reflect the offeror’s best terms. Phase‑One evaluations will consider Factors 1–3 and are used solely to determine which offerors advance to Phase Two. These ratings do not carry forward and will not influence Phase‑Two evaluations.

During Phase Two, only down‑selected offerors will submit proposals. The Government will evaluate Factors 4–6 and make award exclusively on Phase‑Two ratings. Key Personnel Experience (Factor 4) and Project Schedule (Factor 5) are equal in importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to Price (Factor 6). Price is evaluated only in Phase Two. Offerors are again advised that the Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, initial Phase‑Two proposals must also represent the offeror’s best terms from both a technical and price standpoint.

The Government intends to make award without conducting discussions. Offerors are advised that their initial proposals must be complete, accurate, and reflect their best pricing and technical terms. Award will be made using a Best Value Trade‑Off process in which all non‑price evaluation factors, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price.

Although the Government’s intent is to forego discussions, the Contracting Officer retains the sole discretion to open discussions if it is later determined that doing so is necessary to ensure that the final award represents the best value to the Government.

This solicitation is issued as a total SDVOSB set-aside.

The Department of Labor (DOL), Davis Bacon Act (DBA) Wage determination, General Decision Number applicable for this solicitation is: NV20260091 dated 07-30-2026.

The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 236220-Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, and the Small Business Size Standard is $45M. PSC code is Z2lZ, Repair or Alteration of Facilities.

Pursuant to VAAR 836.204(g) – Disclosure of the magnitude of construction projects is between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.

System updates may lag policy updates. The System for Award Management (SAM) may continue to require entities to complete representations based on provisions that are not included in agency solicitations. Examples include 52.222-25, Affirmative Action Compliance, and paragraph (d) of 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. Contracting officers will not consider these representations when making award decisions or enforce requirements. Entities are not required to, nor are they able to, update their entity registration to remove these representations in SAM.

ATTACHMENTS (included with this solicitation):

SOW 07-24-2026

Specifications 08-17-2026 DB Price Breakdown Form

VAAR 852.219-75 (JAN 2023)(DEVIATION)

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FORM

Wage Determination NV20260091 07-30-2026 Pre-Solicitation Site Visit Presentation Assignment 21 Draft Schematic Design and Report Assignment 44 BOD Conceptual Design for Carports Assignment 44 Parking Study Existing Carport Design ED Parking Expansion Attachment A Phase 1 Factor 2 Experience/Specialized Experience Attachment B Phase 1 Factor 3 Past Performance

Proposals will only be requested and accepted from Vendors that are verified and registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and be verified in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Search database as a Service- Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) from the Network Contracting Office (NCO) 21.

Offeror MUST be verified as SDVOSB to be eligible for an award in SBA Search database at: https://search.certifications.sba.gov/ in accordance with VAAR 819.7003 – Eligibility. A proposal will be rejected and will not be considered for an award if offeror’s SDVOSB/VOSB status cannot be verified at the time of submission of proposal and prior to award.

Offerors MUST fully complete, sign, and submit the certification for VAAR Clause 852.219-75 (JAN 2023) (Deviation) version that is included in this solicitation (Attachment VAAR 852.219-75 (JAN 2023) (Deviation)). This certification is required to be submitted with the Phase 1 technical proposal by the Phase 1 solicitation due date for the offeror to be considered for evaluation.

Note: An offer that fails to include a properly completed certification by the time proposals are due must be rejected by the agency. The signature must be tendered by an individual who is authorized to execute the certification on behalf of the offeror. For the completion requirement, VAAR 852.219-75 imposes an obligation on the person executing the certification to enter the following information below the paragraph which begins with the word ‘Certification:’

1.2. VAAR Clause 852.219-75(JAN 2023)(Deviation) Fill-in Instructions:

Offeror’s Company Name: The name should match the actual legal name of the offeror’s company as captured in SAM.gov. If the offeror’s name is ‘SDVOSB ABCD, LLC,’ the full legal name of the entity must be entered in each separate section of the certification that contains the following brackets: [Insert Name of Offeror]. It is not sufficient for the offeror’s company name to be inserted at the bottom of the certification only. The offeror’s name must be entered in the brackets referenced above.

Printed Name and Title of Signee: Enter the printed name and job title of the signee.

Signature: The certification statement must be signed by an individual who is authorized to execute the certification on behalf of the offeror.

Date: The certification must be properly dated.

Company Name and Address: The certification must include the signee’s complete business name and address. This information should match the address and legal name of the offeror as captured in SAM.gov.

1.3. SITE VISIT INFORMATION

A pre-solicitation site visit has been scheduled for September 17, 2026 at 10:00 AM PDT. The site visit meet-up location is Administration Building #6 at the VA Police counter in the lobby waiting area, located at VA Medical Center Las Vegas, 6900 North Pecos Rd., North Las Vegas, NV 89086. The primary POC for information is Christopher Whipple at christopher.whipple@va.gov.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to attend the pre-solicitation site visit to gain a comprehensive understanding of the project requirements and site conditions. An individual second visit to the site is not allowed.

3) Please provide a list of your firm’s representatives that will attend the site visit at least one (1) day prior to site visit.

1.4. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (RFI) INFORMATION

All Requests For Information (RFIs) must be sent via email using the required “Attachment RFI Form” and received in writing by the specified due date in the solicitation

All Request for Information (RFI) regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing and received no later than (NLT) 09/24/2026 @ 2:00 PM PDT via email to christopher.whipple@va.gov and daniel.jhun@va.gov. All RFIs must use the RFI form (Attachement) attached to this solicitation.

1.5. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) INFORMATION

The RFP can be accessed at https://sam.gov. Offerors can also search SAM.gov using the solicitation notice ID # 36C26126R0055. Printed copies of the RFP 36C26126R0055 not be issued. Submit your proposal no later than (NLT) 10/15/2026 by 14:00 P.M. PDT to the Contracting Officer, Christopher Whipple by email at christopher.whipple@va.gov and Cc daniel.jhun@va.gov.

1.6. SOLICITATION QUESTION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Questions regarding this solicitation should be submitted in writing in WORD format via Email to christopher.whipple@va.gov. Verbal queiries will not be entertained. Responses that require updates to the solicitation to will be provided in the form of an amendment posted to the website: https://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 the questions submitted less than 10 days before the proposal receipt due date.

1.7. 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.

1.8. 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:

2.1. DEFINITIONS:

Size: design build project with a total construction value of $3,000,000 or more.

Complexity: is defined as a design build project that includes several specialty trades and 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, installation of shade canopy structures; parking lot reconfiguration; pedestrian path construction; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/ Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards (ABAAS) route improvements; subsurface utility investigation; drainage modifications; and traffic control and phasing on an active campus.

Recency: is defined as a project completed in the previous five (5) calendar years from the issue date of this RFP.

Relevancy: is defined, for purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five (5) years of the proposal issue date of this RFP. Infrastructure is defined as: 1) phased construction on an active VA Medical Center or hospital campus; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) non-residential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or 4) improvements such as ADA/ABAAS and pedestrian safety enhancements, including crosswalks, signage, and traffic calming measures; 5) parking lot reconfiguration with maintained parking availability during construction. “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.

2.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (RFO) 36.101-2, 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. The following are the Phase one and Phase two evaluation factors for this requirement:

Phase One Factor 1 - Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience/Specialized Experience Factor 3 - Past Performance will be evaluated in Phase-One.

Phase Two Factor 4 - Key Personnel Experience/Qualification Factor 5 - Project Schedule Factor 6 – Price will be evaluated in Phase-Two.

Phase One evaluations for Factors 1-3 will be performed for all submitted Phase One proposals. The purpose of Phase One is to identify the most highly qualified offerors to be invited to submit Phase Two proposals. The Government intends to select a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified offerors to Phase Two. The Contracting Officer may increase this number if doing so is in the best interest of the Government and documented accordingly. A minimum of three (3) offerors will be invited to Phase II to preserve meaningful competition, unless the CO determines and documents that fewer qualified offerors exist. The Government intends to evaluate Phase-Two proposals 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.

Factor 1 (Technical Approach) will be evaluated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. An Unacceptable rating under Factor 1 makes an offeror ineligible for Phase Two consideration. Factors 2 (Experience/Specialized Experience) will be evaluated in accordance with clearly defined adjectival rating criteria. Factor 3 (Past Performance) will be evaluated in accordance with past performance relevancy rating and confidence assessments rating method. The relative importance of “non-price” evaluation factors is as follows:

•All non-price factors are equal in importance (Factors 2,3,4,5).

In Phase Two: Factors 4-6 will be evaluated only for offerors selected to submit Phase Two proposals. In making the best value award decision after Phase-Two, the Government will consider Factors 4 & 5 (non-price) and Factor 6 (price). The relative importance of evaluation factors 4-6 is as follows:

•Technical factors, Factor 4 (Key Personnel) & Factor 5 (Project Schedule) are of equal importance to each other.

•The Phase II technical evaluation factors (Factors 4 & 5) when combined, are approximately equal in importance to Factor 6 (Price).

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 efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the content provided in the solicitation. The Government intends to award a firm fixed price (FFP) contract, as required by the procedures pursuant to RFO Part 15.103-1 Tradeoff Approach. The tradeoff process will be IAW RFO 15.2, Evaluation and Award, and the contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror, pursuant to RFO 9.104, whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors. An 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.

The Government intends to award a contract without conducting discussions with offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined to be necessary by the Contracting Officer. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the 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. An 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.

2.3. PHASE-ONE and PHASE-TWO SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

(a) All proposals must be submitted in one email transmission and must consist of one consolidated Technical Proposal document as a single, complete submission. The email shall be sent to the Contracting Officer at christopher.whipple@va.gov and must not exceed 5MB in total size. Offerors shall not submit multiple or supplemental emails unless specifically requested by the Government.

(b) All pages containing text must be type‑written, formatted to the paper size specified within each evaluation factor, and numbered consecutively. Proposals must be submitted electronically in PDF format. Past performance information that consists of newly completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) must be submitted separately and directly to the Contracting Officer by the questionnaire respondent. This requirement applies only to PPQs transmitted by the individual completing the form; all other past performance materials must be included within the offeror’s Technical Proposal. All technical proposal files must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010; PDF format remains acceptable.

(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.

(f) Faxed proposals are not permitted under any circumstances.

(g) The subject line of the email will read: “Solicitation No. 36C26126R0055 – Project No. 593-26-306, Design-Build Services to Install Parking Lot Shades and Parking Lot Reconfiguaration., Las Vegas VA Medical Center, NV.” Send the email to christopher.whipple@va.gov and daniel.jhun@va.gov.

(h) Offerors must include in the body of the email containing the proposals as follows:

a. Company Name

b. Design-Build Services to Install Parking Lot Shades and Parking Lot Reconfiguration., Las Vegas VA Medical Center, NV.

c. Solicitation No. 36C26126R0055

Please note that 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.

PLEASE 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.

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

1) Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

a) Solicitation Submission Requirements:

The Offeror 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.

b) 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.

2) Factor 2 – Experience/Specialized Experience:

a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Provide information on recent and relevant experience on design‑build contracts of comparable size, scope, and complexity completed within the past five (5) calendar years as described in the requirements of Sections 1 through 4 below. The Offeror shall complete the Phase‑One Factor 2 Spreadsheet (Attachment A) for each project submitted. Attachment A is structured to allow entry of up to eight (8) total projects, with each section having a maximum submission limit as specified in Sections 1–4. Use of Attachment A is MANDATORY, and the Government will evaluate ONLY the information presented in Attachment A; any information submitted outside Attachment A will not be considered. Offerors may expand individual cells within Attachment A as needed. Attachment A submissions that do not comply with these requirements will NOT be evaluated. Project reuse is permitted only where expressly allowed in Sections 1–4 and only when all stated conditions for reuse are met.

1. Submit a maximum of Two (2) completed example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Architect-Engineering Firm that will be designing the project. Each project shall demonstrate the AE firm’s recent and relevant experience performing lead design services on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to this RFP. The submitted projects shall clearly document the AE firm’s role, responsibilities, and successful performance as the lead designer.

2. Submit a maximum of Two (2) completed example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Construction Contractor that will be performing the largest construction effort on the project. Each project must demonstrate the Offeror’s experience serving as the Prime Contractor on recent and relevant construction projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to this RFP. The submitted projects shall clearly document the Offeror’s prime contractual role, responsibilities, and successful performance in delivering the construction scope.

3. Submit a maximum of Two (2) completed example design/build projects in which the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor and performed the design‑build work in partnership with the Architect‑Engineer (AE) firm proposed for this solicitation. Each project shall demonstrate effective coordination, integration, and teamwork between the Offeror and its AE partner, leading to the successful completion of relevant design‑build projects of similar size, scope, and complexity to this RFP. The submitted projects shall clearly document the Offeror’s prime contractual role and the demonstrated collaboration between the Offeror and the AE firm in delivering the design‑build effort.

4. Submit a maximum of Two (2) completed example projects demonstrating one or more of the following Specialized Experience in 4(a)-(c). Projects submitted under Sections 1–3 may be reused for Section 4 only if the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor on the reused project and the project demonstrably meets the Specialized Experience requirements in Sections 4(a)–(c). Projects where the Offeror did not serve as the Prime Contractor are not eligible for reuse. Offerors may submit up to two (2) unique or qualifying reused projects for Section 4.

Specialized Experience (Factor 2 Section 4(a)–(c)) must be demonstrated through projects in which the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor, and in which the specialized work was performed under the Offeror’s prime contractual responsibility. The Offeror shall ensure each submitted project clearly documents: (1) the specialized work performed, and (2) the Offeror’s specific role in delivering that specialized scope.

(a) Parking Lot Reconfiguration Experience- that includes ADA/ABAAS improvements, pedestrian safety, drainage modifications, lighting, phased parking lot reconfiguration, and access continuity, on an active federal, healthcare, or institutional campus.

(b) Steel Shade/Carport Canopy/ or Comparable Structural Steel Experience- demonstrated project experience with steel shade/carport canopy structures or comparable structural steel systems of similar complexity (e.g., pre-engineered metal buildings, large exterior steel assemblies, structural steel framing with pier or drilled shaft foundations).

(c) Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE)/Geotechnical/Utility Capability- provide demonstrated project experience performing SUE Level A/B information, potholing, geotechnical investigations, and utility conflict resolution.

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‑build projects of similar size, scope, and complexity in accordance with the solicitation submittal requirements. The evaluation will include both general experience and specialized experience submitted under Factor 2 Sections 4a–4c.

The Government will assess each submitted project individually and then combine those assessments to develop an overall rating for this factor. The evaluation of relevant and specialized experience will be used as an indicator of the offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements of this RFP.

Offerors demonstrating recent and relevant experience in the following areas may be rated more favorably:

• Design‑build project execution

• Timely completion of construction or design‑build projects

• Design and construction to “Install Parking Lot Shades & Parking Lot Reconfiguration”

• Demonstrated successful contractor teaming arrangements with partner firms

• Projects performed within the NCO 21 geographic area

• Specialized Experience submitted under Factor 2 Sections 4a–4c, including:

– 4a: Specialized experience relevant to the installation of shade structures

– 4b: Specialized experience relevant to parking lot reconfiguration and associated civil/site work.

– 4c: Specialized experience relevant to design‑build integration of structural, electrical, and civil components for similar facility enhancements.

Offerors providing specialized experience under Factor 2 Sections 4a–4c that reflects a high degree of relevance to the specific technical requirements of this project may be assessed as lower risk and rated more favorably.

3) Factor 3 – Past Performance:

a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) evaluation for at least five (5) and no more than seven (7) recent, relevant projects. All submitted CPARS evaluations and Past Performance Questionnaires must pertain to the entity submitting the offer. When the Offeror is a single legal entity, all CPARS and PPQs must reflect only that entity’s performance and may not include or rely upon the performance of partners, subcontractors, consultants, parent companies, or any other affiliated entities unless expressly permitted elsewhere in the solicitation.

For Joint Ventures, the past performance of the JV entity will be considered first, when available. If the JV lacks sufficient past performance of its own, the Government will consider the past performance of each JV partner to the extent that each partner’s prior performance reasonably demonstrates capability in relation to the responsibilities that partner is proposed to perform under the resulting contract. All past performance submitted for a JV, whether from the JV itself or its individual partners, must fall within the overall limit of seven total projects. The submission must clearly identify which JV partner performed each project, as well as the role that partner will perform in this procurement, so that the relevance may be properly evaluated.

CPARS evaluations should be provided for all projects where a completed CPARS exists. When a CPARS is not available, the Offeror may submit a PPQ using (Attachment B). PPQs shall be submitted only for projects for which a completed CPARS evaluation is not available. When a completed CPARS exists, it shall be submitted and will be the primary record of past performance for that project. Offerors shall not submit PPQs in lieu of, or in addition to, a completed CPARS for the same project. New PPQs for which no CPARS exists must be submitted directly by the contracting officer or designated representative responsible for administering that referenced project. Previously completed PPQs for the Offeror or, in the case of a JV, previously completed PPQs for a JV partner, may be included within the Offeror’s proposal submission, provided they contain all required information and accurately reflect past performance. Previously completed PPQs count toward the total project evaluation limit.

The Government will accept CPARS evaluations and PPQs for interim or non‑completed projects when they contain sufficient information to assess performance and relevance. Interim or in‑progress evaluations will be evaluated in the same manner as completed evaluations, with the Government determining the appropriate weight and relevance at its discretion.

After the closing date for proposals, the Government will not accept additional CPARS or PPQs to replace those determined to be irrelevant. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that the projects submitted are relevant and accurately represent the performance of the Offeror or, in the case of a Joint Venture, the JV and its partners. If the Government determines that submitted CPARS or PPQs are irrelevant, the Government may decline to permit any replacements.

Offerors may include narrative explanations addressing challenges encountered on the submitted projects, the corrective actions taken, and any adverse past performance issues. These explanations shall be limited to four single‑sided pages using 8.5 x 11‑inch paper, one‑inch margins, and at least 10‑point font.

The Government may contact any reference identified for verification or clarification. The Government’s inability to reach a reference or the reference’s unwillingness to provide information may affect the evaluation. The Government will not consider performance awards or materials not specifically requested.

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. 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 Request for Proposal (RFP).

In rating Past Performance, the Government will evaluate for recency, relevancy, and quality of contractor performance. In reference to Past Performance, offerors who do not have relevant past performance will receive a neutral rating (neither favorable nor unfavorable) RFO 15.202(c)(1). However, the Offeror with favorable past performance may be considered more favorably than an offeror with Neutral rating.

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) (RFO 15.202(c)(1)). 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.

2.5. ***PHASE-TWO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 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, except Factor 1 – Technical Approach, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. Evaluation will be based on the following evaluation factors:

Factor 4 – Key Personnel Experience/Qualifications:

a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror will submit all Key Personnel information required in Attachment (C). The Government will review the submission to confirm that all required Key Personnel positions are included, specifically the Prime Project Manager, Construction Superintendent, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer. All proposed Key Personnel shall be employees of the Offeror’s firm at the time of proposal submission. If any individual is not yet an employee, the Offeror shall provide a signed Letter of Intent between the Offeror and the proposed individual confirming employment upon award. This requirement applies equally to all Key Personnel, including the Civil and Mechanical Engineer positions.

For Offerors proposing as a Joint Venture, Key Personnel may be employed by any JV partner, and the Offeror shall clearly identify the employer of each individual within the JV structure. The Government will evaluate Key Personnel qualifications without preference to which JV partner employs the individual, provided the employee is part of the Joint Venture team. If any proposed Key Personnel is not currently employed by the Joint Venture or by one of its partner firms, a signed Letter of Intent shall be submitted in accordance with this factor. This approach is consistent with federal joint venture regulations and ensures full and fair consideration of all qualified personnel within the Joint Venture entity.

One individual may serve in both the Prime Project Manager and Construction Superintendent roles if the proposal clearly demonstrates that the individual possesses sufficient, distinct qualifications for each position and has experience on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity. The Government will determine whether the evidence submitted meets the threshold for acceptance of a dual‑role assignment.

The Offeror shall submit relevant experience for each Key Personnel member, limited to five completed projects per individual. If more than five projects are submitted, only the first five will be evaluated, and any additional content will be disregarded. The proposal shall clearly state the number of years of experience for each Key Personnel member in each specific position. Combined or blended experience descriptions, such as “Project Manager/Project Engineer for three years,” shall not be accepted; the years of experience must be listed separately for each position.

For the Quality Control Manager, the Offeror shall provide the information shown in Attachment (C) for the Quality Control Manager of Prime and Partner Firm. Submitted information should demonstrate that each QC Manager meets the qualifications stated in Specification 01 45 00, including being a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or graduate of construction management, and having at least three years of construction experience on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity. A single QC Manager may fulfill more than one QC function if the proposal demonstrates that the individual meets all required qualifications for each function assigned.

All Key Personnel submissions shall comply with the format limitations of five single‑sided pages per individual, using 8.5” x 11” paper, one‑inch margins on all sides, and a font size of at least ten points. These limits apply to each individual separately and shall not be exceeded.

Basis of Evaluation: The above listed key positions are listed and will be evaluated based upon experience of work construction, demonstrated by a maximum of two (2) completed parking lot reconfiguration projects for each person. Each project shall have a dollar value of approximately $3,000,000.00 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. Key personnel with steel shade/carport canopy/ or comparable structural steel experience 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 5 – 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 will assume and depict contract award on December 31, 2026 with Notice to Proceed (NTP) of January 21, 2027. 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 and NTP date is stated for proposal evaluation purposes only and does not infer or guarantee that an award and/or NTP 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:

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.

NOTES:

(1) The performance period proposed by the Offeror cannot exceed the time specified in the Solicitation.

(2) Completion dates that are shorter than specified in the solicitation, 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.

Factor 6 – Price: The offerors’ price will be evaluated in accordance with RFO 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis Techniques to determine price reasonableness.

(END OF INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS)