47PD0223R0043 RFQ DB_Solicitation CMS BOC Phase III 11 9 2023.pdf

GSA Solicitation No. 47PD0223R0043

Document: DB201A/SEPTEMBER 2023 (The Solicitation)

Design Build Contract for: DESIGN/BUILD PROCUREMENT FOR PHASE 3 OF

THE CMS CAMPUS RENOVATION IN WOODLAWN, MD

The Solicitation

Table of Contents

I. General Information A. The Solicitation and Contract B. List of Solicitation Documents C. Authorized Representatives D. Pre-Proposal Conference E. Estimated Price Range F. FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee G. FAR 52.236-27 Site Visit – Construction H. Receipt of Offers

II. Proposals A. Proposal Contents B. Proposal Format C. Price Proposal D. Technical Proposal E. Other Information to be Submitted with Proposal I. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

III. General Provisions A. Availability of Funds B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation C. Notice to Small Business Firms D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results E. Affirmative Procurement Program F. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals G. Bond Requirements H. Contractor Performance Information I. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information

(CUI) Building Information

J. INFORM

K. Mega Construction Project Program

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions

L. FAR 52.211-1 Availability of Specifications Listed in the GSA Index of Federal Specifications, Standards and Commercial Item Descriptions, FPMR 101-29

M. FAR 52.216-1 Type Of Contract N. FAR 52.222-5 Construction Wage Rate Requirements-Secondary Site of

Work O. FAR 52.222-23 Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure

Equal Employment Opportunity for Construction P. Buy American Requirements Q. Buy American Exceptions R. FAR 52.233-2 Service of Protest S. FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference T. GSAR 552.102 Incorporating Provisions and Clauses by Reference

A. GSAR 552.252-5 Authorized Deviations in Provisions (Nov

2021)(DEVIATION FAR 52.252-5)

B. Small Business Subcontracting Plan C. Project Labor Agreement D. Certified Cost or Pricing Data E. Additional Provisions

(i) GSAR 552.236-74, Evaluation of Options (Mar 2019)

(ii) GSAR Clause 552.236-77, Government’s Right to Exercise Options (Mar 2019)

V. Instructions to Offerors and Clauses A. FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition B. Security Requirements C. Additional Clauses

VI. Method Of Award A. Evaluation of Offers B. Determination of Responsibility C. Price Reasonableness/Price Realism D. Unbalanced Price E. Total Evaluated Price F. Non-Price Factors G. Evaluation of Joint Venture Offers

I. General Information

I.A. The Solicitation and Contract

The General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service (PBS) assists CMS in carrying out their master plan for their campus in Woodlawn, MD. This effort is for Phase 3 of the master plan, which is to renovate their campus and bring employees back on campus from surrounding lease locations. The GSA has contracted NKB to prepare a program of requirements for the renovation of the third floor of the north building (N3) as well as the scope for the north building elevators. The program includes interior renovation of typical office space and training and conference areas. The north building has five passenger elevators and one freight elevator. This project includes the five passenger elevators. GSA intends to award a firm-fixed price design-build contract for this renovation.

(1) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for proposals for a Contract to construct the Project described in the Solicitation Documents. Proposals conforming to the Solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the Method of Award set forth herein. The Government will award the Contract to the selected Offeror, subject to the conditions set forth herein.

(2) Neither the Solicitation nor any part of an Offeror's proposal shall be part of the Contract except to the extent expressly incorporated therein by the Contracting Officer.

(3) The Offeror's proposal submitted in response to this Solicitation shall constitute a firm offer. No contract shall be formed unless and until the Contracting Officer has countersigned the SF 1442 submitted by an Offeror, and delivered to the Contractor a copy of the SF 1442 with original signatures together with the Agreement reflecting the Offeror's proposed prices.

I.B. List of Solicitation Documents

The Solicitation Documents are comprised of:

(1) The Solicitation - Phase 1

(2) Offeror Representations and Certifications Form

(3) Standard Form (SF) 1442 – Solicitation Offer and Award

(4) The Agreement – Phase 1

(5) The Statement of Work

(6) Past Performance Questionnaire – Lead Design Firm

(7) Past Performance Questionnaire – Design Build Firm

I.C. Authorized Representatives

The following individuals are designated as the authorized GSA representatives under this Solicitation:

Authorized Representative Information:

Contracting Officer’s Information

Name: Raymond J Porter

Address: 100 Independence Mall West Philadelphia Pa 19106

Telephone: 215 756 3439

Email: raymondj.porter@gsa.gov

Alternate POC Information

Name: Shane O’Brien

Address: 100 Independence Mall West Philadelphia Pa 19106

Telephone: (267)-252-9208

Email: shane.obrien@gsa.gov

I.D. Pre-Proposal Conference

Information shall be provided via a project amendment by the GSA Contracting Officer Raymond J Porter.

I.E. Estimated Price Range

The estimated price range for the Project is between $25M and $30M.

I.F. FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee (Sep 96)

(a) Failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid.

(b) The bidder shall furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment, e.g., bid bond supported by good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the

Government, postal money order, certified check, cashier’s check, irrevocable letter of credit, or, under Treasury Department regulations, certain bonds, or notes of the United States. The Contracting Officer will return bid guarantees, other than bid bonds—

(1) To unsuccessful bidders as soon as practicable after the opening of bids;

and

(2) To the successful bidder upon execution of contractual documents and bonds (including any necessary coinsurance or reinsurance agreements), as required by the bid as accepted.

(c) The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.

(d) If the successful bidder, upon acceptance of its bid by the Government within the period specified for acceptance, fails to execute all contractual documents, or furnish executed bond(s) within 10 days after receipt of the forms by the bidder, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for default.

(e) In the event the contract is terminated for default, the bidder is liable for any cost of acquiring the work that exceeds the amount of its bid, and the bid guarantee is available to offset the difference.

I.G. FAR 52.236-27 Site Visit – Construction (Feb 95)

(1) The clauses at FAR 52.236-2, Differing Site Conditions, and FAR 52.236-3, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work, will be included in any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation. Accordingly, Offerors are urged and expected to inspect the site where the work will be performed.

I.H. Receipt of Qualifications

The Receipt of Qualifications is due on Monday, 8 January 2024 by 2 PM EST. The Receipt of Qualifications is to be submitted electronically to Mr. Raymond J Porter, Lead Contracting Officer, at email raymondj.porter@gsa.gov with a courtesy copy to the GSA Contract Specialist Shane O'Brien at email shane.obrien@gsa.gov.

II. Proposals

1. The Government will issue a single solicitation covering both phases of the Two- Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures set forth in FAR 36.3. In Phase 1 technical qualifications will be evaluated to determine which Offerors will submit proposals for Phase II. Three (3) Offerors will be short-listed and invited to submit Phase II proposals.

Those unsuccessful offerors participating in Phase II will be paid a stipend of up to $50,000 to offset the costs associated with the preparation of required conceptual designs.

2. In Phase II, using the best value trade-off procedures described under 15.101-1 and 15.3, the Government will evaluate the technical and price proposals of the firms short-listed as a result of the Phase 1 selection. Per FAR 52.215-1 (ALT I), Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, it is the Government’s prerogative to award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with those firms identified in the short list, if the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the short list exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the short list to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

PRE-PROPOSAL ACTIVITIES

PHASE 1

A pre-proposal conference will be held shortly after issuance of the solicitation for Phase 1 in Woodlawn, MD. The purpose of this conference is to provide a briefing on the project and the source selection procedures to be used in making the award.

The general nature of this requirement will be presented at the conference.

Representatives from GSA, CMS and consultants will be present to provide responses to general questions. Specific questions pertaining to the terms and conditions of the solicitation must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer who will issue a formal response in the form of an amendment to the RFP.

PHASE 2

A Phase 2 pre-proposal meeting will be held in Woodlawn, MD shortly after issuance of the Phase 2 RFP. The purpose of this pre-proposal meeting is to provide the Phase 2 Offerors with an overview of the Phase 2 process as well as to provide time for the Offerors to ask questions pertaining to the RFP to address any questions that they may have up to that point. Representatives from GSA, CMS and other technical consultants will be present to provide responses to general questions. The questions and answers during this kick-off will be captured in a formal Amendment and distributed to all Phase 2 Offerors.

Pre-Submission Oral Presentation: As permitted in FAR 15.102, GSA will provide each Offeror selected to participate in Phase 2 with the opportunity to engage in one (1) individual presentation with the Government evaluators prior to the submission of Phase 2 proposals. The purpose of the Pre-Submission Oral Presentation is to clarify project requirements and to provide further information as it relates to the preparation of the Offeror’s Design Concept.

The Offeror may utilize presentation materials to illustrate a “preliminary concept” and identify project requirements that warrant further clarification. By “preliminary concept,” the Government is referring to drawings, schematics, and other similar architectural or engineering renderings that the Offeror prepares in response to the Phase 2 RFP. The Government anticipates that the Pre-Submission Oral Presentations will enable the Phase 2 Offerors to provide, more complete and accurate proposal submissions, without incurring additional costs during the procurement process.

There are no maximum or minimum materials that must be presented or prepared as part of the “preliminary concept.” Offerors are free to develop as much, or as little, material as they desire. Each Offeror will have a maximum of one hundred twenty (120) minutes in which to provide a presentation and to clarify associated requirements of the contract documents. Offerors may allot this time in any manner they so choose.

The Offeror is free to choose its presenters.

The Pre-Submission Oral Presentation will be held in Woodlawn, MD with each Phase 2 Offeror. The presentation will occur within a few weeks of the pre-proposal meeting.

GSA will contact each Offeror via email to schedule the Pre-Submission Oral Presentation.

Each Offeror shall be responsible for providing its own audiovisual, computing, and other technical equipment that it needs to use during the presentations. To the extent available, and as worked out in advance with the Contracting Officer, the Government may permit each Offeror to utilize available equipment at the location site, such as a screen or TV.

The Government may record the presentation and provide a copy of the record to the Offeror within ten (10) business days after the presentation. In addition, the Offeror may decide to record the presentation with its own device. In such instances, the Offeror must provide a copy of the recording to the Government within ten (10) business days after the presentation.

The Offeror may not leave any materials with the Government at the conclusion of the Pre- Submission Oral Presentation. No materials will be incorporated into the Contract.

No oral statements made by the Government during the presentations may be used to modify, change, or otherwise alter the Phase 2 RFP. Information impacting project requirements of the Phase 2 RFP will be issued in writing by the Contracting Officer to all Phase 2 Offerors.

The materials presented as part of the “preliminary concept” during the Pre-Submission Oral Presentation will not substitute for, or augment, written proposal information. There will be no scoring or evaluation done of the “preliminary concept” itself during the presentation.

Post-Submission Oral Presentation: As permitted in FAR 15.306, each Offeror selected to participate in Phase 2 will have the opportunity to make a Post-Submission Oral Presentation. The purpose of the Post-Submission Oral Presentation is to allow Offerors an opportunity to further demonstrate their project understanding and abilities by giving an oral presentation to augment the written information submitted in response to the Phase 2 RFP.

Unlike the Pre-Submission Oral Presentations, the Government will use the Post- Submission Oral Presentation as an element of the overall evaluation of the Offeror.

Each Offeror will have a maximum of one hundred twenty (120) minutes in which to provide a presentation and to engage in dialogue with the Government. Offerors may allot this time in any manner that they so choose.

The Offeror’s key personnel as identified in response to RFP should attend the Post- Submission Oral Presentation in person. The Offeror may also bring additional persons to presentation (eight (8) total participants maximum). The Government reserves the right to take into consideration the following: (a) the preparedness of key personnel; (b) the ease of interaction between the key personnel: and (c) the extent to which the key personnel are or are not aligned in terms of the overall vision of the project.

The Contracting Officer will schedule a location, date, and time for the Post-Submission Oral Presentation.

Each Offeror shall be responsible for providing its own audiovisual, computing, and other technical equipment that it needs to use during the Initial Oral Presentation. To the extent available, and as worked out in advance with the Contracting Officer, the

Government may permit each Offeror to utilize available equipment at the location site, such as a screen or TV.

The Offeror may not leave any materials with the Government at the conclusion of the presentation. No materials provided will be incorporated into the Contract. No oral statements made by the Government during the Post-Submission Oral Presentation may be used to modify, change, or otherwise alter the Phase 2 RFP. Information impacting project requirements of the Phase 2 RFP will be issued in writing by the Contracting Officer to all Phase 2 Offerors.

The materials presented as part of the “preliminary concept” during the Pre-Submission Oral Presentations will not substitute for, or augment, written proposal information.

There will be no scoring or evaluation done of the “preliminary concept” itself during the presentations.

II.A. Proposal Contents

Proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed, and executed in accordance with this Phase 1 Solicitation:

(1) Technical Proposal

(2) Other Documents as Required

II.C. Price Proposal

(1) Contents

The Price Proposal shall consist of the SF 1442 and the Agreement, with prices and/or rates indicated for each price element shown on the pricing form included in Section II of the Agreement. Indicate the Base Contract Price, or if no such distinction is made, the Contract Price, in Block 17 of the SF 1442, which must be fully executed by the Offeror.

(2) Qualifications, Exclusions and Conditions

If the Offeror communicates in its proposal any qualifications, exclusions, or conditions to the proposed prices not provided for in the Contract Documents, the Contracting Officer may reject the proposal and exclude the Offeror from further discussions.

(3) Project Labor Agreement

Offerors may submit a price proposal subject to the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements set forth in this solicitation (a PLA proposal), a price proposal not subject to the PLA requirements set forth in this solicitation, or both. Any price proposal submitted shall clearly identify whether it is subject to such PLA requirements.

II.D. Technical Proposal

Following is a list of evaluation factors that will be used in conjunction with price to identify the offer providing the best value to the Government. There are separate evaluation factors for Phases 1 and 2. Phase I factors will be used to select a short list of the most highly qualified offerors. Price will not be submitted with the Phase I proposals and it is the intention of the Contracting Officer to select three (3) offerors to submit Phase 2 proposals. The Phase I factors will not be weighted but the Phase II factors are listed below with their relative weights.

Phase I

Proposals must address the technical approach, technical qualifications, and the other Phase 1 evaluation factors stated herein. Any proposal not meeting all of the following criteria may result in not being further considered for award.

I. Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications (60%) Subfactor 1.A – Prior Experience Subfactor 1.B – Past Performance Factor 2 – Approach to Design Build (20%) Factor 3 – Lead Designer (20%)

II. Evaluation Factors Defined:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS

SUB FACTOR 1.A: PRIOR EXPERIENCE ON RELEVANT PROJECTS

Description

This factor will measure the number of opportunities the Offeror has had to learn by doing. The Government will examine the breadth, depth, and relevance of the Offeror’s prior experience in performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the one described in the solicitation.

This factor assesses the experience of the Offeror’s primary team firms in providing similar design and construction services necessary for successfully delivering this project.

Submittal Requirement

The minimum submission requirements are met for this factor, when each of the projects are relevant to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation.

The Offeror shall provide relevant project experience for each of its team member firms:

● Design/Builder* – One (1) Project

● Design Team – One (1) Project

● General Contractor – One (1) Project

Note that each submission should be a unique project.

*This project can be a design/build project where the offeror’s designer or builder were part of the project team. Additional favorable consideration will be given to offeror’s where both designer and builder worked together.

Each project submitted shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) pages.

Additionally, images of completed projects may be provided.

For each project, submit the following data/information:

A. Project title;

B. Location of project;

C. Services provided by the firm (design/build, design only, construction only, supplier only);

D. The Offeror’s level of authority on the project (prime contractor, joint venture partner, major subcontractor, etc.);

E. Total dollar value of the project (awarded price and final contract price);

F. Dollar value of the Offeror’s effort on the project;

G.Type of contract (e.g. firm fixed price, cost reimbursable, incentive fee, award fee, time and materials, CMc, etc.);

H. Dates of contract start and completion (planned vs actual);

I. Project facts including type of facility, features, tenant mission and population, square footage, security level, LEED certification, etc.;

J. A scope narrative explaining how the characteristics of the submitted project relates to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation;

K. Name, title, address, phone number and email address of the customer contact and building owner who can attest to the quality of the work provided. (It is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure the information submitted is current and accurate).

Standard for Evaluation

The standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates relevant prior experience on three (3) similar projects to this project that were substantially completed in the last ten

(10) years. “Relevant Projects” (having a Similar Size and Complexity) are those that include renovations of facilities that have similar characteristics to those described in the bullets below. GSA will review and rate presented projects, however projects that exhibit similar characteristics to those described below will be rated higher when considering the firm’s performance capabilities. The factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Renovation of an occupied office building (governmental or private), of at least

20,000 SF.

Total project value of approximately $20 million to $50 million.

A scope of work that includes architectural build-out, mechanical work, electrical work, security systems, and fire protection systems.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

Work for General Services Administration Higher quantity of similar project experience Projects with elevator upgrades included.

Evidence that the Offeror worked on prior projects together with one or more of its proposed team member firms.

SUB FACTOR 1.B: PAST PERFORMANCE ON RELEVANT PROJECTS

This factor considers the past performance of the Offeror, General Contractor, A/E Design Firm, and Lead Designer on the projects submitted by the Offeror under Evaluation Factor 1A. Past Performance will be evaluated to determine the probability that the Offeror will successfully perform the project based on demonstrated Past Performance.

References will be contacted by the General Services Administration requesting they email the completed Past Performance Questionnaire, which is due on Monday, 8 January 2024 by 2 PM EST. The Past Performance Questionnaire is to be submitted electronically to Mr. Raymond J Porter, Lead Contracting Officer, at email raymondj.porter@gsa.gov with a courtesy copy to the GSA Contract Specialist Shane O'Brien at email shane.obrien@gsa.gov.

Note: The email subject line must contain the name of the Offeror, the name of the reference and the solicitation number. The Government reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an Offeror’s proposal should a survey not be received by the date proposals are due.

Standard for Evaluation

This standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates a history of successful past performance on relevant projects. Evidence of past performance as a design-build team may be considered more favorably. The evaluation will include: an assessment of the overall quality of past performance; record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the responsiveness of management; the history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; the business-like concern for the interest of the customer and; the firm’s overall performance on their contracts.

The above information will be considered based on the Past Performance Questionnaire to be provided by the references required for this factor, and additional past performance information as described:

A. In addition to the information in the Offeror’s proposal itself, the Government may consider information obtained through interviews with the Offeror’s customers and/or the building's owner or a representative of the owner.

B. In addition to any information contained in or referred to in the Offeror’s proposal, the Government may consider the past performance of the Offeror or its team members on any other projects performed within the past ten (10) years of which the Government has knowledge. The Government has no obligation to ensure that an equal number of references are obtained for each Offeror.

C. The Offeror’s safety record will be a consideration under this factor and will be evaluated based upon responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire.

D. An Offeror who has no record of past performance will receive a neutral rating.

E. If GSA receives a marginal or an unsatisfactory past performance evaluation, the Offeror may be given an opportunity to respond in writing.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● Certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating design and/or construction excellence.

Evaluation of Past Performance will be a subjective assessment. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction, timely delivery of services, adherence to contract schedules, subcontractor management, safety management, quality control programs, good workmanship, conformance to specifications, and fair and reasonable prices. The Government may choose to contact additional customer(s) not provided by an offeror and may obtain additional information through other sources, such as the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS), and phone interviews using all DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

The Offeror must submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (included in the solicitation as Attachment A, completed by the applicable client, for each project included in its proposal for Factor 1. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), previously submitted PPQ information, and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from a variety of sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. GSA will not maintain database of PPQs submitted by Offerors.

If the offeror is a joint venture, information submitted for a party to the joint venture will not be evaluated to the extent that the terms of the joint venture agreement limit such party's performance or financial obligations as a party to the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation.

FACTOR 2 – APPROACH TO DESIGN BUILD

This factor considers the Offeror’s approach to establishing a design-build team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the Government’s performance objectives, including the realization of Design Excellence. To that end, the Government is looking for a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas including but not limited to architecture, engineering, interior design, sustainability, construction, operations, and maintenance.

Submittal Requirement

Each Offeror must submit a written narrative (not to exceed 10 pages) concerning its approach to the DB process. An Offeror may allocate the 10 pages in any manner it chooses.

Standard for Evaluation

The narrative must discuss each of the subjects set forth below. The following bullets are not subfactors; rather, they are elements the Government will consider when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

Philosophy and Design Intent: The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent as related to the project that is described in the solicitation. Such a discussion may include such topics as the parameters of an overall design philosophy; the Offeror’s approach to the challenges of constructing a vertical wind tunnel, challenges of integrating owner furnished equipment and commitment to integrated and sustainable design. The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent should be characterized by clarity, standard grammar, and the absence of clichés or jargon.

The Government expects clear, thoughtful phrases that demonstrate the ability of the team to communicate ideas. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project.

Management Process: The Offeror shall describe their overall management approach to DB including such topics as: roles and responsibilities of team members; description of the lines and methods of communication; decision making;

interaction with consultants; the means to integrate client input; the physical location of major design and production work; work to be produced in remote offices; the role of specialty contractors; and managing quality and cost. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort.

Design Excellence: The Offeror’s approach to supporting and collaborating as a cohesive team in order to realize Design Excellence. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project.

Stipend: Explain how the stipend will be distributed among the team members. The

Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror will share the stipend in an equitable manner among the team members.

The standard is met when:

● The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project;

● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort;

● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project; and,

● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will share the stipend in an equitable manner among team members.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

Clearly demonstrated and defined compatible corporate values and corporate philosophies;

The proven, successful implementation of the Management Process on any of the projects listed under Evaluation Factor 1.A;

Entities that have developed a patented process or unique product on which the design builder intends to rely in performing the project identified in the RFQ;

Written, binding agreements between the team members on the equitable distribution of the stipend.

FACTOR 3 - LEAD DESIGNER

Lead Designer Profile and Portfolio Description

This factor considers the lead designer’s credentials and quality of project experience on projects of similar size and complexity.

Submittal Requirements:

Provide a biographical sketch of the Lead Designer, including education, professional experience, and recognition for design efforts inclusive of the portfolio examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project. Maximum of (2) two pages.

Lead Designer's portfolio of no more than (3) three projects completed in the last

(10) years, with particular focus on high performance green building and technical innovation. For each project, the narrative should address the design approach with salient features and describe how the client's program, image, mission, economic goals, schedule, and operational objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. This section of the proposal should include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating design excellence, and provide a client reference contact for each project, including name, title, address email, phone, and fax numbers. For each project, the proposal may include a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3-D model, a building section, other appropriate drawings, and photographs. Each project is allotted a maximum of (3) three pages.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

The quantity of projects of similar scope and complexity Prior experience demonstrating aspects more similar to this solicitation Evidence of successful past working experience with proposed team members Lead Designer has a track record of delivering superior quality;

Lead Designer demonstrates history of dedication to clients with complex building projects; Designs demonstrate a consistently high level of exploration, rigor, and personal commitment to Design Excellence;

The portfolio includes a project that is of the same size, scope, and complexity as defined in Evaluation Factor 1.A.

The requirements of this factor are met when:

A. Credentials are complete (education, work history); professional registration;

B. Designer demonstrates history of dedication to clients with complex building projects;

C. Designs demonstrate an understanding and response to specific client requirements and criteria; and

D. Designs demonstrate a consistently high level of exploration, rigor, and personal commitment o design excellence.

Lead Designer's Philosophy & Design Intent Description

This factor considers the lead designer’s flexibility and attitude toward design and application to meet the requirements for this project.

Submittal Requirements

The minimum submission requirements are met when the Offeror submits a statement in the Lead Designer's own words regarding the parameters of the overall design philosophy; collaborative design processes and related issues on this specific project; parameters that may apply in creating high performance, environmentally sustainable workplace environments; and a commitment to integrated and sustainable design of the facility. This section shall not exceed (2) two pages in length.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

Design intent to optimize sustainability goals and achieve superior workspaces;

Design philosophy recognizes the salient aspects and constraints for this design.

This factor will measure the following criterion:

A. The Lead Designer’s flexibility and imaginative attitude toward design within the constraints of this project;

B. The Lead Designer's recognition of unique aspects of the subject project and a description of their design approach.

Phase II

Proposals must address the technical approach, technical qualifications, and the other Phase II evaluation factors stated herein. Any proposal not meeting all of the following criteria may result in not being further considered for award.

I. Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1 - Design Concept (50%)

Factor 2 - Key Personnel (20%)

Factor 3 - Management Plan (15%)

Factor 4 - PLA (15%)

II. Evaluation Factors Defined:

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: Design Concept (50%)

Description:

The objective of this factor is to evaluate the extent to which the Design Proof of Concept demonstrates how the Offeror will:

● Meet the minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2,

● Comply with prescriptive requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2, and

● Bring innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a Design Excellence project as evidenced by Design Quality.

For the purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” (DE) refers to GSA’s Design Excellence Program which seeks a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, urban design, interior design, sustainability, and construction) that delivers value by producing high-quality, high-performance facilities on budget and on time. DE further seeks to commission our nation’s most talented constructors and designers to design and construct federal buildings of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of integrated design that balances aesthetics, constructability, functionality, and reliability; create environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees.

Submittal Requirements:

Offeror shall submit the following:

1. Submission of Proof of Concept

Offerors shall provide the information and generally follow the format and structure as set forth in Appendix A (below) to the Phase II RFP.

2. Functional Performance Criteria Matrix

A minimum functional performance criteria matrix is provided in Appendix A to the RFP in Volumes 1-5 of the project Program of Requirements. The Government is seeking design solutions that will optimize functional interests, consistent with the need to integrate solutions that will support all functional objectives. Submit the matrix by completing the (green highlighted) column labeled “supplier: meet requirement/exception/betterment (add comments)”. The PBS P100 contains both performance-based and prescriptive requirements. A large portion of the standard specifies levels of performance, which allows Offerors to identify and implement the best strategies to meet those goals. Four levels of performance are defined throughout the P100 in matrices, in which "baseline" performance (plus all prescriptive requirements) is the lowest permissible level. The three higher performance levels are more rigorous and voluntary. Each project may implement any combination of performance levels, in order to prioritize performance opportunities that stem from site, program, technology, budget, and other conditions.

The Offeror must identify the attainment of achieving the functional objectives (and required performance tier) as represented by the matrix. This must take the form of a narrative report that, by system, indicates how the proposed design supports expected building performance.

3. Betterments

The Offeror shall include a section entitled “Betterments” in their proposal. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Betterment” is defined as any element, component, or system, which exceeds the minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP and/or includes the addition of features or amenities that exceed the minimum Program of Requirements.

If Betterments are offered, they must:

● meet or exceed the requirements specified in the RFP;

● enhance the overall quality and performance of the project;

● be clearly identified as Betterments in the proposal;

● be identified by document and page reference to the minimum requirements to be exceeded;

● state the higher performance tier (above baseline in P100) that the Betterment will provide;

● identify any potential conflicts between the Betterment and the minimum requirements; and

● state the anticipated benefit of any such Betterment (e.g., improved functionality or maintainability).

Any Betterment not specifically identified by the Offeror in this section will not be evaluated. If the Offeror is not providing any Betterment, the Offeror must indicate “None” in this section of its submission. Evaluators will consider the quality, impact, and relative significance of each betterment, not the quantity offered. The page limit for the Betterment submittal is ten (10).

4. Design Quality

The following list identifies characteristics of design that the Government will use to evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s Design Concept will achieve the innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a DE project. Offerors may provide an additional narrative (not to exceed five pages) to provide additional information to explain how the Design Concept provides for Design Quality.

Design Concept Submission will be reviewed for;

● Architectural Design Analysis

● Building Systems Analysis

● Security Analysis Additional considerations;

● Functionality

The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept focuses on simplicity, architectural design, and integration of Government Furnished Equipment in the building as characterized by simplicity of design, ease of access and maintainability, and considerations for safety, clear paths of travel and ease of operations.

● Performance

The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept provides due consideration to areas such as, performance of the integration of the controls systems and software, energy, water and material efficiency, sustainability factors, ease of operations and facility maintenance.

● Quality

The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept considers the quality of materials and finishes, ceiling heights, and provides for functional design that meets primary function but also provides for secondary or tertiary amenities.

● Architectural Design

The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept considers the function driving the form and its inclusion/orientation of enhancing features which may include, wayfinding, lighting, and other progressive design strategies.

Standard for Evaluation:

This standard is met when the Design Concept evidences a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will be able to meet the:

● meet the minimum performance requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2;

● comply with prescriptive requirements set forth in the RFP for Phase 2, and

● bring innovation, purpose, vision indicative of a Design Excellence project as evidenced by Design Quality.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● The quality, impact and relative significance of the Betterments that exceeds the minimum performance and prescriptive requirements.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: Qualifications and Past Performance of Key Personnel (20%)

Description:

This factor considers the qualifications and past performance of the Offeror’s key personnel with design-build or integrated project delivery method. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s key personnel will be able to successfully manage the execution of the project. Aspects of consideration include:

education, experience, training, and the response of the references.

Submittal:

Each Offeror must submit data evidencing the key personnel’s qualifications as set forth in this evaluation factor. This may be provided in any manner that the Offeror chooses and may include, for example, a resume or curriculum vitae. There is a fifteen page limit for this evaluation factor, including reference information. An Offeror may allocate the pages in any manner it chooses.

Key Personnel should include: Principal-In-Charge, Project Manager (construction), Project Manager (design), Construction Superintendent, and Quality Control/Assurance Coordinator (general contractor), Quality Control / Assurance Coordinator.

Each person submitted under this evaluation factor must have worked on at least two (2) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity in the same or similar capacity as one of the key personnel positions described in this evaluation factor. (For purposes of this evaluation factor, the phrase “similar size, scope, and complexity” has the same meaning as that used in Evaluation Factor 1 of Phase 1.) For instance, on the prior project, the key person served in the capacity as the Project Manager, but for the purposes of this evaluation factor, that same person is being proposed as the Principal-in-Charge. In such an instance, the proposed person may, depending upon the qualifications, be able to satisfy this requirement.

For each key person, the Offeror shall provide reference information for at least two

(2) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity in the same or similar capacity as one of the key personnel positions described in this evaluation factor.

Standard for Evaluation:

The standard is met when the qualifications and past performance of the key personnel evidence a satisfactory probability that they will be able to perform the functions required by the positions proposed. The more relevant experience, relevant education, and relevant training the more qualified the individual will be perceived to be for the position proposed.

Additional consideration may be given for:

a. Key personnel who have worked together on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity;

b. Key personnel who have experience on more than two (2) project of similar size, scope, and complexity in the same or similar capacity for which they will serve on the current project;

c. Evidence of completion of specialized certifications, classes, or training programs from nationally recognized organizations;

d. Evidence of teaching or other similar professional engagements taught by the key personnel for nationally recognized organizations.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: Management Plan (15%)

Description:

This factor considers the project-specific plan that the Offeror intends to implement in order to deliver a successful project.

Submittal:

Provide a written narrative of not to exceed twenty (20) pages (inclusive of flowcharts, spreadsheets, diagrams, and any other supporting information) describing the Offeror’s plan for increasing the likelihood that the Project will be delivered on-time, within budget, and managed in a way that promotes excellence in design and construction.

Information Required:

● The plan shall contain an organizational chart showing the relationships, lines of communication and hierarchies of the key personnel listed in Factor 2.

● The plan shall include a detailed description of how the Offeror will ensure the safety of employees, contractors, subcontractors, and other individuals accessing or otherwise working at the project site during the construction phase of the Project as well as Commissioning and Operations.

● Provide a proposed project schedule in Gantt chart format for execution of the design build project from award of the contract to completion. The proposed schedule should provide sufficient detail to illustrate the proposed flow of design and construction activities for the project with the overall duration clearly shown. The plan shall detail the D-B Contractor’s sequencing of design activity, early work packages (if applicable), long-lead considerations and key assumptions on which the schedule is based, including the Offeror's strategy for sequencing the work from design inception to construction substantial completion. The narrative should also discuss any significant contingency issues that could potentially delay overall progress on the project and what actions the Offeror would propose to mitigate the impact on project completion.

● The plan shall include a narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to planning, organizing, and controlling the execution of the design and construction on the project. The plan shall identify how the Offeror plans to implement management techniques to ensure the success and quality of the design and construction of this project. The plan shall discuss how and how often the Government and Offeror will interact especially in regards to integrated design reviews, briefings, review meetings, progress meetings, quality control meetings, etc. The plan shall include a quality control staffing plan for the design and construction phase.

● The plan shall include a detailed risk analysis of the project identifying and analyzing potential issues that could negatively affect the project with avoidance or mitigation strategies. This analysis will demonstrate the Offeror’s strategic understanding of the project’s unique and specific risks and how those risks will be managed to successfully execute the project.

● Include an overview of the Offeror’s Quality Assurance Plan that communicates structure, processes, and systems to assure compliance with the technical requirements throughout the project. An overview of the quality assurance plan should address; design quality control, change resolution, corrective action planning, interface management, manufacturing quality control and off-site witness testing, start-up and commissioning, and integrated acceptance testing. The narrative should at a minimum address the integration of the Government furnished equipment and the building systems and components.

Standard for Evaluation:

The standard is met when there is a satisfactory probability that the successful implementation of the Offeror’s project-specific plan will increase the likelihood of being able to deliver a successful project.

Additional favorable consideration may be given to plans that:

● Show the key subcontractors have prior experience working with the Offeror;

● Show other jobs in which the same, or similar, safety measures were taken and that those measures contributed to the safety of that project;

● Show other jobs in which the same, or similar management, techniques were used and how those management techniques contributed to the success and quality of the design and construction.

● Demonstrate understanding of project specific requirements, with appropriate management techniques, that will contribute to the success and quality of the design, construction, and equipment integration.

● Show innovative use of technology for delivery of design and construction.

● Demonstrate understanding of the critical nature of the GFE in…