47PD0224R0081 NASA Ames EMO N278 DB_2_Phase_Part_I_Solicitation 10 7 2024.pdf

GSA Solicitation No. 47PD0224R0081

Document: DB201-1/April 2024 (The Solicitation)

Design Build Contract for: NASA Ames Engineering and Mission Operations Facility

(EMO) N278

The Solicitation, Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications

Table of Contents

I. General Information A. The Project B. The Solicitation and Contract C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents D. Authorized Representatives E. Pre-Proposal Conference F. Estimated Price Range G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 H. Receipt of Qualifications

II. Proposals

A. Proposal Contents B. Proposal Format C. Technical Proposal D. Other Requirements E. 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 (Phase 2 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 To be issued in Phase 2 A. GSAR 552.252-5 Authorized Deviations in Provisions (Nov 2021) (DEVIATION FAR

52.252-5) B. Project Labor Agreement

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions A. 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)

VI. Method Of Award A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals C. Determination of Responsibility D. Price Reasonableness/Price Realism

E. Unbalanced Price F. Total Evaluated Price G. Non-Price Factors H. Evaluation of Joint Ventures

I. General Information

I.A. The Project The General Services Administration (GSA) is soliciting Design-Build teams for design and construction services for the Engineering and Mission Operations (EMO) Facility N278 to be constructed within the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, CA.. The General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service (PBS) is serving the project as the contracting entity working on behalf of NASA as the facility’s operator and end-user. The GSA has contracted AECOM to prepare a program of requirements for the design-build project. The program includes:

● Existing Building and Site Demolition - As part of this Design-Build Contract, two existing buildings and a gas filling station will be demolished. The two existing buildings requiring demolition include the Motor Pool (Building N251) and the Machine Shop (Building N216). Two

(2) existing Motor Pool Fuel pumps with underground fuel tanks are located at the East Side of the site and will also require demolition and environmental closure of the fuel tank.

● Design and Construction of the new Building N278 - This new facility has a minimum goal of 30,292 GSF that will co-locate several key program functions and include offices, meeting space, technical labs, support space and collaborative/conference space. Building N278 will be an important contribution towards realizing the goals of the “walkable campus” as outlined in the Center Master Plan for the NASA Ames Research Center and will address NASA’s requirements to reduce the footprint and O&M costs while providing a healthy, safe, efficient, modern, flexible, and sustainable work environment. The site selected for this facility is owned by NASA and is located at the Southwest intersection of Warner Road and Mark Avenue on the Ames Research Center campus.

A portion of the building program information is included as part of this solicitation as appendix A to assist the offerors in understanding the scope of the project and assembling their phase 1 proposals.

The full collection of building program documentation will be issued to the short-listed firms as part of the phase 2 solicitation.

I.B. the Solicitation and Contract

(1) This procurement is being conducted using the two-phase selection process found in FAR 36.3.

Qualification proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. One contract will be awarded using competitive negotiation. In Phase 1, GSA will select a short list of the most highly qualified offerors and request that those offerors submit Phase 2 proposals. All responsible sources may submit a Phase 1 proposal. A maximum of 3 firms will be selected to submit Phase 2 proposals in accordance with the GSA design excellence policy.

Only those selected offerors are authorized to submit Phase 2 proposals. Those offerors not selected for participation in Phase 2 will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a). (2) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for Phase 1 qualifications proposals and the evaluation factors for Phase 2 proposals for a Contract to construct the Project. 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.

(3) 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.

I.C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents The Solicitation Documents are comprised of:

(1) The Solicitation – Phase 1 Form 101

(2) The Agreement Form 201

(2) Offeror Representations and Certifications Form 301

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

(4) The Scope of Work, Specifications, Drawing Exhibits and other Attachments to the

Agreement.

(5) NASA Ames Program of Requirements for Design-Build (DB) Contract

I.D. 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 S Independence Mall W, Philadelphia, PA 19106

Telephone: (215) 756-3439

Email: raymondJ.porter@gsa.gov

Alternate POC Information

Name: Shane O’Brien

Address: 100 S Independence Mall W, Philadelphia, PA 19106

Telephone: (267) 252-9208

Email: shane.obrien@gsa.gov

I.E. Pre-Proposal Conference

Please note a Virtual Pre-proposal conference shall be held on Friday 18 October at 9:00am Pacific time. Please contact the GSA Contracting Officer Raymond J Porter via email at raymondj.porter@gsa.gov for a calendar invite by Wednesday 16 October 2024 by 2 PM EST. The GSA/NASA project team is requesting that all who wish to attend the virtual pre proposal conference provide a name of each attendee and their firm inclusive of an email address for the invite. 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, NASA 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 RFQ.

The project Request for Information (RFI’s) are due by Friday 25th October by 2 PM EST.

The Request for Information (RFI’s) are 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.

I.F. Estimated Price Range The estimated price range for the Project, inclusive of base and all options, is between $33,000,000 and $43,000,000.

I.G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 Submit all questions regarding the Phase 1 to the Contracting Officer on or before October 25th, 2024.

Any responses provided by GSA will be posted on SAM.gov as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

I.H. Receipt of Qualifications

The Receipt of Qualifications is due on Friday 22nd November 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

II.A. Proposal Contents

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 mailto:shane.obrien@gsa.gov

Phase II will be paid a stipend of up to $70,000 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.

E. PRE-PROPOSAL ACTIVITIES

PHASE 1

A pre-proposal conference will be held shortly after issuance of the solicitation for Phase 1. The meeting will be held virtually. 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, NASA 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 Moffett Field, CA 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. Site visits for each offeror will be scheduled around the preproposal allowing the offerors the opportunity to complete a site investigation as needed. Representatives from GSA, NASA 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 Presentations: As permitted in FAR 15.102, GSA will provide each Offeror selected to participate in Phase 2 with the opportunity to engage in two (2) individual presentations 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 ninety (90) 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.

Both Pre-Submission Oral Presentations will be held in Moffett Field, CA with each Phase 2 Offeror.

The first presentation will occur within a few weeks of the pre-proposal meeting. The second presentation will follow the first presentation by a few weeks. GSA will contact each Offeror via email to schedule Pre-Submission Oral Presentations.

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 presentations and provide a copy of the record to the Offeror 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 Presentations. 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 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.

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 ninety (90) 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 the 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 post submission 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.

II.B. Proposal Format Technical Proposals in response to this RFP are to be submitted digitally to the Contracting Officer.

All documentation must be delivered via Email (20MB limitation) or USB Flash Drive. The USB Flash Drives shall be mailed/delivered to the Contracting Officer’s attention at the address provided below and must be received no later than the quotation date and time listed above.

100 General S Independence Services Mall Administration

West, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 ATTN: Raymond Porter

EMAIL ADDRESS: RaymondJ.porter@GSA.gov

1. Offerors are encouraged to make their proposals only as voluminous as is necessary to respond to the preparation instructions set forth in the solicitation. In addition, notice should be taken of any size or page limitations specified in the instructions and factors below.

2. The submission must contain all of the necessary information to address the evaluation factors as set forth in the solicitation.

Proposals must be readable and submitted as if typed on non-reduced 8-1/2” x 11” pages using Arial font size 10 with 1” margins on all four sides. Any forms and charts must be clearly labeled and referenced and are not subject to the font size limitation. Phase 1 proposals shall not exceed a total of fifty (50) pages. Each side of a sheet is counted as one page.

II.C. Technical Proposal

Proposals must address the technical qualifications, approach to design-build 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.

1. Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications (60%)

Sub Factor 1.A – Prior Experience

Sub Factor 1.B – Past Performance

Factor 2 – Approach to Design Build (20%)

Factor 3 – Lead Designer (20%)

2. Evaluation Factors Defined:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS

SUB FACTOR 1.A: PRIOR EXPERIENCE ON RELEVANT PROJECTS

Description

This evaluation factor considers the extent of the past experience of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror’s design-build (DB) team. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term A/E is defined as an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture and engineering that will have responsibility for developing detailed design and construction documents.

Submittal Requirement

Each Offeror shall provide sufficient documentation in order to demonstrate the extent of the Offeror’s past experience for at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity (as further defined in this evaluation factor). Of this group of similar projects, the General Contractor must have served as the prime contractor of at least one project and the A/E must have had responsibility for developing the detailed design and construction documents for at least one project.

ALL projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

● Construction was substantially completed within eight years of the submission deadline for Stage I proposals; and

● The project was delivered by DB or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is defined as the execution of a multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for that project.

A project that possesses between four and ten of the following characteristics will be considered similar in size, scope, and complexity for purposes of this evaluation factor:

● Project that involved the construction of mixed-use facility

● Project that involved the construction of laboratory spaces and/or cleanrooms

● New construction of at least 25,000 SF

● Construction project in a campus environment

● Construction project of a multi-story building with a Seismic Design Category of C or higher

● Federal Government Contract

● Delivered via design-build delivery method

● Building demolition prior to construction

● LEED and SITES Certifications

● Collective experience performing projects in similar location (250-mile radius of Ames

Research Center)

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/SITES certification, EMR score 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 submits at least three (3) projects of similar in size, scope, and complexity. Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● The General Contractor. Subcontractors, and the A/E firm, major Consultants worked on the same project and their roles in the proposed contract.

● A project possesses five or more of the characteristics listed above

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 to the contracting officer.

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.

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 cost and schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the responsiveness of management; the history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer safety culture and satisfaction; the business-like concern for the interest of the customer; 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 cost and 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 objectives, including the realization of Design Excellence. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” refers to GSA’s Design Excellence (DE) 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, cost, functionality, space efficiency, energy efficiency, constructability, reliability; creating environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees; and giving contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal Requirement

Each Offeror must submit a written narrative (not to exceed 10 pages) presenting 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 four subjects set forth below. The Government will consider these elements when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

1- Philosophy and Design-Build Intent: The Offeror’s philosophy and design-build 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-build philosophy; the Offeror’s approach to the challenge of public architecture and related issues; to the ability in translating user requirements into functional and architectural programs, and commitment to integrated and sustainable design and construction. The Offeror’s philosophy and design-build 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.

2-Management Process: The Offeror shall describe their overall management approach to DB including such topics as the lines and methods of communication; decision-making; interaction with consultants; the means to integrate client and community 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.

3-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.

4-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 portfolio in the context of Design Excellence. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “Lead Designer” means an individual or team of designers who will have the primary responsibility to develop the concept and the project design.

For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” has the same meaning as stated in Evaluation Factor 2.

Submittal Requirements:

Each Offeror must submit the information requested below. The Government will consider each of these elements when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

● Submit a portfolio representative of the Lead Designer’s ability to provide Design Excellence.

Address his or her participation in each project.

● If the Lead Designer is an individual, submit a portfolio of up to three (3) projects completed in the last ten (10) years (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

● If the Lead Designer is a team, submit a portfolio of up to three (3) projects completed in the last ten (10) years (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

● Each project must include a narrative that addresses the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client’s program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operational objects were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution.

Include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, or peer recognition demonstrating Design Excellence. The narrative shall include the project’s total construction cost and cost per square foot.

● In addition to the page limits above, each Offeror may include: 1) one of the following for each project: a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3-D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, and 2) two pages of photographs for each project.

● Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

● 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 standard is met when:

● The submission demonstrates an understanding of the design issues to be addressed in the project identified in the RFQ as evidenced by the projects that the Offeror chose to submit for this evaluation factor;

● The submission portrays creative and appropriate responses to client criteria and needs, demonstrates design leadership, and clearly exemplifies Design Excellence.

Phase II

Proposals must address the technical approach, technical qualifications, and the other Phase 2 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 (25%)

Factor 3 - Management Plan (15%) Factor 4 - Small Business Utilization (10%)

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 Concept evidences a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will be able to satisfy 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, and vision indicative of a Design Excellence project as evidenced by Design Quality.

For 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, cost, space efficiency, energy efficiency, constructability, functionality, and reliability; create environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees; and give contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal Requirements:

Offeror shall submit the following:

1. Submission of a Final Concept

Offerors shall provide the information and generally follow the format and structure as set forth in the

RFP.

2. Functional Objectives Matrix

A functional objectives matrix is provided in the RFP. The Government is seeking design solutions that will optimize functional interests, consistent with the need to integrate solutions that will support all functional objectives.

The PBS P100, Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, 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 climate, site, program, mandates, 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.

The page limit for this section is twenty (including the matrix).

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 or exceeds the minimum goal of building footprint stated under the section of Description of Work in this document.

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 Program Of Requirements (POR) document and page reference to the minimum requirements to be exceeded;

● state the higher performance tier 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 twenty.

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;

● Site Development Analysis

● Facility Design Analysis

● Building Systems Analysis

Additional considerations.

● Functionality The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept focuses on simplicity, spatial flexibility and efficiency, organizational adjacencies, and clear paths of travel.

● Performance The extent to which the Offeror’s Design Concept provides due consideration to areas such as energy, water and material efficiency, sustainability factors, ease of maintenance, clearly stated performance goals, materials that offer durability reflect consideration of the impacts of energy loss, and solar impact.

● 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 organizing/orientation features (light courts, entry lobbies, grand stairs, and passive and active solar strategies) as well as the architecture aesthetic of the building exterior. The extend to which the Offeror’s Design Concept considers the goals of the “walkable campus” as outlined in the Center Master Plan for the NASA Ames Research Center and will address NASA’s requirements to reduce the footprint and O&M costs while providing a healthy, safe, efficient, modern, flexible, and sustainable work environment..

Standard for Evaluation:

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

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

● innovation, purpose, and vision indicative of a Design Excellence project.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● The Offeror breaks down each major function into its component principles/objectives. For example, matrices for productivity, security, and other functional objectives.

● Proposals that offer a greater probability of achieving Design Excellence as evidenced by higher Design Quality.

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

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: Qualifications and Past Performance of Key Personnel (25%)

Description:

This factor considers the qualifications and past performance of the Offeror’s key personnel with design-build or integrated project delivery (IDP) methods. 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 response of the references. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is characterized as the use of a multi-party agreement in which the owner or developer executed a single contract with the Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for the project

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 (15) page limit for this evaluation factor, including reference information. An Offeror may allocate the pages in any manner it chooses.

Key Personnel shall include: Principle-In-Charge, Project Manager (construction), Project Manager (design), Construction Superintendent, Quality Control/Assurance Coordinator, Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO).

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 the Request for Qualifications.) For instance, on the prior project, the key person served in the capacity as the Project Manager, but for 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) projects 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 no more than 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 promote excellence in design and construction.

Information Required:

● The plan shall identify key subcontractors for the following engineering disciplines: Mechanical, Structural, Electrical, and Commissioning Agent. For each key subcontractor, the Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the subcontractor’s experience with design build or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and how that experience is relevant to the work that the subcontractor will perform for the Offeror.

For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD has the same meaning as used in Evaluation Factor 2.

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

● The plan shall include a project schedule that highlights key assumptions on which the schedule is based and discusses the Offeror’s strategy for sequencing the work. 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. 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 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 should 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 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, construction quality control and assurance start-up and commissioning, and integrated acceptance testing.

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 measure 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…