10-09-18_Milw_FA_DE-DB_Phase_1_Solicitation.pdf

GSA Solicitation No. 47PF0018Q0137

The Solicitation – October 9, 2018

Design - Build / Design Excellence Milwaukee Fire Alarm Life Safety Project

Solicitation Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Solicitation No.: 47PF0018Q0137

552.219-71 Notice to Offerors of Subcontracting Plan Requirements (MAR 2012)

The General Services Administration (GSA) is committed to assuring that maximum practicable opportunity is provided to small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, and service-disabled veteran owned small business concerns to participate in the performance of this contract consistent with its efficient performance. GSA expects any subcontracting plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, to reflect this commitment. Consequently, an offeror, other than a small business concern, before being awarded a contract exceeding $700,000 ($1,500,000 for construction), must demonstrate that its subcontracting plan represents a creative and innovative program for involving small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, and service-disabled vet

Notice of Commercial Package Carriers

Because of increased security standards, commercial package carriers may experience delays in making deliveries to the address designated for receipt of offers. Offerors should take these facts into consideration when determining how and when to transmit offers to the office designated for receipt.

Table of Contents

I. General Information A. The Project B. The Solicitation and Contract C. List of Solicitation Phase 1 RFQ Documents D. Authorized Representatives E. Pre-Proposal Conference F. Estimated Price Range/Budget Amount G. Receipt of Offers

II. Technical Proposal A. Proposal Contents B. Proposal Format C. Technical Evaluation Factors D. 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 Requirement) H. Contractor Performance Information I. Safeguarding Documents Designated as Sensitive But Unclassified J. Additional Security Requirements

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions

V. Additional Provisions

VI. Method Of Award A. Evaluation of Phase 1 RFQ Proposals B. Evaluation of Phase 2 RFP Proposals C. Determination of Responsibility D. Price Reasonableness/Price Realism E. Unbalanced Price F. Total Evaluated Price G. Evaluation of Joint Venture Offers

I. General Information

I.A. The Project

The Milwaukee Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse is located at 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202. The Milwaukee Federal Building is a historic building constructed in 1899 with an addition constructed in 1932. The building was designed originally as a U.S. Post Office and Courthouse and although the Postal Service has not occupied the building since 1974, the facility has continually housed the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Eastern District of Wisconsin along with numerous other federal agencies. The building has been modified over the years to meet the changing needs of its tenants, but has retained a high-degree of architectural integrity.

This proposed project is focused on upgrading the Fire and Life Safety Systems throughout the facility. Existing fire alarm components have been upgraded and replaced throughout the building over the years, but multiple upgrades have now succumb to deterioration over time resulting in deficiencies that must be rectified. These deficiencies have included inaudible alarms and frequent false alarms, both of which pose threats to the safety of workers, civilians, and visitors. The proposed project will involve:

Base Bid

• Full replacement of the fire alarm system.

• Addition of all new speaker/strobe devices.

• Replacement of the fire alarm backbone.

Options:

• Addition to existing fire suppression system by extension of its coverage to areas that are not currently protected

• Replacement of all existing sprinkler heads in historic public corridors.

The contractor scope of work will include all of the labor, materials, and equipment required to provide architectural design, engineering, construction, and other related services necessary to successfully complete the project in compliance with all applicable codes. Other services may include site planning, utility relocation, testing and inspection during construction, and commissioning.

The period of performance for the design-build contract from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed of the contract award by the GSA Contracting Officer though project substantial completion is estimated to be 27 months.

I.B. The Solicitation and Contract

(1) This Solicitation is being conducted using the two phase selection process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36.3. All responsible offerors who meet the requirements set forth in this Phase 1 RFQ may submit a proposal. Those RFQ proposals will be evaluated to determine which most highly-qualified offerors will be shortlisted for the Phase 2 RFP. The GSA will select a short-list of no more than three (3) offerors and only those are authorized to submit Phase 2 proposals. Offerors not selected for participation in Phase 2 will be notified in accordance with FAR Part 15.503(a).

(2) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for the Phase 1 RFQ proposals and the technical evaluation factors for the Phase 2 RFP proposals for a Contract to construct the project. The Phase 1 RFQ proposals conforming to the requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the Method of Award as identified in section VI.A. Following the completion of Phase 2 the Government will award the Contract to the selected offeror, subject to the conditions set forth in the Solicitation (Phase 1 & 2).

(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 Solicitation Phase 1 RFQ Documents

The Solicitation Documents are comprised of:

(1) The Solicitation Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

(2) Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 001)

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: Helen DiMonte Address: 230. South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 Email: Helen.Dimonte@gsa.gov

Alternate POC Information Name: Anthony Walton Address: 230. South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 Email: Anthony.walton@gsa.gov

I.E. Pre-Proposal Conference:

A pre-proposal conference will NOT be held during Phase 1 of this procurement

I.F. Estimated Price Range/Budget Amount

The estimated price for the Project is more than $10,000,000.

mailto:Helen.Dimonte@gsa.gov

I.G. Receipt of Offers

(1) In order to be considered for the Phase 2 RFP and Contract award, the Phase 1 RFQ proposals conforming to all of the requirements must be received at the following office no later than 3:00pm local time on the following date and at the following address:

Date: Monday, November 12, 2018 Address: 230 South Dearborn Street, 35th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604 ATTN: Anthony Walton

(2) Offers sent by commercial package delivery and hand delivery shall be deemed received as of the date and time of delivery to the office designated for receipt of offers.

(3) Offers sent by United States Mail shall be deemed timely if delivered to the address of the government installation designated for receipt of offers on or before the date established for receipt of offers.

II. Technical Proposal

II.A. Proposal Content

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

1. Technical Proposal

2. Other Documents as Required

II.B. Proposal Format

Utilizing the format prescribed below, offerors are to provide the requested information in a brief and succinct manner making every effort to present information clearly and concisely. All information shall be submitted in English. Proposals that do not follow these instructions, or otherwise include documentation that is difficult to read, may result in a lower Phase 1 evaluation rating or ultimately be found unresponsive, resulting in disqualification.

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format. Pages shall be 8.5x11 inch white paper, with lettered/numbered dividers for each section as directed below. Proposal text shall be in a standard font a minimum of ten (10) points or a maximum of twelve (12) points in height, single-spaced. Proposal submissions must include one (1) original that is not bound and six (6) copies contained in 3-ring binders. The external cover of each proposal (original and copies) shall clearly identify the offeror’s name, clearly be labeled “Proposal for The Solicitation: Phase 1 –

RFQ, 47PF0018Q0137

”, and clearly state the time and date for the receipt of proposals. Each copy shall be identified on its cover as “Copy __ of 6 Copies.” Additionally one (1) electronic copy shall be submitted via an external flash drive. All signatures on all documents, originals and copies must be original signatures in ink.

No stipend will be paid to offerors as a result of Phase 1 of this Solicitation. All Phase 1 proposal development costs shall be borne by the offerors without reimbursement from the GSA.

Phase 1 RFQ proposals shall be submitted using the following organizational structure:

Section I – Cover Letter: Provide a letter consisting of no more than one (1) single-sided page on letterhead identifying a single point of contact, address, phone/fax numbers, and email address (if any) where the GSA inquiries or notices should be directed.

Section II – Forms: Include in this section all of the documentation necessary to satisfy the “Mandatory Requirements” described in Section II.C.1. Mandatory Requirements, of this Phase

1 RFQ.

Section III – Technical Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Qualifications

Section IV – Technical Evaluation Factor 2: Approach to Design-Build

Section V – Technical Evaluation Factor 3: Lead Designer

II.C. Technical Evaluation Factors

Important Notification

• Proposals must address all of the Phase 1 RFQ Technical Evaluation Factors stated herein.

• Any proposal that does not meet all of the following criteria required may be deemed nonresponsive and may not be eligible for evaluation.

1. Mandatory Requirements

The following will be evaluated on a “go/no‐go” basis. Offerors that do not meet all of the following criteria will not be considered. The Contracting Officer will solely make the determination as to an offeror’s responsibility/responsiveness to these mandatory requirements, and submit only those proposals that meet all of requirements for a full evaluation.

• Offeror must be registered and provide proof of active status in the System Award Management on‐line system at time of the Phase 1 RFQ proposal submission date. This applies to Joint Ventures also.

• Proof of the offeror’s ability to provide bonding capacity of at least $10,000,000.00, in the form of a letter from a surety.

2. Phase 1: Technical Evaluation Factors

The Phase 1 RFQ proposals will be evaluated as set forth herein. All responsive proposals shall be evaluated and rated against the following three (3) Technical Evaluation Factors:

• Factor 1: Technical Qualifications (60%)

• Factor 2: Approach to Design Build (20%)

• Factor 3: Lead Designer (20%)

The Technical Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factors 2 and 3 being equal in value to each other. In Factor 1, Subfactor 1.A. is more important than Subfactor 1.B. In Factor 3, Subfactor 3.A. is more important than Subfactor 3.B.

Definition of “SIMILAR PROJECT”

For the purposes of the Phase 1 a SIMILAR PROJECT is defined as a project that is similar in size, type and complexity. To qualify as a SIMILAR PROJECT, the project must meet all three elements as further defined here.

SIMILAR PROJECT is defined as a project that is similar in size, type and complexity. To be considered similar in size, project(s) must exceed $10,000,000.00 in initial award amount, be completed in the last ten (10) years. To be considered similar in type, project(s) must include major renovation of existing facilities with particular consideration given to those executed in occupied historic buildings (defined below) [with major fire and life safety infrastructure upgrade components]. To be considered similar in complexity, project(s) must include work as the Primary General Contractor performing new construction for government/ institutional use building(s), or an occupied government/ institutional use building(s). Favorable consideration will be given to projects for historic government/institutional use building(s).

Definition of “Historic Building”

The definition of a historic building as it pertains to this evaluation factor is defined as work executed on properties where adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties was followed. A “historic building” means any historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR 800.16(l)).

“National Register of Historic Places” means the National Register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture that the Secretary of the Interior (U.S. Department of Interior) is authorized to expand and maintain under the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 60.1)

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS (60%)

SUBFACTOR 1.A: EXPERIENCE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A/E

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 completing SIMILAR PROJECTS. 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. Projects that do not meet the definition of SIMILAR PROJECT may result in a lower evaluation rating for this specific factor.

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) similar projects. 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.

Project submittals must meet the following minimum requirements:

• Construction was substantially completed within 10 years of the submission deadline for Phase 1 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.

• Each submitted project must identify the construction delivery method. Three (3) of the five (5) projects allowed to document experience shall have been Design-Build (DB), Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) or another delivery method that utilized a single contract between owner/developer and contractor to provide unified, multi-party design & construction services leading to collaborative problem-solving and innovation for the project.

• Each submitted project must identify the following: Initial contract award amount and Final contract amount, year of project completion, description of the overall project scope of work. ** Note that if the offeror is a Joint Venture the submitted projects must be those of the primary General Contractor identified in the agreement. * Each project submitted under Subfactor 1.A shall be limited to a total of two (2) double sided 8.5” x 11”pages.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

• Projects that exceed the definition of a SIMILAR PROJECT with regard to size or complexity.

• Projects where the Lead Design Firm has worked previously with the identified General Contractor.

• Projects that utilized the Design-Build project delivery method or other Integrated Project Delivery for an HISTORIC BUILDING project.

• Projects that involved multi-phase construction/continuous occupation during construction.

• Experience working within occupied HISTORIC BUILDINGS of comparable size and complexity.

Subfactor 1.B.: Past Performance of the General Contractor

Description: This evaluation factor considers the General Contractor’s past performance on the SIMILAR PROJECTS submitted by the offeror under Subfactor 1.A. The GSA 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 (including thorough assessment of exisiting conditions to inform design solutions), good workmanship, conformance to specifications, and fair and reasonable prices. In the evaluation process the GSA may consider the information in the offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases and other references.

Submittal Requirement(s): Offeror must submit a separate PBS Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 001) for each of the projects submitted under Subfactor 1.A. for review. Each project submitted must identify at least one (1) reference, including name, address, telephone number and email address. Offerors shall distribute the PBS Past Performance Questionnaire to each reference for completion and submission to the Contracting Officer directly via email only. The Contracting Officer must receive these submissions by November 12, 2018.

No exceptions will be made therefore offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The email subject line must contain the name of the offeror, the name of the reference, and the solicitation number. Surveys submitted directly by an offeror will not be considered. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure these reviews are submitted to and received by the Contracting Officer. The GSA reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an offeror’s proposal.

In the case of an offeror not having a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably.

Only those offerors who have submitted and the GSA has received the required three (3) to five

(5) PBS Past Performance Questionnaires will be eligible to receive additional consideration. If the GSA receives negative past performance information, the offeror will be given an opportunity to respond.

Standard for evaluation is met when: all items identified as Submittal requirement(s) are submitted by the offeror for evaluation within the identified parameters.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

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

EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – Approach to Design-Build (20%)

Description: This evaluation factor considers the offeror’s approach to establishing a design-build team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the GSA’s objectives, including the realization of “Design Excellence.” For purposes of this evaluation factor, Design Excellence refers to the GSA’s Design Excellence Program which seeks an holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, historic preservation, urban design, interior design, sustainability, and construction) to delivering project value by producing high quality, high performance facilities on budget and on time.

The program also seeks to commission our nation’s most talented constructors, designers, engineers and artists/artisans 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, constructability, and reliability; creating environmentally superior workplaces for federal employees and giving contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal requirement(s): Offeror must submit a written narrative identifying its approach to the design-build process and discuss each of the subjects set forth below. The narrative shall be limited to a total of five (5) double-sided 8.5” x 11”pages. The offeror may allocate the ten pages in any manner they choose

● Philosophy and Design Intent - The offeror must describe their philosophy and design intent as related to the Milwaukee Fire Alarm project described in the Solicitation. This must include the Lead Designer’s philosophy; overall design philosophy; understanding of the project and project issues; approach to the challenge of public architecture and related issues.

The GSA expects clear, thoughtful phrases that demonstrate the ability of the team to communicate ideas among each other and to the owner. The offeror’s philosophy and design intent should be characterized by clarity.

● Management Process - The offeror must describe their overall project management approach to design-build delivery and address the following; lines and methods of communication;

decision-making processes; interaction with consultants; client integration; role of specialty contractors; management of project quality, cost, and schedule, and the physical location of the execution of major design and production work. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s management processes will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort.

Standard for evaluation is met when: all items identified as Submittal requirement(s) are submitted by the offeror for evaluation within the identified parameters. If an offeror does not meet the identified requirements this may result in a lower evaluation rating for this specific factor.

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

● Lead Designer and General Contractor’s values and philosophies align with those required to successfully implement offeror’s management process;

● A proven demonstration in the submittal of successful implementation of the Management Process on any of the projects listed under Evaluation Factor 1, Subfactor 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;

● A well demonstrated and defined probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort, as evaluated by the Government.

● The Lead Designer’s Philosophy and Design Intent closely aligns with the needs of this project;

● The Lead Designer’s Philosophy and Design Intent and/or Management Process demonstrate a superior understanding of the project and of project issues;

● The Lead Designer’s Philosophy and Design Intent demonstrates superior approaches to the challenge of public architecture on this project

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGNER (20%)

Subfactor 3.A.: Lead Designer Portfolio

Description: This evaluation 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 who will have the primary responsibility to develop the concept and the project design.

“Design Excellence” maintains the same meaning as stated in Technical Evaluation Factor 2.

Submittal requirement(s): Offeror must submit the identified items set forth below.

● Submit a design project portfolio representative of the Lead Designer’s ability to produce excellence in design. The portfolio must include three (3) projects where the design has been completed in the last ten (10) years, the lead Designer’s role and area(s) responsibility on those projects. Each shall address the following: project program and function; project budget and schedule; and how the design approach/planning solution(s) address the client’s mission/project goal(s).

If the Lead Designer is a pair of designers/team, submit a portfolio of up to two (2) completed projects by the lead designer(s) on the team (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 objectives for project program, functionality, image, mission, budget, schedule, and operations were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, or peer recognition demonstrating Design Excellence.

** Each project submitted under Subfactor 3.A shall be limited to a total of two (2) double sided 8.5” x 11”pages.

The standard for evaluation is met when: all items identified as Submittal requirement(s) are submitted by the offeror for evaluation within the identified parameters. If an offeror does not meet the identified requirements this may result in a lower evaluation rating for this specific factor.

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

● The Lead Designer completed all projects in the portfolio in the same role as proposed on this project.

● Project narrative(s) include supplemental project information to more clearly illustrate the projects’ design (i.e. representative floor plan(s), site plan(s), rendered 3-D model, building section(s) or detail(s), photograph(s), or other information deemed appropriate for each project.

● Portfolio includes project(s) that meet the definition of a SIMILAR PROJECT.

● Portfolio includes project(s) that exceeds the definition of a SIMILAR PROJECT with regards to size or complexity.

● Portfolio includes project(s) delivered via Design-Build or other Integrated Project Delivery methods as described in this RFQ.

● Portfolio includes experience with Fire Alarm projects in comparable historic buildings, courthouses, or public facility (Federal, State, local) projects.

● Portfolio includes project(s) that identify how the design approach/planning solution(s) may be applied successfully to the Milwaukee Fire Alarm project.

● Portfolio includes project(s) that have earned certificates, awards, or peer recognition demonstrating production of excellent design.

Subfactor 3.B.: Past Performance of Lead Designer

Description: This evaluation factor considers the Lead Design’s past performance on the projects submitted by the offeror under Subfactor 3.A. The GSA is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction, timely delivery of services, adherence to contract schedules, design team management, good workmanship, and conformance to design requirements. In evaluating this subfactor the GSA may consider the information in the offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases and other references.

Submittal Requirement(s): Offeror must submit a separate PBS Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 001) for each of the three (3) projects submitted under Subfactor 3.A. for review. Each project submitted must identify at least one (1) reference, including name, address, telephone number and email address. Offerors shall distribute the PBS Past Performance Questionnaire to each reference for completion and submission to the Contracting Officer directly via email only. The Contracting Officer must receive these submissions by no later than November 12, 2018. No exceptions will be made therefore offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The email subject line must contain the name of the offeror, the name of the reference, and the solicitation number. Surveys submitted directly by an offeror will not be considered. It is the sole responsibility of the offeror to ensure these reviews are submitted to and received by the Contracting Officer. The GSA reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an offeror’s proposal.

Note that offerors may resubmit questionnaires previously submitted with other proposals or may obtain an updated/new PPQ from a client for response to this Phase 1 RFQ. However the questionnaires must still be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer per the parameters identified herein. In the case of an offeror not having a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably. Only those offerors who have submitted and the GSA has received the required three (3) PBS Past Performance Questionnaires will be eligible to receive additional consideration. If the GSA receives negative past performance information, the offeror may be given an opportunity to respond. Standard for evaluation is met when: all items identified as Submittal requirement(s) are submitted by the offeror for evaluation within the identified parameters.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● Better than Satisfactory ratings from owner references.

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

Excellence

III. General Provisions

III.A. Availability of Funds

Issuance of this Solicitation does not warrant that funds are presently available for award of a Contract. Award of the contract shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and the Government shall incur no obligation under this Solicitation in advance of such time as funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for the purpose of contract award.

III.B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation

The Government will attempt to answer all requests for clarifications or interpretations of the Solicitation Documents prior to the date set for receipt of offers, but do not warrant that all such requests will be answered within 15 calendar days. Prospective Offerors should make such requests not less than 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers. Questions must be submitted to Anthony.walton@gsa.gov, via email only. Any questions not received via email or after this designated time will not be accepted. Any responses provided by the GSA will be posted on FedBizOpps as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

III.C. Notice to Small Business Firms

A program for the purpose of assisting qualified small business concerns in obtaining certain bid, payment, or performance bonds that are otherwise not obtainable is available through the Small Business Administration (SBA) (Small Business Administration). For information concerning SBA's surety bond guarantee assistance, contact your SBA District Office.

III.D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results

This acquisition is being conducted under the provisions of FAR Part 15 as a negotiated procurement. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and FAR 15.207, after receipt of proposals, no information regarding the identity of those submitting offers, the number of offers received, or the information contained in such offers will be made available until after award except as provided by FAR 15.503.

III.E. Affirmative Procurement Program

GSA has implemented an Affirmative Procurement Program (APP) intended to maximize the use of recovered materials, environmentally preferable, and bio-based products. Offerors should familiarize themselves with the requirements for using and reporting on the use of such materials in performance as set forth in the Agreement. Refer to Clause FAR 52.223-10 encouraging vendors to practice waste reduction.

III.F. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals

Offerors are cautioned to carefully read the entire Solicitation and the Agreement to be included in the Contract contemplated by the Solicitation in order to be fully aware of all requirements and clauses in the contemplated Contract. Verify that all blanks requiring information to be supplied in an Offer have been properly filled out, that all pricing and other numerical data is accurately calculated, and that all copies of the Offer contain the same information.

III.G. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirement)

If a bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer, any contract awarded will require a performance bond as specified in the Agreement. Offerors who utilize individual sureties should note the requirement for a certified, audited, financial statement for each person acting as an individual surety under clause FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and the requirements of clause FAR 52.228-11 Pledge of Assets.

III.H. Contractor Performance Information

1 - Evaluating Contractor Performance: The General Services Administration is using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) module as the secure, confidential, information management tool to facilitate the performance evaluation process.

CPARS enables a comprehensive evaluation by capturing comments from both GSA and the contractor. The website for CPARS is Contractor Performance Assessment http://www.sba.gov/ http://www.cpars.gov/

Completed CPARS evaluations are sent to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which may then be used by Federal acquisition community for use in making source selection decisions. PPIRS assists acquisition officials by serving as the single source for contractor past performance data.

2 - CPARS Registration: Each award requiring an evaluation must be registered in CPARS. The contractor will receive several automated emails. Within thirty days of award, the contractor will receive an e-mail that contains user account information, as well as the applicable contract and order number(s) assigned. Contractors will be granted one user account to access all evaluations.

3 - Contractor CPARS Training: Contractors may sign up for CPARS training. A schedule of classes will be posted to the CPARS training site (CPARS Training) and updated as needed.

4 - Contractor Representative (CR) Role: All evaluations will be sent to the Contractor Representative (CR) named on your award. The CR will be able to access CPARS to review and comment on the evaluation. If your CR is not already in the CPARS system, the contracting officer will request the name and email address of the person that will be responsible for the CR role on your award.

Once an evaluation is ready to be released the CR will receive an email alerting them the evaluation is ready for their review and comment. The email will indicate the time frame the CR has to respond to the evaluation; however, the CR may return the evaluation earlier than this date.

GSA shall provide for review at a level above the contracting officer (i.e., contracting director) to consider any disagreement between GSA and the contractor regarding GSA’s evaluation of the contractor. Based on the review, the individual at a level above the contracting officer will issue the ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation.

Copies of the evaluations, contractor responses, and review comments, if any, will be retained as part of the contract file.

III.I. Safeguarding Documents Designated as Sensitive But Unclassified

Certain information contained in the Solicitation Documents may have been designated as Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) building information. With respect to such information, Offerors shall agree to the terms for receipt of such information, as set forth in the provision “Administrative Matters” in Section III of the Agreement, as a condition of receipt of such information.

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions

To be issued with Phase 2 Request for Proposals.

V. Additional Provisions - none https://www.cpars.gov/webtrain.htm

VI. Method of Award

VI.A. Evaluation of Phase 1 RFQ Proposals

The GSA will evaluate Phase 1 RFQ proposals based on the following Technical Evaluation Factors listed in descending order of importance with Factors 2 and 3 being equal in value to each other. In Factor 1, Subfactor 1.A. is more important than Subfactor 1.B. In Factor 3, Subfactor 3.A. is more important than Subfactor 3.B. A maximum short-list of four (4) offerors will be allowed to participate in the Phase 2 Request for Proposal (RFP):

• Technical Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Qualifications

• Technical Evaluation Factor 2 – Approach to Design-Build

• Technical Evaluation Factor 3 – Lead Designer

VI.B. Evaluation of Phase 2 RFP Proposals

The GSA will award a contract resulting from the Solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal will be most advantageous to the Government, Total Evaluated Price and other factors considered. In addition to Total Evaluated Price, the following Phase 2 RFP non-price factors shall be used to evaluate proposals (factors listed in descending order of importance with no factor being equal in value):

• Technical Evaluation Factor 1: Design Concept

• Technical Evaluation Factor 2: Qualifications of Key Personnel

• Technical Evaluation Factor 3: Project Management Plan

VI.C. Determination of Responsibility

In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer, and is independent evaluation of offers set forth herein.

VI.D. Price Reasonableness The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Price reasonableness determines whether an Offeror’s price is too high. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this solicitation and for the avoidance of doubt, the Government will not perform a price realism analysis of the Offeror’s proposal

VI.E. Unbalanced Prices

Offers must include balanced prices. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall: (i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and (ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

VI.E. Total Evaluated Price

The Phase 2 RFP price proposals must include balanced prices. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. All proposals with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If price analysis techniques indicate that a proposal is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall: (i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and (ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

VI.F. Total Evaluated Price

Total Evaluated Price will be addressed in the Phase 2 RFP.

VI.G. Evaluation of Joint Venture Offerors

In the evaluation of responsibility and non-price factors, information submitted for a party to the joint venture will only be evaluated to the extent that the terms of the joint venture agreement do not limit such party's performance or financial obligations as a party to the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation.