RFP Attch 1 - Relevant Experience - MT Interstate FFS_20240917.docx
DOCX document 2 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47PJ0024R0108
About this file
This document is an attachment to a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation for the Montana Interstate Facilities Engineering and Full Facilities Services contract, Solicitation No. 47PJ0024R0108, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service Region 8.
The solicitation is for operations and maintenance services, including facilities engineering, operations and maintenance, snow removal, landscaping, integrated pest management, and custodial services, for three federal buildings along the Interstate 90 corridor in Montana. The total anticipated square footage is approximately 314,000 gross square feet. The contract will be a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a base year and four option years. This is a 100% small business set-aside solicitation under NAICS code 561210 with a $47 million size standard. Key evaluation factors include quality management system, staffing plan, relevant experience, past performance, energy optimization, and socioeconomic status. The period of performance is anticipated to be from February 1, 2025 to December 31, 2029, with an option to extend services up to six months.
View the file
Other files
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
| General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service Region 8 | Project: | Montana Interstate FE & Full Facilities Services |
| RFQ Attachment 1: Relevant Experience for GSA Solicitation No. 47PJ0024R0108 | Billings-Bozeman-Butte, Montana |
| General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service Region 8 | Project: Montana Interstate FE & Full Facilities Services | |
| RFP Attachment 1: Relevant Experience for GSA Solicitation No. 47PJ0024R0108 | Billings-Bozeman-Butte, Montana |
Request for Proposal Attachment 1: Relevant Experience for Solicitation No. 47PJ0024R0108 Montana Interstate Facilities Engineering & Full Facilities Services Billings—Bozeman—Butte, MT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104)
INSTRUCTIONS: The offeror should provide information in this attachment to respond to the Relevant Experience evaluation factor in the RFP. The offeror may provide up to three (3) Similar Projects in response to the Relevant Experience evaluation factor. Section 3 is limited to no more than five pages (standard page of approximately 8.5” x 11” or electronic equivalent). Offerors should reference the definition of “Similar Project(s)” in Section F.2.1 Definitions (which is reproduced below) in selecting the projects to submit in response to the Relevant Experience evaluation factor. The Government will not evaluate any information beyond the five page limitation for the Section 3 response to the Relevant Experience factor.
Important: Section 3 is limited to no more than five pages total; DO NOT submit five pages per project.
For the Past Performance and Relevant Experience factors “Similar Project(s)” means (in no order of importance) project(s) for which--
· work primarily includes operations and maintenance services;
· the offeror performed as the prime contractor;
· the offeror performed for at least six consecutive months within the last seven (7) years prior to issuance of the RFP or the proposal submittal deadline;
· work was performed primarily on a firm-fixed price basis; and
· work was performed in a facility used for professional services (e.g., office buildings, hospitals, educational institutions, courthouses, hotels, laboratories, museums) not primarily related to retail sales, wholesales, manufacturing, warehousing, industrial, restaurants, or residential functions.
REMINDERS:
| i. | For each submitted Similar Project, offerors should address all aspects of how the submitted Similar Project meets the definition of “Similar Project”. |
| ii. | Unless the question is specifically designed for a yes/no response or simple input (e.g. dates, square footage, number of facilities managed under the project, etc.), do not simply state the project includes experience for the part of the relevant experience presented in the question. |
| iii. | When responding to questions in Section 3, offerors should avoid general statements in responses about its relevant experience. As a reminder, the Government may evaluate an offeror’s relevant experience on Similar Projects more favorably to the extent the responses have a level of depth that substantiates its experience for the technical considerations described in Section 3 of this RFP Attachment 1 - Relevant Experience. |
SECTION 1: BUSINESS INFORMATION
Legal Business Name:
System for Award Management (SAM) Unique Entity Identifier (UEI):
Business Address:
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SECTION 2: GENERAL INFORMATION ON SIMILAR PROJECTS
Project 1 Name:
| Does the project primarily include operations and maintenance services? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Did the business described in Section 1 perform the work for this Similar Project as the prime contractor? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Was work performed primarily on a firm-fixed price basis? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Is the project for work that required the management of facilities in locations at least 100 miles apart under one contract? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Are any of the real properties managed under this project listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or other historic register)? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Were any of the real properties managed under this project undergoing any type of major renovations as part of a modernization project to replace, modify, and improve existing building equipment or systems? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
What is the primary function of this facility (or facilities) (e.g. laboratories, office space, educational institutions, hospitals, etc.)?
Estimated quantity and value of unscheduled maintenance and repair activities per year:
Period of Performance
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy):
Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy):
Project 2 Name:
| Does the project primarily include operations and maintenance services? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Did the business described in Section 1 perform the work for this Similar Project as the prime contractor? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Was work performed primarily on a firm-fixed price basis? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Is the project for work that required the management of facilities in locations at least 100 miles apart under one contract? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Are any of the real properties managed under this project listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or other historic register)? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Were any of the real properties managed under this project undergoing any type of major renovations as part of a modernization project to replace, modify, and improve existing building equipment or systems? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
What is the primary function of this facility (or facilities) (e.g. laboratories, office space, educational institutions, hospitals, etc.)?
Estimated quantity and value of unscheduled maintenance and repair activities per year:
Period of Performance
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy):
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project 3 Name:
| Does the project primarily include operations and maintenance services? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Did the business described in Section 1 perform the work for this Similar Project as the prime contractor? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Was work performed primarily on a firm-fixed price basis? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Is the project for work that required the management of facilities in locations at least 100 miles apart under one contract? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Are any of the real properties managed under this project listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or other historic register)? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
| Were any of the real properties managed under this project undergoing any type of major renovations as part of a modernization project to replace, modify, and improve existing building equipment or systems? |
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
What is the primary function of this facility (or facilities) (e.g. laboratories, office space, educational institutions, hospitals, etc.)?
Estimated quantity and value of unscheduled maintenance and repair activities per year:
Period of Performance
Start Date (mm/dd/yyyy):
SECTION 3: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE (DO NOT EXCEED FIVE PAGES FOR THIS SECTION)
When responding to the questions and prompts below for relevant experience, it is important for the response to provide specific details that substantiate how and why the experience is relevant to the scope and complexity of the National Operations & Maintenance Specification for Montana Interstate Facilities Engineering and Full Facilities Services (“the Specification”). It is strongly suggested that the response avoid broad, vague, and general statements. The offeror should demonstrate its experience with any supporting details from the Similar Projects listed in Section 2.
For the submitted Similar Projects, --
1. describe any experience with sustainability programs (e.g. water conservation, waste diversion, and energy efficiency) at the facility (or facilities). What were the programs and what was your role as the prime contractor?
2. describe any experience with quality management systems and, specifically, certain aspects of the quality management system that add value to the technical quality and service delivery.
3. do any of the Similar Projects demonstrate any experience in improving a predictive or preventive maintenance program beyond the client’s established requirements and standards? For instance, as the prime contractor, did you integrate any industry best practices or leverage any internal capabilities, expertise, or knowledge to improve the predictive or preventive maintenance program? Be sure to list any implemented best practices or applied internal expertise on this Similar Project.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .