47PM0424R0017 Solicitation Package ROB.pdf

PHASE 1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

(RFQ)

PROJECT: D/B Regional Office Building (ROB)

Modernization, 7th & D St. S.W. Washington D.C

CONTACT PERSON: Cindy Dwier – CONTRACT SPECIALIST

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 202-412-0784

EMAIL: cindy.dwier@gsa.gov

RFP ISSUED:

RFP RECEIPT:

TIME & DATE:

SUBMIT RFP TO:

SOLICITATION NO.:

02/22/2024

04/01/2024

11:00 AM

cindy.dwier@gsa.gov cc Robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NCR, R11 Office of Acquisition

Construction Service Center 4

1800 F St. N.W

WASHINGTON, DC 20407

47PM0424R0017

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GSA’S AFFRIMATIVE PROCUREMENT PROGRAM AND THE STATUTES,

REGULATIONS, AND EXECTIVE ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO USE

GREEN PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THIS CONTRACT.

PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT COPYING, DISSEMINATION, OR

DISTRIBUTION OF THESE DRAWING, PLANS, OR SPECIFICATIONS TO UNAUTHORIZED USERS

IS PROHIBITED. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE

PROPERLY DESTROY DOCUMENTS WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED

mailto:cindy.dwier@gsa.gov mailto:cindy.dwier@gsa.gov mailto:Robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov

Solicitation # 47PM0424R0017

Regional Office Building Modernization

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

• SOLICITATION PHASE 1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

• OFFER REPRESENTAION & CERTIFICATION

• AGREEMENT PHASE 1

• EVALUATION FACTORS PHASE 1

• PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

• RFQ SUMMARY SCOPE OF WORK (72 Pages)

• RFQ SUMMARY SCOPE OF WORK ATTACHMENT A

• WAGE DETERMINATION DC20240002 MOD 1 DATED 2024 1 12

GSA Solicitation No. 47PM0424R0017

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

Design Build Contract for: Regional Office Building Modernization, 7th & D

St. S.W. Washington D.C

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

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 government seeks to renovate the former Regional Office Building (ROB) at 7th and D Streets SW in Washington DC to accommodate new tenants (the

Project). The resulting contract will be a firm fixed price and will utilize the design-build project delivery method. The total project limits of work comprise approximately 935,000 building gross square feet and 60,000 square feet of surrounding site and site work. This area includes seven occupied floors above-grade, two penthouse levels, and two sub-grade levels. All major building systems are intended to be upgraded or replaced entirely in order to meet the requirements of the 2021 edition of the GSA Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (P100), with its 2022 Addendum. The project will seek to provide energy savings and be certified to a GOLD Level under LEED

BD+C v. 4.1. The interior layout will employ the most current workplace strategies, targeting 80% open office and 20% closed office. The offeror shall be capable of providing hazardous materials abatement and design-build services to include without being limited to significant upgrades to and/or replacement of civil, blast, structural, interiors, envelope, vertical transportation, lighting, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, fire / life safety, audio/visual, physical security, and information technology systems. The building’s design shall support federal utility use reduction goals while also meeting the requirements of local authorities, which will include The Commission of Fine Arts, National

Capital Planning Commission, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and others. While the building itself is not listed nor intended to be listed on the

National Register of Historic Places, the DC Historic Preservation Officer is also likely to be included in consultation, given the significance of fine arts murals in the building’s East Lobby

I.B. the Solicitation and Contract

(1) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for Phase 1 qualifications 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.

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

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

I.C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents

The Solicitation Documents are comprised of:

(1) The Solicitation – Phase 1

(2) Offeror Representations and Certifications Form

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

(4) Draft of the Agreement

(5) The Scope of Work, Specifications, Drawing Exhibits and other Attachments to the Agreement.

(6) Evaluation Factors Phase 1

(7) Past Performance Questionnaire

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: Robert Jackson

Address: 1800 F St. N.W. Washington D.C

Telephone: 202-252-3631

Email: robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov

Alternate POC Information mailto:robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov

(The Solicitation)

Authorized Representative Information:

Name: Cindy Dwier

Address: 1800 F St. N.W. Washington D.C

Telephone: 202-412-0784

Email: cindy.dwier@gsa.gov

I.E. Pre-Proposal Conference Interested parties must submit full name of each attendee to include the prime contractor you are attending for. Only those parties who have submitted their full name to cindy.dwier@gsa.gov and cc robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov in advance of the meeting will be allowed to attend. To request a reasonable accommodation due to a disability, contact the Contracting Officer

Date: March 14, 2024

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Location: Regional Office Building, 7th & D St. S.W. Washington D.C

I.F. Estimated Price Range

The estimated price range for the Project is between $450,000,000.00 and $600,000,000.00 .

I.G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 Submit all questions regarding the Phase 1 to the Contracting Officer on or before March 21, 2024, by 11:00 a.m. Any responses provided by GSA will be posted on the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

I.H. Receipt of Qualifications

(1) In order to be considered for Phase 2 and award, Phase 1 qualifications proposals conforming to the requirements of the Solicitation must be received at the following office no later than 4:00 pm local time on the following date and at the following address.

Date: April 1, 2024

Address: cindy.dwier@gsa.gov cc robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov

RFI RESPONSES ARE DUE ON MARCH 20,2024 AT 1PM EST

mailto:cindy.dwier@gsa.gov mailto:cindy.dwier@gsa.gov mailto:robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov

II. Proposals

II.A. Proposal Contents

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

1. Technical Proposal

2. Proprietary Information Agreement

3. Other Documents as Required

II.B. Proposal Format

A. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of all information and materials submitted for evaluation in response to this Solicitation. An Offeror’s proposal shall consist of several Volumes, where one Volume each shall comprise:

1. The Offeror’s response to the Phase 1 RFQ

2. Administrative Documents required of the Offeror with its Phase 1 RFQ proposal

3. The Offeror’s response to the Phase 2 RFP technical proposal

4. The Offeror’s Phase 2 RFP Price/Cost Proposal

Offerors shall submit all required proposal information electronically to the SSA/PCO, Robert Jackson (robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov) and to the Contracting Specialist, Cindy Dwier (cindy.dwier@gsa.gov), no later than the Solicitation Phase 1 closing time and date. Offeror proposals received after the required time and date deadline will not be evaluated. Proposals shall be submitted in Portable Document Format. Each Volume shall correspond to one submitted PDF file except where a Volume exceeds 25MB in size when attached to an email. In the event that a Volume PDF exceeds 25MB, the Offeror shall bifurcate PDFs into the fewest number of sub-Volumes necessary to reduce the size of each sub-Volume below 25MB. No individual Tab shall be split between different PDFs. The subject line of each email to which a Volume or sub-Volume is attached shall include:

● The Solicitation Number

● Firm Name

● The Solicitation Phase Number (1 or 2)

● The Volume or sub-Volume An example is as follows:

Subject Line: “47PM0424R0017, Firm Name, Phase 1, Volume / sub-Volume 1 of 5” the body of each submission email shall include the following information:

● Firm Name

● Address

● CAGE Code

● UEI

● Small Business

● The information for a primary and secondary point of contact for the Offeror, including: ○

Names,

○ Emails, and

○ Phone numbers.

Each PDF must be electronically searchable, and each Volume’s table of contents must be electronically bookmarked to the appropriate Tab. The Offeror’s use of electronic signatures, where signatures are required in the forms indicated and/or provided, shall be accepted by the Government.

B. SUBMISSION FORMATTING

Offerors must organize their proposals as outlined herein. Volumes must be produced in an 8-1/2” x 11” format, except for oral presentation materials, schedules, and organization charts. Schedules and organization charts (Factor 4) may be submitted in an 11” x 17” format. The scaling of information on all submission materials must be clearly legible when printed. The pages of each Volume must be numbered, with the first page of each Volume beginning at “1”, and the pages of any sub-Volume shall begin sequentially after the last page of a previous sub-Volume. The minimum acceptable type size is eleven-point with a minimum of one-inch margins on all sides.

Each Volume must include a cover sheet. The cover sheet shall include the following information:

● The Offeror’s name;

● The title of the Solicitation;

● The Solicitation number;

● The date of the Offeror’s proposal submission;

●The Solicitation closing date and time;

o For Phase 1, see SF1442 Block 1 and Block 13 o For Phase 2, the closing date and time will be issued via an amendment

● The Offeror’s CAGE code;

● The Offeror’s physical address;

● The Offeror’s NAICS and corresponding business size in accordance with the System for Award Management (SAM); and

● The information for a primary and secondary point of contact for the Offeror, including:

o Names, o Emails, and o Phone numbers.

Each Volume must also include a table of contents that summarizes the Volume’s included information, which shall be organized with written page submission limits as discussed below. All page limitations listed under column “MAX PAGE COUNT” are inclusive of any graphics, images, tables, etc. Any materials submitted but not required by this Solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be included in a separate tab labeled “Appendices” at the end of the associated proposal Volume.

VOLUME TAB TITLE MAX PAGE COUNT

Request for Qualifications

1 N/A Cover Sheet 1

1 N/A Table of Contents 1

1 1 Teaming Agreement (if applicable) N/A

1 2 Factor 1: Past Technical Experience 26*

1 3 Factor 2: Past Performance 13*

1 4 Factor 3: Lead Design Team 30*

2 N/A Cover Sheet 1

2 N/A Table of Contents 1

2 1 SF 1442 (Solicitation, Offer, and Award) N/A

2 2 Certificate of Corporate Principal/Authority N/A

2 3 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL) N/A

2 4 Approved Statement of Affiliation N/A

4 2 SF-1442 Solicitation for offer & award N/A

* Reference the Factor description for more information about Factor response-specific page counts and limitations

C. PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW

A proposal compliance review will be performed to ensure that all required forms and certifications for each submitted Volume at each Phase are complete, that technical proposals have been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose. An Offeror’s failure to provide all of the requested information may adversely affect the evaluation or result in rejection of the proposal as nonresponsive.

II.C. Technical Proposal

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

A. FACTOR 1: PAST TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

1. Evaluation Requirements This Factor considers the Offeror’s past technical experience on Similarly Complex Projects as defined in Section VI.I below. That experience is to be demonstrated by both the Designer and the Constructor for three projects each. Where the Offeror submits more than three Similarly Complex Projects for either the Designer, Constructor, or both, the Government will only review the first three projects discussed.

This Factor therefore requires the Offeror to submit a minimum of three and a maximum of six projects.

The information provided by the Offeror in response to this Factor must adhere to the following:

▪ All subfactor information provided for any single project shall not exceed four pages.

▪ All introductory information shall not exceed two pages.

▪ Based on the above, the total amount of information to be provided by the Offeror shall therefore, not exceed 26 pages.

At the beginning of the Offeror’s response to this Factor, the Offeror shall include in its proposal a table that a) lists the projects that are subsequently discussed in the proposal and b) identifies whether the Designer, Constructor, or Both substantially participated in the performance of the work of each listed project. Additionally, for each project, the Offeror shall include the location of the discussed project and a third party point of contact (name, project role, email address, and phone number).

The subsequent information provided by the Offeror about each project shall demonstrate the below aspects of work, as applicable to the project and the entity (Designer or Constructor) to whom that work applies. The Offeror must discuss and meet, at minimum the following of the below five technical experience subfactor requirements:

▪ Subfactor a: The Offeror must provide this information for each project submitted under its response to this Factor.

▪ Subfactors b-e: The Offeror must provide information for a minimum of two of the four subfactors for each project submitted under its response to this Factor. Subfactors:

a. The project’s compliance with the definition of a Similarly Complex Project, with the Government’s preference for the Offeror to format this project-specific information in a table wherever practical.

b. The Offeror’s design consultation and/or construction activity coordination (including permitting and inspections) with a minimum of three of the following project stakeholders:

▪ The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)

▪ The Commission of Fine Arts (CFA)

▪ DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA)

▪ Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

The Offeror’s proposal shall include a discussion of the key design and/or construction issues presented to, coordinated with, and inspected by the above. This discussion will include how the Offeror navigated the resolution of those issues and came to a consensus on a final path forward. If cost or schedule were impacted, the Offeror shall discuss those impacts and how the Offeror mitigated or eliminated those impacts. This discussion should, at minimum, include how any scope changes were absorbed or mitigated; how the Offeror’s communications means and methods prevented or mitigated project changes and risk; and how any lessons learned were incorporated into the project as a result of these issues.

c. The design and/or construction of site infrastructure and elements meeting Interagency Security Committee (ISC) Facility Security Level (FSL) requirements at any level (I-V). The Offeror shall discuss the scope and objectives of this portion of the submitted project, any conflicts encountered between FSL requirements and other project program requirements - whether in design or construction, and how specific conflicts were either proactively avoided, mitigated after development, and lessons learned as a result of the means and methods chosen for the remediation of conflicts associated with this work.

d. The design and/or installation of extensive, intelligent Building System Networks, including a minimum of two of the following:

▪ Automation systems (HVAC, lighting controls)

▪ Advanced Metering Systems, including submetering (electric, gas, steam, water)

▪ Computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS)

The Offeror shall be given added consideration if all of the above were successfully designed, installed, and tested. Further consideration shall be given to Offerors whose work included the successful integration of any or all of the above systems into a master integrated system.

The Offeror shall discuss in its proposal the scope of each of the systems that was designed and installed. This must include the infrastructure included (in part or whole) impacted by the scope of each system, the types of controllers and software used, the status of points as passive (data gathering) or active (controlling valves, equipment, etc.), software trending and notification requirements, and any aspect of the scope of those systems that may have created conflicts with or risk to other project objectives.

Where conflicts or risk existed or were created, the Offeror shall discuss how conflicts and risks were mitigated or eliminated. The Offeror shall also discuss whether and how systems may have been used during inspections and testing, and how the designed / installed systems were intended to benefit the client’s long-term operations and maintenance of the project, e.g.: whether any focus on utility use reductions, reduction of long-term operation / maintenance costs, or ease of response to and resolution of emergencies was included.

e. The design and/or installation of a minimum of one of the following:

▪ Materials,

▪ Systems, and/or

▪ Technologies for which reducing or eliminating an existing building’s carbon footprint was one of its primary purposes. The Offeror’s proposal must discuss the scope and specific carbon footprint-reduction objectives and results (where results are available) of what was designed and installed. This must include any metrics available for the intended, tested, and/or actual measured carbon reduction and how metrics were established, calculated, and measured (where applicable for the scope of the work performed). The Offeror must discuss in its response to this subfactor the scope of the work applicable to this subfactor; any challenges, conflicts, and risks encountered during the completion of the work; what solutions were employed to resolve these issues; and the results of those solutions. The Offeror should discuss the successes or failures as a result of the decisions made, and lessons learned as a result; this could include discussion of changes to cost, schedule, other project objectives, and actual emission goals and intended and actual accomplishments.

2. Evaluation Method

Adjectival ratings shall be assigned to the Offeror’s proposal response to the requirements of this Factor as defined in the table below.

TECHNICAL RATING

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding The Offeror has fully met the qualifications for a “Good” rating and, additionally, has provided documentation that successfully demonstrates all five technical experience requirements for at least one Similarly Complex Project.

There are no weaknesses identified in the Offeror’s proposal. At least one of the Similarly Complex Projects submitted meets all of the characteristics required by the definition provided in this Plan, or two or more projects meet more than six of the characteristics required by the definition provided in this Plan.

Good The Offeror has fully met the qualifications for an

Acceptable” rating and, additionally, has provided documentation that exceeds the minimum requirements laid out in subsection 1.a-e. At least one of the Similarly Complex Projects submitted meets more than six of the characteristics required by the definition provided in this Plan.

Acceptable The Offeror has provided documentation that fully and clearly demonstrates its Designer’s and Constructor’s participation on a minimum of three projects that each meet this Solicitation’s definition of a Similarly Complex Project. All minimum project aspects have been clearly demonstrated.

The Offeror has also successfully responded to the minimum specific technical experience requirements..

Marginal The Offeror has submitted fewer than three Similarly Complex Projects each for its Designer and its Constructor (or both, where both performed work on the same project).

The Offeror’s proposal includes one or more weaknesses, which may include but are not limited to information that does not clearly demonstrate compliance with the technical experience requirements and information that is , contradictory, technically infeasible, or incomplete.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s proposal is unresponsive to and/or does not meet the requirements ]of the solicitation. It contains one or more deficiencies, one or more significant weaknesses, and the risk of the Offeror’s unsuccessful performance is high.

The Offeror’s proposal cannot be awarded as written.

B. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Evaluation Requirements

The Factor evaluates the Offeror’s past performance on Similarly Complex Projects.

The performance of the Offeror shall be evaluated by the Government for three projects for the Designer and three projects for the Constructor (or both, where the Offeror successfully demonstrates that the Designer and Constructor participated on the same project). Where the Offeror submits more than three Similarly Complex Projects for either the Designer, Constructor, or both, the Government will only review the first three projects discussed. This Factor therefore requires the Offeror to submit a minimum of three and a maximum of six projects.

At the beginning of the Offeror’s response to this Factor, the Offeror shall include in its proposal a table that a) lists the projects that are subsequently discussed in this Factor response and b) identifies whether the Designer, Constructor, or Both substantially participated in the performance of the work of each listed project. Note that the projects submitted under this Factor do not need to be the same projects submitted under other Factors; however, new projects submitted here must - in addition to all Factor-specific information - provide information that successfully demonstrates the submitted projects’ compliance with the definition of a Similarly Complex Project for this Factor within the required page limitations. The Offeror shall provide verifiable information for projects submitted in response to this Factor that meet the below objectives:

▪ Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet project budget constraints by managing cost changes and claims.

▪ Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to effectively coordinate with all project stakeholders (including internally, between the Designer and Constructor, with the Government, with the Government’s contractors, and with other external project stakeholders e.g.:

authorities having jurisdiction).

▪ Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to effectively coordinate design and/or construction across all project trades.

▪ Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to complete projects within a client-approved schedule.

● Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to ensure a high degree of quality through design and/or construction craftsmanship.

▪ Demonstrate success in achieving established subcontractor goals.

The Offeror shall include the following information for each project submitted in its response to this Factor:

▪ Project Title

▪ Project Location (City, State)

▪ Project (non-Offeror personnel) Reference (x2), including

○ Name

○ Project role

○ Email Address

○ Phone Number

▪ Project Delivery Type

▪ Project Size (square feet designed and/or constructed)

▪ Project Contract Scope, including trades involved

▪ Significant Project Modifications

○ Modifications may have impacted design, construction, or both

○ “Significant” modifications must have generated a Contract or total project price impact of greater than 5% of the Original Contract Price and/or a delay greater than 5% of the Contract Period of Performance (at the time of Contract Award) ▪ Contract Completion Date (At time of Contract Award)

▪ Contract Actual Completion Date

▪ An explanation of differences between the Contract Completion Date and Actual Completion Date

▪ Original Contract Price (At time of Contract Award)

▪ Final Contract Price, at time of completion

▪ An explanation of differences between the Original Contract Price and Final Contract Price

▪ Additional information relevant to the Offeror’s demonstration of an ability to meet the objectives listed above

The information provided by the Offeror in response to this Factor must adhere to the following: ▪ All subfactor information provided for any single project shall not exceed two pages. ▪ All introductory information shall not exceed one page.

▪ Based on the above, the total amount of information to be provided by the Offeror shall therefore, not exceed 13 pages.

See attached for a blank copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for this Solicitation. Blank PPQs shall be sent by the Offeror to each of the Project References that the Offeror includes in its Factor response. Project References shall submit their PPQs to the Government directly. The Offeror is responsible for the accuracy of the information required to be filled out by the Offeror in Blocks 1-4 of each PPQ.

2. Evaluation Method

The Government is seeking to determine whether or not the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction, timely delivery of services, adherence to contract schedules, subcontractor/consultant management, safety management, quality control programs, good workmanship, conformance to specifications, and fair and reasonable prices.

The Government may choose to contact additional references not provided by an Offeror and may obtain additional information through other sources, such as the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS) and sam.gov (information formerly being hosted on FAPPIS), 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 firm. If the firm 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.

Outstanding Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. PPQs that are returned to the Government include ratings above “Satisfactory”. At least one of the Similarly Complex Projects submitted meets all of the characteristics required by the definition provided in this Plan, or two or more projects meet more than five of the characteristics required by the definition provided in this Plan.

Good Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. PPQs that are returned to the Government include no ratings below “Satisfactory”. At least one of the Similarly Complex Projects submitted meets more than five of the characteristics required by the definition provided in this Plan.

Acceptable / Neutral Acceptable: The Offeror’s Factor response includes the minimum number of required Similarly Complex Projects. The Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record does not show any significant weaknesses, adverse past performance results, and project information found corroborates the information provided by the Offeror in response to this Factor.

Neutral: Equivalent to a rating of “Acceptable”. No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance report is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably under this Factor as a result.

Marginal Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

The Offeror’s response to this Factor does not include the minimum number of required Similarly Complex Projects. The information provided by the Offeror is incomplete, inaccurate, self-contradictory, or in contradiction to information obtained by the Government through the course of its investigation of the Offeror’s past performance. PPQs that are returned to the Government identify multiple weaknesses and/or ratings below “Satisfactory”.

Unacceptable In addition to meeting the basis for a rating of “Marginal”, information about the Offeror’s past performance reveals significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies in the Offeror’s ability to meet the objectives outlined in this Factor. PPQs returned to the Government include ratings below “Marginal”.

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C. FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGN TEAM

1. Evaluation Requirements

This Factor evaluates the Lead Design Team, where the Government shall determine the most technically qualified Lead Design Team and its ability to design the project’s federal workspace and to lead a collaborative team toward a sustainable and inclusive design solution. Qualifications herein are determined by the Lead Design Team members’ past experience, education, past performance, and design philosophy.

The Offeror’s Factor response shall comprise a portfolio of information pertaining either to a single Lead Designer or both Lead Designers (if two are anticipated to be employed). Note that the Similarly Complex Projects submitted under this Factor do not need to be the same projects submitted under other Factors; however, new projects submitted here must - in addition to all Factor-specific information - provide information that successfully demonstrates the submitted projects’ compliance with the definition of a Similarly Complex Project for this Factor within the required page limitations.

The portfolio provided by the Offeror in response to this Factor must adhere to the following:

▪ The total amount of information to be provided by the Offeror in response to this Factor shall not exceed 30 pages.

▪ The Lead Design Biographical Profiles shall not exceed three pages each.

The philosophy / design intent statement shall not exceed two pages.

If the Lead Designer is an individual, then the portfolio submitted must include: ▪ A biographical profile of the Lead Designer that at a minimum encompasses the individual’s education, professional experience, awards or other recognition, and areas of responsibility.

▪ A minimum of three and no more than four Similarly Complex Projects, projects completed by the Lead Designer that have been constructed within the past 10 years from the date of the Government’s issuance of the RFQ. An exhibit for each submitted project should include images and text whose length abides by the page-count limit for the overall Factor response submission, and the text must identify the individual’s specific role on the submitted project. The Lead Designer may have headed these projects with the affiliated Designer or with other entities.

▪ A statement of the Lead Designer’s philosophy and design intent that conveys the Lead Designer’s personal understanding of the project’s design risks (e.g.: technical feasibility, constructability, and the potential for design requirement conflicts) as well as a philosophy for approaching the project and the major project objectives..

If the Lead Designer is a team of two people, then the portfolio submitted must include:

▪ A biographical profile of each Lead Designer, not to exceed three pages, that at a minimum encompasses each Lead Designer’s education, professional experience, awards or other recognition, and areas of responsibility.

▪ A minimum of two projects and no more than three Similarly Complex Projects completed by each proposed Lead Designer that have been constructed within the past 10 years from the date of the Government’s issuance of the RFQ. An exhibit for each submitted project should include images and text whose length abides by the page-count limit for the overall Factor response submission, and the text must identify the individual’s specific role on the submitted project. The Lead Designer may have headed these projects with the affiliated Designer or with other entities.

▪ A statement of the Lead Designers’ combined philosophy and design intent that conveys the Lead Design Team’s understanding of this project’s design risks (e.g.:

technical feasibility, constructability, and the potential for design requirement conflicts) as well as a philosophy for approaching the project and the major project objectives.

2. Evaluation Method

Outstanding The Offeror’s submitted portfolio meets the requirements for a rating of “Good”.

Additionally, one or more of the Similarly Complex Projects for each member of the Lead Design Team meets a minimum of six (6) of the characteristics required by . The Lead Design Team profiles submitted identify at least one member of the Team as having at least fifteen (15) years’ experience as a licensed architect.

One or more of the members of the Lead Design Team participated as the Lead Designer on a Similarly Complex Project that has received design awards, accolades, etc.

Good The Offeror’s submitted portfolio meets the requirements for a rating of “Acceptable”. Additionally, the Similarly Complex Projects submitted meet more than the minimum characteristics required by Submission Formatting. There are no weaknesses or risks inherent in the Lead Design Team’s philosophy and design intent statement. The Lead Design Team profiles submitted identify at least one member of the Team as having at least ten (10) years’ experience as a licensed architect. One or more of the members of the Lead Design Team has substantially participated in a Similarly Complex Project that has received design awards, accolades, etc.

Acceptable The Offeror’s submitted portfolio meets the minimum requirements of this Factor. The biographical information submitted is accurate and complete. The Offeror has demonstrated that the Lead Design Team is licensed to practice in Washington, DC and is employed by the Designer. There are very few weaknesses or risks inherent in the Lead Design Team’s philosophy and design intent statement. The Lead Design Team profiles submitted identify at least one member of the Team as having at least seven (7) years’ experience as a licensed architect.

Marginal The Offeror’s submitted portfolio does not meet the minimum requirements of this Factor. Fewer than the minimum number of Similarly Complex Projects has been submitted, and/or other required information is missing. Several weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses exist.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s submitted portfolio contains one or more deficiencies and/or significant weaknesses.

Information is incomplete, contradictory, or out of alignment with the requirements of this Factor. Few minimum requirements are met.

The Offeror must submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (included in the solicitation as Attachment~, completed by the applicable client, for each project included in its proposal for Factor 2 Past Performance for the Prime Contractor',. Completed

PPQs should be submitted with the proposal. 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 submission of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before proposal closing date, the

Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the project. If the client requests, the client may submit a questionnaire directly to the Government's point of contact, via email at cindy.dwier@gsa.gov cc robert.n.jackson@gsa.gov prior to proposal closing date. Offerors may resubmit questionnaires previously submitted with other proposals or may obtain an updated/new PPQ from a client for any submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last __ (insert the number of years) such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. 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 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.

II.D. Other Information to be Submitted with Proposals

(1) Representations and Certifications

Offerors are reminded their SAM registration status must be “Active”, at the time their offer is submitted, to be considered for award (see 52.204-7). Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this Solicitation shall complete electronic Annual Representations and Certifications in conjunction with required Entity registration in

System for Award Management (SAM), accessed via System for Award Management.

Offerors shall also submit with their proposal, the Annual Representations and Certifications (FAR 52.204-8), using the attached Offeror’s Representations and Certifications (C301).

(2) Proof of Bonding to $600,000,000.00

II.E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

(1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of an executed joint venture agreement (with original signatures) which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability or authority for each member.

(2) An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture must sign the SF

1442 accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

(3) In the case of corporations that are joint venture members, the corporation secretary must certify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture, either by so certifying in the joint venture agreement, or by submitting a separate certification to the Government. The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

(4) Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

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 https://www.sam.gov/ 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.

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

In accordance with FAR 3.104, 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.

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 Requirements)

If a bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer, any contract awarded will require a performance bond and payment 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 http://www.sba.gov/ http://www.sba.gov/ 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

Completed CPARS evaluations may then be used by the Federal acquisition community for use in making source selection decisions. CPARS 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 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 and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Building Information

Certain information contained in the Solicitation Documents may have been designated as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) 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.

http://www.cpars.gov/ http://www.cpars.gov/ https://www.cpars.gov/lc.htm

III.J. INFORM

A. Overview of the In-depth Feedback through Open Reporting Methods (INFORM) Process

This solicitation is part of GSA’s post award communication process called INFORM. The process is designed to enhance the quality and usefulness of post-award communications by providing greater transparency and openness into the procurement process. INFORM seeks to increase GSA-industry communication by providing clearer and more complete information to explain the award decision.

Through the INFORM process, GSA will seek to share additional information with offerors in writing and/or through an oral feedback meeting1 that is not required by statute or regulation. For Part 15 including mandatory debriefs and Part 16, and in addition to any information required by FAR 15.503 and 15.506, GSA is providing each offeror with the opportunity to participate in the INFORM process as further discussed below.

B. Detailed Description of the INFORM Process

B.1. Component 1 - Notification of Award

After award and in accordance with any post-award notification timeframes required by regulation (i.e., FAR Parts 15.503(b) and 16.505(b)(6)), the contracting officer will issue written notices to the successful and unsuccessful offerors (the Notification Letter and Evaluation Statement (NLES)). The notices will contain:

● All information required by statute or regulation;

● An unredacted copy of the complete technical evaluation for that particular offeror that includes a full description of the unsuccessful offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies;

● An overall technical evaluation summary for that particular offeror and the successful offeror that includes evaluated price; overall technical ranking, rating, or score.

B.2. Component 2 - Request for Oral Feedback Meeting or Written Questions

Within three business days after receipt of the NLES, an offeror may, but is not required to:

● submit a written request to the contracting officer for an oral feedback meeting;

1 The oral feedback meeting may be held in person or via an…