595-26-204 Instructions to Offerors PDF.docx

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor to provide professional design and construction services in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) for the Replace Chillers Buildings 1, 2, and 104 – Design-Build project, 36C24426R0020.

1.2 The Government intends to use the “Best Value” tradeoff process source selection approach in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Award will be made to the responsive, responsible offeror whose offer in conformance with this solicitation, results in the best value to the Government, price plus other factors considered. A single award shall be generated for the project. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. Setting aside for an SDVOSB firm is in compliance with regulations to meet our goals and fulfill the VA’s mission to meet socioeconomic goals.

1.3 This Request for Proposal is issued as a Two-Phase Design-Build procurement (Reference Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 36.3). Proposals will be evaluated in Phase I to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase II. A maximum of three (3) offerors will proceed to Phase II unless the Contracting Officer determines that a number greater than three (3) is in the Government’s interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Two-Phase Design-Build project.

The Phase II Request for Proposal (RFP) , in the form of an amendment to this original solicitation, shall be issued to only those successful offerors that were determined to be the most highly qualified from Phase I.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals, so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein; however, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed in Phase I to clearly describe the offeror's technical approach, technical qualifications and past performance to successfully complete the project. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the Request For Proposal (RFP). Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror's disqualification from award. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

2.2 Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal; proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may be considered non-responsive and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

PHASE I PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL – OPEN TO ALL OFFERORS

2.3 Phase I of the Request for Proposal is open to ALL Offerors. All proposals shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed with section dividers. The Phase I proposal shall address the evaluation factors listed below:

Offerors shall submit a PDF via email containing all the information for Phase I submittal. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or subfactor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

2.4 Phase I proposals shall be received by December 19th by 4:00 pm Local Time. Proposals that are received after this time shall be late and may not be considered. There will be no public opening of the proposals.

2.5 All proposals - shall be submitted electronically:

Contract Specialist: Kaitlyn Szlachta (kaitlyn.szlachta@va.gov) and Contract Officer: Elijah McIntosh (Elijah.mcintosh@va.gov)

2.6. Phase I Proposal Evaluation Process .

2.6.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs will evaluate the proposals. The identities of the SSEB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the offerors to contact these individuals is prohibited. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions, if necessary, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. During deliberation, the number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described below.

2.6.2 The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of three (3) Factors and two (2) subfactors: Technical Approach, Technical Qualifications (Specialized Experience and Capability to Perform) and Past Performance. Proposals will be evaluated these factor and criteria identified below.

2.6.2.1 The Technical Approach, Technical Qualifications, and Past Performance factors are all equal to each other.

2.6.2.2 As demonstrated in their proposals, Offerors shall be evaluated in terms of the Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the project’s requirements as identified in the SOW, and those proposals demonstrating an ability to exceed specified requirements may be rated higher in those areas than proposals demonstrating only the ability to meet requirements.

2.6.2.3 Provide a clear and concise narrative for each of the factors below. The narrative shall address the information stated in the factors and subfactors. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s answers for information and completeness, and offerors not submitting required information may not be considered for evaluation.

2.6.3 Phase I Evaluation Factors

2.6.3.1 Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

This factor evaluates how the individual offeror will approach the design and construction of this project. The firms shall provide detailed information addressing the organization and the roles and responsibilities of the various sub-contractors for both the design and construction. For Design Approach, Firms shall describe the techniques and methods for an efficient, effective design to replace the designated condensate steam traps. For Construction approach, firms shall describe the techniques and methods for this construction project to include coordination with the design packages, projected project timelines and coordination of work. The firm should also include considerations of “Fast Track” construction whereby preliminary site construction activities can begin prior to the completion of the accepted 100% design documents.

2.6.3.2 Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Qualifications:

The offeror shall provide a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of two (2) projects using Exhibit A. The SSEB will evaluate this factor using the information provided by the offeror from Exhibit A along with the information requested in the subfactors below. The offeror shall demonstrate their experience on relevant Design/Build and project(s) that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. Indicate the number of design/build projects construction contractor and AE have completed together.

2.6.3.2A Subfactor: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

This factor evaluates the experience of the construction firm and design team in completing projects requiring skills similar to those anticipated for this contract. Evaluators will use the information provide in Exhibit A, the information from the organizational chart provide in subfactor 2.6.3.2B below, and the resumes of the Architect Firm. This may include general renovation of medical center space to include architectural changes of walls, ceiling, floors, finishes, masonry, doorways including hardware, plumbing including storm sewer, sanitary, hot and cold water, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC), primary and secondary electrical circuits, digital controls, fire protection to include sprinkler system, central fire and security alarms, audio paging systems, asbestos abatement and all work to return space to finished, functioning condition. Experience providing drawing in 3D.

2.6.3.2B Subfactor: Capability to Perform The Government will evaluate the offeror’s information concerning overall organization, organizational chart with brief relevant details of individual experiences/qualifications, as well as number of personnel and the duties of proposed technical staff to determine if offeror has the ability to manage multi-discipline projects within the areas of consideration chosen without significant difficulty. Offeror shall provide, as an attachment, an Organizational Chart listing company personnel and their roles. Provide names, duties, and levels of responsibility of key personnel to include the Project Manager, Site Superintendent(s), Quality Control Manager, Safety Manager, and Infection Control Manager. Indicate to whom the Quality Control, Safety, and Infection Control Managers report. In addition, contractor shall provide a list of the in-house trades that contractor employs. The offeror shall provide the names, disciplines and resume of the key personnel of the Architectural Firm that will be used on this project. Offeror should detail its capability in managing projects for the similar size and scope and disciplines needed to accomplish this project. The specific criteria proposed (skill levels and background) for personnel, if adequate, is an indicator of an acceptable organization.

The proposed subcontractors, applicable for multi-discipline consideration, are verifiable, and information provided indicates a good professional relationship electrician, HVAC, carpenters, plumbing, concrete, etc.

The offeror shall submit information concerning scheduling methodology, to determine if they have scheduling processes that ensure completion and control of the project from beginning to the end of the project. Adequate scheduling processes are necessary to ensure completion and control of the project from beginning to the end. Offeror must provide an organizational chart and tentative schedule, including a timeline for major features of work. In addition, please identify the person responsible for ensuring the schedule is met (ex. Project Manager).

This factor evaluates the ability of the Construction firm to perform given their current projected workload and the availability of their key personnel, to accomplish the project in the required time. Contractor to provide demonstrated compliance to performance schedules, adherence to timelines for deliverables, the ability to meet unusual time constraints and methods of project management

The offeror shall provide adequate detail on the offeror’s policy with regard to Quality Control (QC) and how the offeror intends to achieve this standard on the project. Offerors are also to discuss their ability to comply with the requirements of The Infection Control Manual of the Medical Center

Offeror to discuss their Safety Program in general, and provide, as a minimum, details on training, documentation, and your plan to ensure adherence to OSHA Standards. Offeror is to discuss the steps they took to promote safety during construction during the past five (5) years. Provide a certification that the offeror has no more than three (3) serious, or one (1) repeat or one (1) willful OSHA or any EPA violation(s) in the past three years. If the number exceeds the criteria listed, explain why? Offerors shall submit their current EMR rating. EMR rating should be less than or equal to 1.0. If the number exceeds the criteria listed, explain why?

2.6.3.3 Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance:

The SSEB will evaluate past performance for the prime contractor past performance along with the designated team of subcontractors. Documentation of satisfactory performance of projects similar in size, scope, and dollar value will be considered to have met the minimum requirements of the RFP. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction as to quality, schedule, cost, and management. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, Vet Biz, Dunn & Bradstreet, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and Source Selection Evaluator personal knowledge of offeror to gather documentation on past performance. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2). Evaluations may include past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and shall receive a neutral rating for Past Performance. Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective action taken, if desired. This shall be rated based on the confidence portrayed for each of the projects submitted. Offeror’s can provide past performance on previous projects for the SSEB team which can be used during the past performance evaluation. A neutral rating is given when no current and/or relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. Government Personnel were unable to identify any relevant Past Performance information for the offeror or key team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment and represents and unknown risk.

PHASE II PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL – This submittal is ONLY open to the offerors that the Government has issued an amendment for Design Concepts, Management Approach, Schedule, and Pricing information.

3.1 Part II of the Request for Proposal is open only to the offerors that the Government provides an amendment to. The top three or four offerors shall supply the information listed below. Proposals for Part II shall be submitted in two (2) separate PDFs. The Phase II proposal shall address the evaluation factors listed below:

Offerors shall submit one (1) PDF containing all the information for Phase II Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3. Binders must state Phase II Proposal Submittal information. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or subfactor) may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

In a separate binder the offeror shall submit one (1) PDF for Factor 4 – Price. Offerors can use the CD provided for Factor 1, 2 and 3 above to provide all the information for the pricing portion of the proposal.

3.2 All proposals – one (1) PDF for Phase II Factor 1, 2, and 3 and one (1) PDF shall be submitted to:

Contract Specialist: Kaitlyn Szlachta (kaitlyn.szlachta@va.gov) and Contract Officer: Elijah McIntosh (Elijah.mcintosh@va.gov)

3.3. Phase II Proposal Evaluation Process

3.3.1 The evaluation process for Phase II consists of three (3) non-priced Factors and one (1) priced Factor: Technical Approach, Technical Qualifications (Specialized Experience and Capability to Perform) and Past Performance. Proposals will be evaluated these factor and criteria identified below.

3.3.1.1 The Design Concepts, Management Approach and Schedule factors are all equal to each other and when combined are more important than Price.

3.3.1.2 As demonstrated in their proposals, Offerors shall be evaluated in terms of the Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the project’s requirements as identified in the SOW, and those proposals demonstrating an ability to exceed specified requirements may be rated higher in those areas than proposals demonstrating only the ability to meet requirements.

3.3.1.3 Provide a clear and concise narrative for each of the factors below. The narrative shall address the information stated in the factors and subfactors. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s answers for information and completeness, and offerors not submitting required information may not be considered for evaluation.

3.3.2 Volume #1 - Phase II Evaluation Factors

3.3.2.1 Evaluation Factor 1 – Design Concepts:

This factor evaluates the offers schematic design based on existing condensate trap data provided. Offeror shall provide a schematic of any potential piping changes to the current set-up and provide narrative to support the offeror’s design concept. Offeror shall address phasing to allow operations to continue during the construction and must work within budget so allow for the VA to continue operations at minimal interference.

3.3.2.2 Evaluation Factor 2 – Management Approach:

This factor evaluates the individual experience of persons that are to be assigned to this project. The offeror shall provide information (resume) for personnel in the following functions as a minimum (offeror to provide any additional discipline it feels appropriate) —Project Management, site superintendence, quality control manager, infection and safety, as well as a list of major subcontractors. Offeror shall provide resumes of the individuals for the Design Engineering firm that offeror will be using that will be generating the design documents necessary for construction. The offeror shall provide a listing of projects, with a brief description of the projects, where the Offeror and the Design Engineering firm personnel worked together as a team on previous Design-Build projects

3.3.2.3 Evaluation Factor 3 – Schedule:

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s methodology of the scheduling processes that ensure completion and control of the project from the beginning to the end of the project. The detailed schedule provides the SSEB the extent to which the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the architectural and engineering requirements for the construction period and general project delivery. Offeror’s Schedule shall indicate all elements of the design and construction timeline, from notice to proceed (NTP) (in order to establish a common baseline among all offerors) to contract completion, including but not limited to site investigation for design, design meetings, design submittals, preconstruction meetings, material submittals, mobilization, demolition, material lead times, utility installations, abatement (if required), testing, training, commissioning, construction and post-construction submittals, close-out.

3.4 Volume #2 - Price Information:

3.4.1 The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442. The offeror shall submit a price based on the line items. Note; If discussions or negotiations occur, the Government may require additional cost information. Offerors shall sign and submit all amendments to the solicitation. Please be advised that the Government intends award a contract from Phase II proposals without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary

3.4.2 The offeror shall complete and submit Exhibit B Calculation of Self-Performed Work.

3.4.3 Bid Bond – Phase II only. Offerors shall submit a Bid Guarantee. A bid guarantee is required in an amount not less than 20 percent of the bid price but shall not exceed $3,000,000.00 Bid Bond is to be executed on a SF 24. Failure to furnish the required bid guarantee on the proper form and amount, by the time set for the opening of bids, will require rejection of the bid in all cases except those listed in FAR 28.101-4, and may be cause for rejection even then.

3.4.4 Annual Representation and Certifications shall be completed by offeror.

3.4.5 Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers.

3.4.6 In the event a minor clerical error has occurred, then the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the “clarifications” process or the Contracting Officer determines discussions are required.

4.0 Evaluation Criteria

The price will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer for reasonableness by using price analysis. The Contracting Officer shall perform the Best Value Tradeoff using the evaluation factors along with price.

5.0 Discussions

Government intends to make award to a responsible Offeror submitting a conforming proposal without discussions if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government reserves the right to clarify certain aspects of proposals or conduct discussions providing an opportunity for the offeror to revise its proposal.

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award and to award the contract to other than the offeror submitting the lowest total price.