MEF RFQ 80MSFC25R0015 Amend 6.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812

August 20, 2025

TO: All Prospective Offerors

SUBJECT: Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Phase I, Solicitation No. RFQ

80MSFC25R0015, for Marshall Exploration Facility (MEF) Amendment 6

You are invited to submit a Technical Proposal in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Marshall Exploration Facility solicitation.

NASA, in collaboration with its stakeholders and the Offeror, intends to build a new Federal NASA Facility at MSFC located on Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL. This facility will feature an auditorium and dedicated spaces for conferencing, training, retail, and administration.

As a central component of the center’s long-term master plan, the MEF is designed to foster a dynamic and interconnected campus.

NASA will conduct this acquisition as a full and open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction and the business size standard is $45 million. The Product Service Code (PSC) is Y1AZ Construction of Other Administrative Facilities and Service Buildings.

This competitive acquisition will result in a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract. Incentive Milestones may also be considered for this procurement. The anticipated contract award date is August 13, 2026. The contract will be performed on-site at NASA MSFC.

The solicitation will be conducted as a Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedure in accordance with FAR 36.3 and FAR 15.

A project labor agreement (PLA) will not be required for this solicitation.

In Phase I, Offerors are required to submit a Technical Proposal detailing their Past Performance, Technical Approach, and Prior Experience on Relevant Projects, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction project outlined above. The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the criteria specified in the RFQ and will select no more than three of the most highly qualified Offerors to advance to Phase II. Offerors not selected for Phase II will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1).

In Phase II, a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued to the selected Offerors from Phase I, requesting detailed proposals that address their Technical Approach, Corporate Experience, Safety & Quality Control Program/Plan, and Price. The Government will evaluate these proposals based on the criteria outlined in Section M of the RFP for Phase II. Ultimately, the Government will select the proposal that represents the best overall value. The unsuccessful Offerors in Phase II who provide a qualifying responsive proposal will be paid a stipend of up to $175,000 to offset the costs associated with the preparation of required conceptual designs as part of Phase II.

In order to be considered for Phase II and award, Phase I qualification proposals conforming to the requirements of this Solicitation shall be received by September 19, 2025 3:00 p.m. (Central Time) via email to the Contracting Officer Alicia Reynolds, at alicia.reynolds@nasa.gov and Darlene Greene, at darlene.greene@nasa.gov. Please include in the subject line “RFQ 80MSFC25R0015”. Email is the only acceptable means of submission.

Documents related to this acquisition will be accessible electronically through the Government-wide point of entry website at www.SAM.gov. Potential Offerors are requested to periodically monitor the websites for updates.

This RFQ does not commit NASA MSFC to pay any proposal preparation costs, nor does it obligate NASA MSFC to procure or contract for these services. This request is not an authorization to proceed and does not authorize payment for any charges incurred by the Offeror for performing any of the work called for in this solicitation.

The attached Request for Qualifications covers, in detail, the proposal submittal requirements as well as the evaluation criteria.

Thank you for your support and interest in this acquisition. We look forward to receiving your proposals.

Alicia Reynolds Contracting Officer

NASA MSFC Marshall Exploration Facility (MEF) Phase I Design-Build Request for Qualifications

(RFQ) 80MSFC25R0015 Amendment 7

General Information, Qualifications and Evaluation Phase I, Provisions and Clauses, Preliminary Phase II Evaluation Criteria and Attachments

I. General Information

A. The Project

Preliminary Scope of Work:

Architectural / Engineering (A/E) and Construction Services are required for the design and construction of a new Marshall Exploration Facility (MEF) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) located on Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

This project will provide MSFC with a flexible collaborative environment that includes large event spaces, training spaces, meeting spaces, collaboration spaces, a small portion of private offices, and a larger amount of open office space. It will also provide spaces for the NASA and MSFC communities to gather, work, and collaborate. The MEF will replace many support functions lost due to the sudden closure and demolition of Building 4200. The facility shall be inviting and easily accessible from the primary courtyard and existing parking areas as it will become the home to many of the shared campus services.

The Design-Build Contractor will deliver new construction of approximately 67,000 gross square feet (GSF) in which the proposed facility will accommodate a moderate number of full-time occupants mostly in an open office configuration with some private office space and a large population of transient visitors utilizing the shared spaces. The overall building concept is a gateway and gathering space for the MSFC campus with a large open event space, training spaces, meeting spaces, amenities, and office and support spaces that will be flexible and adaptable to future program and technology changes.

MSFC RFQ 80MSFC25R0015

Hereafter, the Design-Builder (Offeror) shall be defined as the principals of the offering entity who will have primary management or supervisory responsibilities within the offering entity. If the Offeror is a newly formed business entity, established solely for this procurement, the Government will evaluate those corporations, LLCs, Partnerships, etc., which contribute managerial expertise for the newly formed Offeror. The Offeror is the entity contractually responsible for all aspects of development and completion of the Project and shall be legally established and registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) by the time of proposal submission.

The Offeror shall be expected to deliver the project in partnership with key team member firms including, but not limited to, the Lead Designer, Design Team, and General Contractor.

The anticipated period of time between notice to proceed (NTP) and building turnover to the Government is 18 months.

Goals and Objectives:

1. Scope Overview: NASA, in collaboration with its stakeholders and the

Offeror, intends to build a new Federal NASA Facility at MSFC located on Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. The facility’s design will be appropriate to the context of the site. The design will demonstrate economy, restraint, and dignity. Refer to Attachment 1, Program of Requirements (POR) Synopsis for additional information.

2. The MEF will provide MSFC with much needed replacement for lost conferencing, training, collaboration, and office space. Key planning attributes of the building reflect a strong desire to:

Create a pedestrian friendly inviting space connected to the central campus and future greenway.

Create a structure that engages with the existing site conditions and provides layered exterior gathering space that directly connects to interior collaboration space.

Create a facility that is flexible, efficient, and sustainable while providing a facility that reduces expenditures on short- and long-term operations and maintenance activities.

3. This project will be accomplished using a collaborative Design-Build delivery method. A successful project outcome will depend on the trust and collaboration between the project stakeholders, tenants, consultants, and delivery team. The NASA commitment to design excellence places a high value on all aspects of the project, with strong emphasis placed on design and functionality. The project team shall follow the Design-Build Institute of America’s (DBIA’s) Design-Build Done Right™ Best Practices. By utilizing performance-based requirements, NASA allows the Offeror greater flexibility in how they meet project requirements without dictating a specific design solution. By adopting the Design-Build Done Right™ approach, NASA seeks a significant departure from traditional Government-dictated design processes, practices, and associated program controls. This trade-off requires the Offeror to ensure that design solutions meet requirements while allowing Government participation and feedback throughout the process.

4. This relationship between NASA and the Offeror shall yield the following outcomes:

Confidence that the Offeror is meeting performance and other federal contract requirements, but also verification by the NASA team.

Validation that performance requirements are substantiated to produce the desired functionality.

Meaningful engagement of NASA stakeholders in design decisions pertaining to efficiency of mission operations within the layout, appearance, and other preferences.

Clear and open communications throughout the Design-Build process to avoid confusion, conflict, delays, or costly errors.

Mitigation of avoidable conflicts and impacts to building end-users.

Utilizing this project delivery method shall allow the Offeror the greatest degree of freedom using innovation and creativity to pursue optimum solutions that meet NASA requirements.

5. The facility shall meet all NASA requirements. The facility will provide a safe and productive workspace for the occupants and will be constructed in a manner that ensures the safety of the construction workforce. The facility systems shall be designed to address system durability, ease of maintenance, and lower operating costs.

6. Federal buildings shall demonstrate the merit of true integrated design, harmonizing aesthetics, cost, constructability, and reliability to enhance productivity and creativity. The facility shall achieve a minimum standard of Silver certification using the most recent version of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC®) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Building Design and Construction (BD+C) rating system or two Green Globes using the most recent version of the Green Building Initiative rating system. Of the two allowable rating systems, the Offeror shall propose the rating system that provides the highest achievable rating and best value to the Government. The design shall conform to all federal statutory and regulatory sustainable design and construction requirements including those identified by the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings (Guiding Principles), Energy Act of 2020, Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 and 2005, Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Federal Building Performance Standard, and the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR).

B. Solicitation Milestone Schedule

Milestone Description Date RFQ (Phase I) Solicitation Published May 8, 2025 RFQ Amendment 6 August 20, 2025 RFQ Offeror Questions and Comments Due September 4, 2025 RFQ Amendment 7 with Government Responses Issued September 11, 2025 RFQ Offeror Responses Due September 19, 2025 *Notification of Selection/Non-Selection for RFP (Phase II) October 23, 2025 *Issue Draft RFP Statement of Work to the Most Highly Qualified Offerors

November 18, 2025

*RFP Offeror Proposals Due June 10, 2026 *Dates are tentative and may change.

C. Authorized Representatives

The following individuals are designated as the authorized NASA representatives under this Solicitation:

1. Contracting Officer

Name: Alicia Reynolds Email: alicia.r.reynolds@nasa.gov

2. Contracting Officer

Name: Darlene Greene Email: darlene.greene@nasa.gov

D. Budget

In accordance with FAR 36.204, the design-to-budget for this project is approximately $45 Million, excluding furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E). In Phase II, NASA will provide additional details on the design-to budget for this Design-Build Construction Project.

E. Questions Regarding Phase I

All questions related to the Phase I submissions shall be submitted using Attachment 5, Submission of Questions Form (RFI), and sent via email to Contracting Officer Alicia Reynolds at alicia.r.reynolds@nasa.gov and Darlene Greene at darlene.greene@nasa.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. Central Time on September 4, 2025. Include in the subject line “RFQ 80MSFC25R0015.” Any responses provided by NASA will be posted on SAM.gov as an Amendment to the Solicitation on or before October 10, 2025.

F. Receipt of Qualifications (RFQ) Phase I

In order to be considered for Phase II and award, Phase I qualification submissions conforming to the requirements of this solicitation shall be submitted to the Government by 3:00 p.m., Central Time, September 19, 2025, via email to the Contracting Officer Darlene Greene at darlene.greene@nasa.gov and Alicia Reynolds at alicia.r.reynolds@nasa.gov.

Include in the subject line “RFQ 80MSFC25R0015.” Email is the only acceptable means of submission. Proposals sent by United States mail, commercial package delivery, hand delivery or facsimile will not be accepted.

Email attachment size is limited to 20MB.

II. Qualifications and Evaluation Phase I

A. Proposal Contents

Phase I proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed and executed in accordance with the instructions in this solicitation:

1. General Information

2. Technical Proposal

Past Performance Volume Prior Experience Volume

Technical Approach Volume

B. Proposal Format

Offerors shall ensure their proposals are clear, concise, and legible, including only the information necessary to respond to the preparation instructions set forth in the solicitation. In addition, notice shall be taken of any size or page limitations specified in the instructions and factors below.

Offerors shall submit the Phase I proposal as delineated below:

1. The submission shall contain all the necessary information to address the evaluation factors as set forth in the solicitation including evidence of bonding capacity.

2. The submission shall be submitted on non-reduced 8-1/2” x 11” pages using no less than Arial font size 10 with 1” margins on all four sides. Any forms and charts shall be legible, clearly labeled, and referenced and are not subject to the font size limitation. Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8-1/2” x 11” sheets.

3. Phase I proposal contents shall have a maximum page count not to exceed

80 pages in total. Attachment responses, past performance questionnaires, amendment acknowledgement statements, insurance provider letters, and OSHA 300A logs do not count against the 80-page limitation. A page is defined as a single one-sided, 8-1/2” x 11” sheet.

4. Attachments must be contained in a separate volume from the main body of the proposal.

5. Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in this provision will not be evaluated by the Government.

6. The submission shall be in PDF format, with all factors and subfactors bookmarked.

7. Email attachment size is limited to 20MB.

C. General Information

Offerors shall provide supporting evidence confirming full compliance with each of the requirements outlined below:

1. Offeror Information: The Offeror shall provide the following information about the Design-Build Team using Attachment 8, Offeror Information Form:

a. Full contact information for the person authorized to contractually bind the company.

b. Email address for the Offeror’s point of contact (POC). All correspondence for the solicitation will be delivered to this email address only.

c. Provide the Name, Address, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and business size for the Design-Build Team, including both the prime offeror and subcontractors.

d. Describe the Offeror’s legal structure; integrated Design-Builder, joint venture, limited liability company, prime-sub contractors, or other.

i. Joint Venture Additional Requirements:

1. All proposals submitted by joint ventures shall include a copy of the joint venture agreement 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 of authority for each member.

2. An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture shall sign the submission accompanying a proposal regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

3. Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information shall be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

4. Statement confirming the Joint Venture Agreement does not limit a party’s performance or financial obligations as a party to the contract contemplated by this solicitation.

ii. Integrated Design-Builder Additional Requirements

1. Integrated Design-Builders shall disclose all subsidiaries which will be engaged in the project.

e. Provide information specifically addressing each element under FAR 9.104-1 to demonstrate responsibility.

2. Proof of Bonding Capacity: Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to provide and offer guarantee and performance and payment bonds sufficient to cover a project of this magnitude. For this procurement, the minimum amount to be covered by the proposal guarantee and bonding is $95,000,000.. Offerors shall submit a “Signed and Stamped” letter from their Bonding Company certifying capability of fulfilling the minimum bonding capacity.

3. Acknowledgement of Receipt of All Amendments: Provide a statement on prime contractor letterhead which lists each amendment number and date issued.

4. Safety Questionnaire: The Offeror shall provide a completed Safety Questionnaire to the Government using Attachment 6, Safety Questionnaire.

The Offeror shall certify their Experience Modification Rate (EMR) provided in Attachment 6, Safety Questionnaire, by providing a letter from their insurance provider. Offerors with an EMR exceeding 1.00 shall provide a written explanation and evidence of corrective measures.

Additionally, the Offeror shall submit OSHA 300A summaries for the last three (3) years, certifying their total recordable case incidents (TCIR) and days away, restricted or transfer (DART) case incident rates. EMR letters shall be sent via e-mail directly to alicia.r.reynolds@nasa.gov and darlene.greene@nasa.gov by the Offeror’s insurance provider.

5. Financial Questionnaire: The Offeror shall provide a completed Attachment 7, Financial Questionnaire, to the Government. If desired, the Offeror may submit the Financial Questionnaire as a password-protected document.

D. Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Phase I technical proposal using the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

The relative importance of these factors is: Past Performance is more important than Prior Experience which is more important than Technical Approach.

Table 1 – RFQ Phase I Evaluation Factors

Factor Description Factor 1 Past Performance on Relevant Projects Factor 2 Prior Experience on Relevant Projects Factor 3 Technical Approach (Team Leadership Qualifications/Experience of

Key Personnel & Organizational Structure, Lead Designer)

E. Technical Proposal

Proposals shall address the Phase I evaluation factors stated herein.

1. Factor 1 - Past Performance on Relevant Projects: This factor will assess the past performance of the General Contractor, A/E Design Firm, Lead Designer, and Key Team Leadership Personnel.

This factor will measure the quality of the Offeror’s experience in performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to that described in the solicitation. The quality of both the design and construction efforts associated with past projects will also be evaluated.

The Government will utilize the project information submitted under evaluation factors below, and other available sources to assess the relevance and quality of work performed on similar projects. Evidence of very effective or exceptional past performance as a Design-Build Team within a 250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal, Alabama will be considered more favorably.

Offerors shall consider the following similarities to this effort in choosing the referenced projects:

Size - For Offerors, a referenced contract will be determined relevant if it has an average value of $45,000,000 or greater.

Content - A referenced contract's content relevancy will be determined based on how well the work performed aligns with the preliminary scope of work found under Section A, The Project.

Complexity – A referenced contract’s complexity will be determined based on how well the complexity of the effort performed aligns with the effort delineated under Section A, The Project.

Factor 1 Evaluation Standard This standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates a history of successful past performance on relevant projects. Evidence of projects where key personnel on the Design-Build Team worked together is strongly preferred.

The evaluation will include: an assessment of the overall quality of past performance; record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the responsiveness of management; the history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; the business-like concern for the interest of the customer and; the firm’s overall performance on their contracts.

The Government will consider the information presented on the Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire, completed projects Past Performance Evaluation, and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to be provided by the references required for this factor and may consider other available information relevant to the Offeror’s past performance independently obtained by the Government.

In addition to the information in the Offeror’s proposal, the Government may consider information obtained through interviews with the Offeror’s customers and/or the building’s owner or a representative of the owner. The Government may consider the past performance of managers, key personnel, or other affiliates playing a significant role in contract performance.

In addition to any information contained in or referred to in the Offeror’s proposal, the Government may consider the past performance of the Offeror or its team members on any other projects performed within the past ten (10) years of which the Government has knowledge. The Government has no obligation to ensure that an equal number of references are obtained for each Offeror.

An Offeror who has no record of past performance will receive a neutral rating.

Any Offeror rebuttals, if applicable, regarding adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond will also be made part of the evaluation record and included in the evaluation.

Factor 1 Submission Requirements The following shall be provided for evaluation under this factor:

Offerors shall provide a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) recent (i.e., within the last ten [10] years) and relevant facilities where they have performed as a prime contractor for projects similar in size, scope, and complexity (Design-Build, cost, and schedule management) as the Phase II

– solicitation effort will require. At least one of the past performance references shall be for projects with which the proposed project Design- Build team (Prime and Subcontractor) were involved.

Completed projects of very effective or exceptional performance within a 250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal will be considered more relevant.

Reference checks demonstrating good working relationships between Designer and Builder as well as Builder and Sub-consultants on Design- Build projects will increase the Government’s confidence level. Past Performance demonstrating timely and satisfactory work performance, a record of outstanding performance and positive references, and strong working relationships with key trade partners will increase the Government’s level of confidence. Offerors are advised that the Government may consider and evaluate any other past performance data obtained from other sources and use the obtained information in the evaluation and rating of the Offeror’s past performance.

Projects which are 90 percent or more complete will be considered as substantially complete for this solicitation. For the design team role, projects are considered substantially complete at the completion of the design phase of the project.

Past performance shall demonstrate present/past performance on projects of similar size, scope, cost, and complexity through the submission of the Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire, or through the submission of a complete Past Performance Volume. If using Attachment 3 – the Offeror shall instruct reference to complete Attachment 3 and send the completed Attachment via e-mail to darlene.greene@nasa.gov and alicia.r.reynolds@nasa.gov, by the time date stated for receipt of Offeror responses.

2. Factor 2 - Prior Experience on Relevant Projects: This factor will measure the number of opportunities the Offeror has had to learn by doing.

The Government will examine the breadth, depth, and relevance of the Offeror’s prior experience in performing projects of similar size, scope and complexity to the one described in the solicitation. This factor assesses the experience of the Offeror’s primary team firms in providing similar design and construction services necessary for successfully delivering this project.

Where required to identify subcontractors, those are defined as civil, building envelope, mechanical, and electrical.

Factor 2 Evaluation Standard This factor evaluates the extent of the Offeror’s prior experience in delivering similar projects. The standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates relevant prior experience on three (3) to five (5) similar projects to this project that were substantially completed in the last ten (10) years. Reduced consideration will be given to Offerors who provide less than three (3) projects.

Projects which are 90 percent or more complete will be considered as substantially complete for this solicitation. For the design team role, projects are considered substantially complete at the completion of the design phase of the project.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

Higher quantity of similar project experience.

Higher quality of project experience more relevant to this solicitation.

Evidence that the Offeror worked on prior projects together with one or more of its proposed team members firms.

Excellent or very good prior experience within a 250-mile radius of

Redstone Arsenal.

Design-Build Delivery Method Federal Government Tenant

Factor 2 Submission Requirements The information submitted for each project shall demonstrate that the project is relevant to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation.

The Offeror shall provide relevant project experience for each of its team entities.

Subfactor P1 Offeror (Design-Builder) – Minimum of one (1) Project

Subfactor P2 Design Team – Minimum of one (1) Project

Subfactor P3 General Contractor – Minimum of one (1) Project

Additionally, images of completed projects may be provided.

For each project, submit the following data/information:

Project Title Location of Project Services provided by the firm (design-build, design only, construction only) The Offeror’s level of authority on the project (e.g., prime contractor, joint venture partner, subcontractors) Total dollar value of the project (i.e., awarded price and final contract price) Dollar value of the Offeror’s effort on the project Type of Contract (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost reimbursable, incentive fee, award fee, time and materials) Dates of contract start and completion (planned vs actual) Project facts including type of facility, features, tenant mission and population, square footage, security level, LEED or Green Globes certification, etc.

Scope narrative explaining how the characteristics of the submitted project relate to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation.

Name, title, address, phone number, and email address of the customer contract and building owner who can attest to the quality of the work provided. (It is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure the information submitted is current and accurate).

Additional Requirements:

Jointly submitted projects provided by firms with prior experience working together is strongly preferred.

For Joint Ventures, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture as an entity or for individual members of the Joint Venture. All firms in a Joint Venture arrangement shall display prior experience under this factor either as an individual firm or Joint Venture.

The Offeror (Prime Contractor) may act as the Design-Build Team leader and another function, such as the General Contractor (GC) or the Architecture/Engineering (A/E) Design Team. However, submission of project experience is still required (as listed above) to demonstrate the Offeror’s qualifications to lead the Design-Build Team (one project), plus additional project experience in the other proposed team role (i.e., GC, A/E).

Example: Offeror “A” may propose to act as the Design-Build Team leader and the general contractor. In that case, Offeror A would submit two (2) projects. Evidence is required to demonstrate prior experience performing in the role of Design-Build Team leader (Offeror), and general contractor, or both if joint experience (see item A).

3. Factor 3 - Technical Approach (Team Leadership Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel & Organizational Structure, Lead Designer) – The Government will assess the qualifications of key project team members for successfully performing this project.

Experience, professional certifications, awards, and other pertinent information will be examined. In addition, the Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the project by examining its proposed management plan, organization chart and narrative description of its approach to delivering a project of this magnitude and complexity.

The Lead Designer is considered under its own subfactor due to the importance NASA places on design excellence. This subfactor considers not only Lead Designer’s credentials and quality of similar project experience, but also their flexibility and ability to tailor designs to meet and adapt to the unique requirements of this project.

Factor 3 Evaluation Standard This factor considers the Offeror’s Lead Designer, other Key Personnel, Project Management Approach, and Team Organization. The Offeror’s proposed team members will be evaluated as to their qualifications and experience necessary to effectively perform the required work for successful delivery of this project.

Subfactor T1 - Lead Designer - standard is met when:

Lead Designer credentials in the architectural profession are complete (education, work history), professional registration/licensure.

Lead Designer demonstrates a history of dedication to clients with complex building projects.

Designs demonstrate an understanding and response to specific client requirements and criteria; and

Designs demonstrate a consistently high level of thought, exploration, rigor, and personal commitment to design excellence.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

The quantity of projects of similar scope and complexity.

Prior experience demonstrating aspects similar to this solicitation.

Evidence of successful past working experience with proposed team member(s). Evidence of DBIA credentials (DBIA Associate or DBIA Professional)

A registration with National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB).

Evidence of conceptual cost estimating experience.

Subfactor T2 - Experience of Key Personnel – standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates a project team that is staffed with key personnel experienced on projects of similar size, scope and complexity who are qualified to deliver this project. Experience, professional certifications, awards, and other pertinent information will be examined.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

Higher quantity of similar project experience.

Higher quality of project experience more relevant to this solicitation.

Evidence of prior project experience common with one or more of the proposed key personnel and/or team member firms (joint experience).

Subfactor T3 - Team Leadership Qualifications – standard is met when the team organization and project management approach is structured to facilitate effective and efficient project integration of design and construction activities to provide a high-quality project that achieves all the Government’s technical and administrative requirements.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for integrated design-build approach for delivering this site, facility, and components.

Factor 3 Submission Requirements:

The submission requirements for this factor are met when the Offeror provides the following:

T1 Subfactor Lead Designer

Qualifications of Lead Designer – Provide a biographical description of the Lead Designer, including education, professional experience, and recognition for design efforts inclusive of the portfolio examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

Submit a Lead Designer’s portfolio of no more than three (3) projects completed in the last five (5) years, with particular focus on high performance green building and technical innovation. The Government strongly prefers the Lead Designer having participated not only on the project(s) presented for Subfactor P2, but also having participated on project(s) in either Subfactor P1 or P3, or both. For each project, the narrative shall address the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client’s program, image, mission, economic goals, schedule, and operational objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution.

This section of the proposal shall include tangible evidence such as certifications, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating design excellence, and provide a client reference contact for each project, including name, title, address, email, and phone numbers. For each project, the proposal may include a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3D model, a building section, other appropriate drawings, and photographs.

The Lead Designer shall be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the design and for compliance with the contract requirements through construction and documentation of the as-built condition (record drawings) by coordinating, reviewing, and approving of extensions of design, material, equipment, and other construction submittals. The Lead Designer shall be an active participant through design and construction and be present in all meetings where design insight is necessary, or the design intent of the project could be affected. The Lead Designer shall possess a bachelor’s degree or higher in architecture with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience as an architect and a minimum of five (5) years’ experience with AutoCAD and/or Revit; a current state-issued architect license; a minimum of five (5) years’ experience in overseeing the preparation of design-phase deliverables, including bid/construction documents; have experience in project and client management; shall be proficient with the application of building and energy codes, construction practices, and architectural design;

and have experience with Microsoft Office Suite. A registration with NCARB is preferred. Experience with estimating preferred but not required.

T2 Subfactor Experience of Key Personnel

Qualifications of Minimum Key Personnel – Provide a resume using Attachment 4, Resume Template, with relevant project experience for each of the following minimum key personnel:

Design-Build Project Executive Design-Build Project Manager Design-Build Design Manager Lead Project Engineers Superintendent

One (1) personal reference shall be provided for each of the key personnel.

The Government may contact the references to determine the relevance and quality of the key personnel’s project experience. Key personnel shall have at least five (5) years of relevant experience. The resumes submitted shall include all the information in Attachment 4, Resume Template.

Design-Build Project Executive - The Offeror shall appoint a Project Executive to oversee the design-build contractor (DBC) team for this contract. This person shall have full authority from their organization to make financial and contractual decisions relating to the project. The Program Manager/Project Executive shall possess a minimum of five (5) years of experience in commercial and/or Government construction management overseeing large and multiple projects valued at $40 million or more. U.S. Government projects using building and energy codes, engineering codes, and Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) are desirable.

Design-Build Project Manager - The DBC shall appoint a Project Manager (PM) dedicated to this contract who shall provide overall management coordination of all DBC operations. The PM is the main point of contact for the DBC’s organization. It is essential that the PM:

Develop an effective and professional relationship with the Government representatives;

Manage the scope, schedule, budget, quality, and risk for the duration of the construction project;

Ensure all deliverables are reviewed for quality, provided on time and are within budget;

Participate in all construction progress meetings and other meetings as required;

Provide effective management of personnel, material, and equipment resources; and

Ensure compliance with all relevant federal and state regulations.

The PM shall be a graduate of a four-year accredited college or university program in one of the following disciplines: engineering, architecture, construction management, engineering technology, building construction, or building science, with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience as a Project Superintendent, quality control (QC) Manager, PM, Project Engineer, or Construction Manager on similar size and type construction contracts which included the major trades that are part of this contract. The individual shall have at least five (5) years’ experience as a PM. The individual shall have experience in the areas of hazard identification, safety compliance, and sustainability.

Design-Build Design Manager - The DBC shall appoint a Design Manager (DM) dedicated to this contract as key person for the design who is responsible for professional design standards and all services required by this design-build contract assisting in design integrity. The DM shall be subordinate to the QC Manager. The DM is responsible for development of the Design Quality Control (DQC) Plan, incorporation, and maintenance of the approved design schedule, which will ultimately become the initial portion of the overall project schedule, and the preparation of DQC reports and minutes of all design meetings. The DM is required to attend the Post Award Conference, all design planning meetings, design presentations, partnering, DQC review meetings, and the DQC plan meeting. The DM may also assist the PM in performance of their duties. The DM implements the DQC plan and shall remain on staff until completion of the project. The DM shall be cognizant of and assure that all design documents on the project have been developed in accordance with the task order and been properly coordinated. The DM may assist the QC Manager in submittal and review functions. The DM shall have a minimum of five (5) years’ experience as a design architect or engineer on similar size and type designs and/or D-B contracts.

Lead Project Engineers - A Lead Project Engineer (LPE), who is the Designer of Record (DOR) for their respective discipline, is required for the following disciplines: civil, structural, mechanical, fire protection, fire alarm, electrical and telecommunications. The LPE shall possess a bachelor’s degree in engineering, building design or a related field, possess a minimum of five (5) years’ experience as an engineer and a minimum of five (5) years’ experience with AutoCAD and/or Revit, and a current state-issued engineering license. The LPE shall possess a minimum of five (5) years of construction experience reviewing, providing analysis, managing, and resolving field coordination issues with project team members and participants. National projects are acceptable; U.S. Government projects using building and energy codes, engineering, and UFC codes are desirable.

Superintendent - The project superintendent is primarily responsible for managing subcontractors and coordinating day-to-day production and schedule adherence on the project. The superintendent is required to attend safety meetings, partnering meetings, and quality control meetings. The superintendent or qualified alternative shall be on-site at all times during the performance of this contract until the work is completed and accepted.

Provide a project superintendent with a minimum of five (5) of years as a superintendent on projects similar in size and complexity. The individual shall have experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance. The individual shall be capable of interpreting a critical path schedule and construction drawings. The qualification requirements for the alternate superintendent are the same as for the project superintendent. The Contracting Officer (CO) may request proof of the superintendent's qualifications at any point in the project if the performance of the superintendent is in question.

Offerors selected for the short-list are prohibited from making significant changes in the composition of the design-build team’s member firms, personnel, roles, or responsibilities without the prior, written approval of the

CO.

T3 Subfactor Team Leadership Qualifications

Organization Chart – Provide a project Design-Build Team Chart(s) identifying how the Offeror will organize its team and staff the project leadership team from project award and inception of design through construction completion. The chart(s) shall identify the title of key positions in the organization with the name of personnel proposed to fill those positions. At a minimum, the chart(s) shall address key leadership personnel required for evaluation under this factor. The reporting relationships between these functions and the company’s senior management shall also be defined.

Staffing Matrix – Provide a staffing matrix that identifies the role and responsibility for each of the key leadership personnel listed in the

Organization Chart. The matrix shall identify team personnel supporting major activities occurring from project award to close-out. The matrix shall identify whether personnel are full-time or part-time in the respective activity and identify where the personnel are physically located. Additional team members may be included, but not limited to design management, project integration management, project superintendence, quality control (both design and construction), and project controls.

Note: Offerors selected to submit a proposal in response to the Phase II solicitation will be required to submit specific key personnel for evaluation of its design and construction field leadership team personnel.

Project Management Approach – Provide a narrative explaining how the various team members will work together and the methodology and processes that will be used to manage the project. It shall define the roles, responsibilities, and authority delegated to the incumbent of each position and discuss how workflows through the organization to effectively integrate the team to successfully deliver this project.

Key Trade Partners – Provide a list of key trade partners that the Offeror intends to engage for this project.

F. Other Information to Submit with Proposal

Provide a description of the Offeror’s Teaming Agreement(s). Use of the DBIA Standard Teaming Agreement is preferred. Use of the American Institute of Architects and Associated General Contractors of America (AIA-AGC) Teaming Agreement is also acceptable. The Offeror may use these Teaming Agreements or other agreements that are specifically developed for your team.

Disclose which form of Teaming Agreement is being used. Include the Constructor, Lead Architectural/Engineering firm, Key Trade Partners, and other subcontractors or trade subcontractors in the Teaming Agreement.

Specifically address how the Offeror intends to engage the Architectural/Engineering firm through design after award and construction.

G. Small Business Plan

A small business plan will be required from all large business prime contractors for Phase II. The following small business subcontracting goals have been established and will be part of Phase II requirements and evaluation. The percentages may be subject to change as requirements are finalized.

Small Business 30% Small Disadvantaged Businesses 5% Women-Owned Small Business 5% Veteran Owned Small Business 5% Service Disable Veteran-Owned Small Businesses 4% HUBZone Small Business 5%

H. Evaluation Ratings

The Government intends to evaluate submissions without discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals without discussions. The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the criteria specified in the RFQ and will select no more than three of the most highly qualified Offerors to advance to Phase II. Offerors not selected for Phase II will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1).

The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

Step 1: Notwithstanding FAR Provision 52.204-7, offerors will be verified in the System for Award Management (SAM) for registration, active exclusions, and business size. Offerors not registered in SAM as of the due date for proposals or have active exclusions will not be further evaluated.

Step 2: The Government will evaluate offers remaining from Step 1 for compliance with the solicitation requirements. Offerors that do not provide all of the required documentation delineated in the RFQ without written explanation for omitted items may be determined unacceptable. Offerors determined unacceptable will not be further evaluated.

Step 3: The Government will evaluate all offerors remaining from Step 2 who provide the requested information under Item C. Determination Responsibility by submitting a fully completed Attachment 8, Offeror Information Form.

Offerors that do not fully complete Attachment 8, Offeror Information Form, without written explanation may be determined unacceptable. Offerors determined unacceptable will not be further evaluated.

Step 4: The Government will evaluate all offerors remaining from Step 3 who provide responses from the Safety Questionnaire. An EMR rating of 1.00 or higher on the Safety questionnaire without written explanation and evidence of corrective measures will not be further evaluated.

Step 5: The Government will evaluate all offerors remaining from Step 4 who provide responses to the Financial Questionnaire. Affirmative responses to questions 14 through 19 on the Financial Questionnaire will support determining patterns of misconduct or ethical violations. If the Offeror or its affiliates have a history of contract default, disqualification, Government debarment, patterns of misconduct, or patterns of ethical violations and the justification fails to demonstrate adequate corrective measures or mitigation, the Offeror’s response will not be further evaluated.

Any admissions of false claims or misrepresentation (Question 18), or repeated violations of wage laws (Questions 18–19), will be treated as non-responsive when the Offeror's explanation does not clearly establish remediation, accountability, or changed practices.

Step 6: The Government will evaluate all offerors remaining from Step 5 based on the following rating methodology as outlined below.

For Joint Ventures, 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.

Relative Importance: The factors are Past Performance, Prior Experience and Technical Approach. The relative importance of these factors is, Past Performance is more important than Prior Experience which is more important than Technical Approach.

Rating Methodology for Factor 1 Past Performance

In accordance with the FAR Part 15.305(a)(2) and NFS Part 1815.305(a)(2), the Offeror’s overall corporate past performance, to include the corporate past performance of any proposed subcontractors will be evaluated. The criteria will be assigned an adjective rating.

This factor will not be numerically scored; however, Offerors will be assigned a confidence rating as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence The Offeror's relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance.