Attachment 12 PHASE 1 FACTOR 2 - EXPERIENCE.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted

Attached to
Y1LZ--36C26124R0004 | Project 612-23-003 | Design Build, Create Martinez Parking Lot and Access
Solicitation number
RFP36C26124R0004
Issued by

About this file

This document outlines the evaluation criteria for a design-build federal contract opportunity with the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Health Administration Veterans Integrated Service Network 21. Offerors are required to submit up to two recent and relevant example projects demonstrating the experience of both the lead architect-engineering firm and lead construction contractor for the proposed project. Examples should involve similar size, scope and complexity to the RFP, including design-build experience of surface parking and retaining walls. Additional criteria include timely project completion, experience of the prime contractor and partner firm working together, and experience within the NCO 21 geographic location. Projects will be rated on a scale from Outstanding to Unacceptable based on demonstrated experience meeting these criteria. The solicitation number and opportunity name provided indicate this opportunity is for the design and construction of a new parking lot and access at the Martinez campus.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
RFI Responses Design Build MTZ Parking Part III.pdf PDF
Amendment 0005 36C26124R0004.pdf PDF
Amendment 0004 36C26124R0004.pdf PDF
RFI Responses Design-Build MTZ Parking Part II.pdf PDF
RFI Responses Design-Build MTZ Parking.pdf PDF
Amendment 0003 36C26124R0004.pdf PDF
Updated Additional MTZ-SITE PLAN 3 2011 UTILITIES.pdf PDF
Site Visit Sign-in Sheet -Design-Build MTZ Parking Lot.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 36C26124R0004 0002.pdf PDF
Amendment 0001 36C26124R0004.pdf PDF
Updated Attachment 6 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FORM.docx DOCX document
Attachment 10 MTZ-SITE PLAN 3-2011 UTILITIES Campus Drawings.pdf PDF
Attachment 11 R2022049 C101-SITE PLAN - Concept Design 20230322.pdf PDF
Attachment 4 Pre-Proposal Site Visit Information.pptx PPTX presentation
Attachment 3 DOL DBA Wage Determination CA20230018 11032023.pdf PDF
Attachment 16 Signage_Refer to Section 2.5 and Section 2.6 for Signage Design.pdf PDF
Attachment 9 Illustra-pro-gen4-mini-dome Cameras.pdf PDF
Attachment 1 SOW Create Martinez Parking Lot and Access _20220830_rev 04.pdf PDF
Attachment 13 PHASE 1 FACTOR 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx DOCX document
Attachment 15 JA Partial Brand Name Justification DB Parking Lot MTZ OPC.pdf PDF
Attachment 2 Specifications(Combined) DesignBuild MTZ Parking Lot and Access 612-23-003.pdf PDF
Attachment 8 Geothermal Drawings Project MTZ.pdf PDF
Attachment 6 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FORM (Blank).pdf PDF
36C26124R0004_Solicitation.pdf PDF
Attachment 5 Price Breakdown Worksheet (Blank).docx DOCX document
Attachment 7 Geotechnical Report.pdf PDF
Attachment 14 PHASE 2 FACTOR 4 Key Personnel_Qualifications.docx DOCX document
Show all 27

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Basis of Evaluation

ATTACHMENT A

FACTOR 2 - EXPERIENCE

36C26124R0004

Submit the following information: 1. Submit a maximum of Two (2) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Architect-Engineering Firm that will be designing the project. Examples should demonstrate offerors experience as the Prime Contractor on recent, relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

2. Submit a maximum of Two (2) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the lead Construction Contractor that will be performing the largest construction effort on the project. Examples should demonstrate offerors experience as the Prime Contractor on recent, relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP

3. Submit a maximum of Two (2) example design/build projects that the prime contractor and the partner firm have completed together. Examples should demonstrate offerors and partner firm’s coordination and teamwork leading to successful completion on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP.

BASIS OF EVALUATION:The basis of evaluation will include the offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing recent, relevant construction and design projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements of similar size, scope and complexity. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. Offeror’s projects will be rated individually and then combined to achieve an overall factor rating. Offeror’s demonstrating recent and relevant design-build experience; timely project completion; recent and relevant design/construction of surface parking and retaining walls; recent and relevant examples of offeror and partner firm demonstrating a successful contractor team arrangement; and recent and relevant projects completed in the NCO 21 geographic location will be rated more favorably.
Design-buildRecent and relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience of surface parking and retaining walls may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.
Timely completionRecent and relevant projects that demonstrate timely completion of projects may be rated more favorably.
Geographic locationsRecent and relevant projects completed in the NCO 21 geographic locations may be rated more favorably.
ADJECTIVAL RATINGS
RatingDescription
OutstandingProposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
GoodProposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
AcceptableProposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
MarginalProposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
UnacceptableProposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.
DEFINITIONS
StrengthAn aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.
WeaknessA flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
Significant WeaknessA flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
DeficiencyA material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.
RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS
Relevancy Definition:For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as a relevant project is defined as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five years of the proposal issue date of this RFP. Infrastructure is defined as: 1) construction of a healthcare facility; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) nonresidential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or 4) improvements such as utilities, landscaping, parking, retaining walls and roadways. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction does not include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility nor does it include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure.
Not Relevant:Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
Size Defintition:$1,000,000.00 or more
Complexity Definition:Complexity is defined as a design-build project that includes several specialty trades and some engineering.
Scope Definition:Scope is defined as work or activities related, or closely related to that which is outlined in the Statement of Work such as but not limited to, carpentry work.
Recency Definition:For purposes of this evaluation, a recent project is defined as a project completed in the previous five (5) calendar years.
Project Definition:A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.
Prime Contractor:The Offeror (or JV Partner) must have been a Prime Contractor for the projects and each project shall be $25,000 or more in dollar value for Group 1 offerors.

FIRM NAME

36C26124R0004

FACTOR 2 - EXPERIENCE

FIRM NAME
Experience - Project 1Title
Contract #
Project Description
Dollar Amount
Project DescriptionNew construction, Alteration, Repair, ect….
Construction TypeDesign-build / Design Bid Build, ect….
Completed Project?Yes / No
Recent (within five years)?Yes / No
On time?Yes / No
Performed as Prime Contractor?Yes / No
Self-Performance?% of self-performance
Joint Venture?Yes / No
Within VISN 21 Geographic Location?Yes / No
Experience - Project 2Title
Contract #
Project Description
Dollar Amount
Project DescriptionNew construction, Alteration, Repair, ect….
Construction TypeDesign-build / Design Bid Build, ect….
Completed Project?Yes / No
Recent (within five years)?Yes / No
On time?Yes / No
Performed as Prime Contractor?Yes / No
Self-Performance?% of self-performance
Joint Venture?Yes / No
Within VISN 21 Geographic Location?Yes / No
Experience - Project 3Title
Contract #
Project Description
Dollar Amount
Project DescriptionNew construction, Alteration, Repair, ect….
Construction TypeDesign-build / Design Bid Build, ect….
Completed Project?Yes / No
Recent (within five years)?Yes / No
On time?Yes / No
Performed as Prime Contractor?Yes / No
Self-Performance?% of self-performance
Joint Venture?Yes / No
Within VISN 21 Geographic Location?Yes / No
Experience - Project 4Title
Contract #
Project Description
Dollar Amount
Project DescriptionNew construction, Alteration, Repair, ect….
Construction TypeDesign-build / Design Bid Build, ect….
Completed Project?Yes / No
Recent (within five years)?Yes / No
On time?Yes / No
Performed as Prime Contractor?Yes / No
Self-Performance?% of self-performance
Joint Venture?Yes / No
Within VISN 21 Geographic Location?Yes / No
Experience - Project 5Title
Contract #
Project Description
Dollar Amount
Project DescriptionNew construction, Alteration, Repair, ect….
Construction TypeDesign-build / Design Bid Build, ect….
Completed Project?Yes / No
Recent (within five years)?Yes / No
On time?Yes / No
Performed as Prime Contractor?Yes / No
Self-Performance?% of self-performance
Joint Venture?Yes / No
Within VISN 21 Geographic Location?Yes / No
Experience - Project 6Title
Contract #
Project Description
Dollar Amount
Project DescriptionNew construction, Alteration, Repair, ect….
Construction TypeDesign-build / Design Bid Build, ect….
Completed Project?Yes / No
Recent (within five years)?Yes / No
On time?Yes / No
Performed as Prime Contractor?Yes / No
Self-Performance?% of self-performance
Joint Venture?Yes / No
Within VISN 21 Geographic Location?Yes / No
Overall RatingFOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY
Basis for the RatingFOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .