ATTACHMENT A - FACTOR 2 - PROJECT EXPERIENCE.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C26126R0019
About this file
This is an evaluation template for Factor 2 - Project Experience in response to Solicitation No. 36C26126R0019, a $10-20 million firm-fixed price construction contract for renovating the Sterile Processing Service at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. The template is mandatory for all offerors and will be the sole basis for evaluating this factor; information submitted outside Attachment A will not be considered.
Offerors must submit up to four example projects completed within the past five calendar years demonstrating relevant experience in constructing Sterile Processing Service or similar healthcare-related projects of comparable size, scope, and complexity. Projects must involve new construction, alteration, repair, or renovation of healthcare infrastructure, with dollar amounts between $10-20 million. Offerors will be rated more favorably if they demonstrate timely project completion, recent and relevant sterile processing or healthcare construction experience, successful contractor team arrangements, and work within VISN 21's geographic location. The evaluation template requires offerors to identify each project's title, contract number, dollar amount, construction type (design-build or design-bid-build), completion status, recency, on-time performance, prime contractor status, percentage of self-performance, joint venture participation, and VISN 21 location applicability. The government will assign individual ratings to each project using adjectival ratings (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable) based on demonstrated experience, depth of experience, and risk assessment, with combined ratings determining the overall factor score.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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 - PROJECT EXPERIENCE
36C26126R0019
Submit the following information: (a) Solicitation Submission Requirements:
Provide information on relevant and recent experience on construction contracts of comparable size, complexity and scope within the last five calendar years as described in the below requirements. The offeror shall complete Attachment A for this factor for each project submitted. Attachment A is structured to allow for the entry of up to six (6) total projects. The use of Attachment A and all information therein is mandatory and will be used to evaluate experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment A and all other information provided on other than Attachment A will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual cells on Attachment A. Attachment A submittals that do not comply with these requirement will not be evaluated.
1. Submit up to four (4) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the offerors in constructing Sterile Processing Service (SPS) projects or similar healthcare related projects, including the largest construction efforts within those projects. Examples should highlight the offerors' experience, as well as their ability to coordinate and work as a team, leading to the successful completion of relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements outlined in the RFP.
| BASIS OF EVALUATION: | |
| (b) 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 construction experience; timely project completion; recent and relevant construction of Sterile Processing Service or similar projects related to healthcare; recent and relevant examples of offeror demonstrating a successful contractor team arrangement; and, recent and relevant projects completed in the NCO 21 Geographic location may be rated more favorably. This factor will be rated in accordance with the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method outlined below. |
| ADJECTIVAL RATINGS | |
| Rating | Description |
| Outstanding | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. |
| Good | Proposal 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. |
| Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal | Proposal 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. |
| Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable. |
| DEFINITIONS | |
| Strength | An 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. |
| Weakness | A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Significant Weakness | A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| Deficiency | A 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 new construction and/or repair, alteration and related renovation of sterile processing services 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) non-residential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or 4) improvements such as utilities, HVAC, and water and sterilization processing for healthcare facilities, industrial buildings, and warehouses. “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: | Between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000.00 |
| 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; construction of new asphalt paving, compaction, grading, seal coating, striping, electrical and solar. |
| 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 |
FIRM NAME
36C26126R0019
FACTOR 2 - EXPERIENCE
| FIRM NAME | |
| Experience - Project 1 | Title |
| Contract # | |
| Project Description | |
| Dollar Amount | |
| Project Description | New construction, Alteration, Repair, ect…. |
| Construction Type | Design-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 2 | Title |
| Contract # | |
| Project Description | |
| Dollar Amount | |
| Project Description | New construction, Alteration, Repair, ect…. |
| Construction Type | Design-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 3 | Title |
| Contract # | |
| Project Description | |
| Dollar Amount | |
| Project Description | New construction, Alteration, Repair, ect…. |
| Construction Type | Design-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 4 | Title |
| Contract # | |
| Project Description | |
| Dollar Amount | |
| Project Description | New construction, Alteration, Repair, ect…. |
| Construction Type | Design-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 5 | Title |
| Contract # | |
| Project Description | |
| Dollar Amount | |
| Project Description | New construction, Alteration, Repair, ect…. |
| Construction Type | Design-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 6 | Title |
| Contract # | |
| Project Description | |
| Dollar Amount | |
| Project Description | New construction, Alteration, Repair, ect…. |
| Construction Type | Design-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 Rating | FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY |
| Basis for the Rating | FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .