About this file

This document contains an evaluation criteria attachment and related federal contract opportunity solicitation. The evaluation criteria attachment provides details on how offeror experience will be evaluated for a design-build project to construct parking and a solar tower at a VA medical center campus in Mather, California. Offerors must provide details on up to six recent and relevant past performance examples that demonstrate the experience of both the prime contractor and lead architect-engineering firm. Examples will be evaluated on criteria such as design-build experience, surface parking facility work, timely completion, and experience in the geographic region. The related federal contract opportunity solicitation is for the design-build project to construct the parking and solar tower. The solicitation number is 36C26122R0021 and it is a total SDVOSB set-aside with an estimated value between $2-5 million. The period of performance is 485 calendar days.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
ATTACHMENT B - PHASE 1 FACTOR 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx DOCX document
S06 - 36C26122R0021 0003.docx DOCX document
Amendment 0002 Attachment -612-121 Land Expansion North and East Femoyer Lots 75 CD.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment - 612A4-18-200 PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT MATHER 100 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 2020-06-15 - COMBINED.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment Response to RFI for Solicitation No 36C26122R0021.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment - Civil-Land.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment - 19-565.1 Sac VA Water System_Final.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment - Site Plan- Project limits - Design-Build parking.pdf PDF
S06 - 36C26122R0021 0002.docx DOCX document
Amendment 0002 Attachment -Oncology Approx Location 4.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment -VAMC19-001_Record DWGs_092421.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment - 2021-05-05 Submittal Return 32 31 40-1.0-Complete with detail.pdf PDF
Amendment 0002 Attachment - Draft ALTA Survey - 5.16 acre parcel - Sacramento County - 9.1.17.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT I - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FORM.docx DOCX document
S06 - Solicitation Amendment No.36C26122R0021 0001.docx DOCX document
ATTACHMENT C - PHASE 2 FACTOR 4 - Offerors Key Personnel.docx DOCX document
ATTACHMENT D - Supplemental Pricing Breakdown.docx DOCX document
Edited Land Expansion North and East Femoyer Lots 75 CD.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT F - DBA Wage Determination CA20220007 02252022.pdf PDF
Combined Specs V3.2 2.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT G - Brand Name Justification For Emergency Call Boxes Only Redacted.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT H - Pre-Proposal Site Visit Conference Briefing Slides.pptx PPTX presentation
ATTACHMENT B - PHASE 1 FACTOR 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx DOCX document
S02 - Solicitation No. 36C26122R0021.docx DOCX document
RP8500080 Solar Tower.pdf PDF
ATTACHMENT E - Map of VAMC - Mather Campus.pdf PDF
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 - EXPERIENCE

36C26122R0022

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 proposed Architect-Engineering firm have completed together. If no project completed together, offeror may be rated more unfavorably.

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 individualy 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; 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 may be rated more favorably.
Design-buildRecent and relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience.
Surface Parking faciltiesRecent and relevant projects that demonstrate experience in designing and/or constructing surface parking of similar size, scope and complexity may be considered more favorably.
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 of Nevada, Northern California and Hawaii may be rated more favorably..
ADJECTIVAL RATINGS
RatingDescription
OutstandingProposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
GoodProposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.
AcceptableProposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
MarginalProposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
UnacceptableProposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

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 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, 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 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; 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 and each project shall be $25,000 or more in dollar value for Group 1 offerors

FIRM NAME

36C26122R0022

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 .