ATTACHMENT A - PHASE 1 FACTOR 2 - EXPERIENCE.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Z2DA--Project Number: 662-23-122 Replace Interior Doors - Building 200 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C26123R0043
About this file
This document contains an evaluation template for a Department of Veterans Affairs solicitation seeking proposals to replace interior doors in Building 200. Offerors are required to provide details on up to six past performance examples demonstrating experience with projects of similar size, scope, and complexity, including as a prime contractor. Projects must have been completed within the past five years and include construction dollar values of $500,000 or more. Experience with design-build projects, electrical/telecommunications upgrades, and work in Nevada, Northern California and Hawaii will be viewed favorably. Proposals will be rated on demonstrated relevant experience, with an emphasis on design-build, timely completion of similar infrastructure projects, and work within the Veterans Integrated Service Network 21 geographic region. Adjectival ratings range from Outstanding to Unacceptable. The solicitation number is 36C26123R0043 for a project to replace interior doors at Building 200. Responses are due as identified in the related solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFI-Answer to Questions-Final-28 Jul 2023.pdf | ||
| Site Visit Presentation-11 July 2023.pdf | ||
| 36C26123R0043 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| Site visit log-11Jul2023.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT B - PHASE 1 FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOW Replace Interior Doors - Building 200 _19Apr2023.pdf | ||
| 36C26123R0043.docx | DOCX document | |
| DBA Wage Determination_San Mateo_CA20230018_23June2023.pdf | ||
| Map of VAMC -San Francisco Campus.pdf | ||
| Specificaton_01 32 16 16_Network Analysis Schedules_21Apr2023.pdf | ||
| SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT 662-23-122_28Jun2023.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT C - PHASE 2 FACTOR 4 - Offeror Key Personnel.docx | DOCX document | |
| Price Breakdown Worksheet.pdf | ||
| Combined Drawings Bldg 200.pdf |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- 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
36C26123R0043
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 upgrading electrical and telecommunication services; 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-build | Recent and relevant projects that demonstrate design-build experience may be considered more favorably than those that do not have design-build experience. |
| Upgrade Electrical and Telecommunication Services | Recent 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 completion | Recent and relevant projects that demonstrate timely completion of projects may be rated more favorably. |
| Geographic locations | Recent and relevant projects completed in the NCO 21 geographic locations of Nevada, Northern California and Hawaii may be rated more favorably.. |
| 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. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. 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 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 carpentry work. “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: | $500,000 or more |
| Complexity Definition: | Complexity is defined as a design build project that includes multiple trades. |
| 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
36C26123R0043
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 .