ATTACHMENT A - PHASE 1 FACTOR 2 - EXPERIENCE.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C26125R0053
About this file
Attachment A is an evaluation guide for a design-build roof replacement project for the VA San Francisco Medical Center. The document outlines detailed requirements for submitting experience and capability information, focusing on six potential project examples from the lead Architect-Engineering Firm and Construction Contractor. Offerors must provide up to two projects demonstrating experience as Prime Contractors, with preference given to recent design-build projects completed within the past five years in the VISN 21 geographic locations of Nevada, Northern California, and Hawaii.
The solicitation (36C26125R0053) is a total service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside for replacing the EPDM rubber roof of Building 5, valued between $250,000 and $500,000. The project requires comprehensive design and construction services with a 240-calendar-day performance period at the VA San Francisco Medical Center. Proposals will be evaluated using an adjectival rating system ranging from Outstanding to Unacceptable, with specific emphasis on project relevance, complexity, scope, recency, and geographic proximity. A pre-proposal conference and site visit is scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM PDT.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C26125R0053 0004.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment - Pre-solicitation Request for Information Response 7-30th 2025.pdf | ||
| 36C26125R0053 0003.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C26125R0053 0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment-Site Visit Attendees 20250722.pdf | ||
| Attachment - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FORM.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C26125R0053 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT C - PHASE 2 FACTOR 4 - Offerors Key Personnel.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT B - PHASE 1 FACTOR 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT D - Pre-solicitation Site Visit Presentation Modernize DB Roof.pptx | PPTX presentation | |
| ATTACHMENT - Specifications 662-25-111 EPDM Roof Bldg 5.pdf | ||
| PHASE I RFP 36C26125R0053_Project No. 662-25-111 Design-Build Services Roof Replacement.docx | DOCX document | |
| DBA Wage Determination CA20250018 20250711.pdf |
Show all 13
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
36C26125R0053
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 “Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Rubber Roof at Building 5”, 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. This factor will be rated in accordance with the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method outlined in Attachment 4. |
| 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. |
| Surface Parking facilties | 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 indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Good | Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. |
| 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 has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable | Proposal 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 | |
| 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 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: | Between $250,000 and $500,000 |
| 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
36C26125R0053
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 .