EIC A.E. RFP Letter 396466 (Rev 1).pdf

Procurement & Property Management Division

P.O. Box 5000 Upton, NY 11973-5000 Phone 631 344-4161 Fax 631-344-4605 kkirkenda@bnl.gov

Managed by Brookhaven Science Associates for the U.S. Department of Energy www.bnl.gov

January 10, 2023 Interested Offerors

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 396466; Architect-Engineer (A/E) Services – Electron-Ion Collider (EIC)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (BSA), under a Prime Contract for the operation of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), herewith solicits your proposal for Architectural and Engineering (A/E) services and optional Construction Support Services. The EIC Project will be to design, build, and install the hardware and infrastructure for a new electron storage ring, an electron injector, and modifications to the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) hadron ring required to produce an Electron-Ion Collider. It will include one interaction region with an allowance for a second and one detector. The facility is designed to meet requirements to ensure high reliability and availability for the user program.

A/E design services are required to develop the preliminary and detailed design services and documents as well as to provide construction support services for the EIC Project infrastructure. The construction support services option will be awarded at the discretion of BSA. The conceptual design has been completed and the Conceptual Design Report (CDR), when combined with this Statement of Work (SOW), will serve as the basis of the A/E’s scope of services.

BSA supports DOE’s reporting requirements in that all its vendors/contractors are to be registered in the U. S. Government supplier database entitled System for Award Management (SAM). It is suggested that registration be performed online at sam.gov or by contacting the Service Desk at 1-866-606-8220 prior to the submission date of the resulting RFP. If you already have done so, provide a definitive statement herein that your firm is registered in SAM.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The A/E will be selected in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP.

The resulting contract will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for the EIC A/E Design Services with options for Construction Support Services. Firms will be selected for negotiation based on a demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work in accordance with the draft contract, Enclosure 1, including the SOW dated January 9, 2023.

A single FFP contract will be awarded with separate line items for the design phases and construction support. Only Title I - Preliminary Design and Title II - Definitive Design will be awarded initially with priced options for Title III – Construction Support activities.

3.0 TWO-PHASE PROCESS

BSA is using a Two-Phase Qualifications-Based Selection Process to evaluate prospective Offeror qualifications and to solicit priced proposals from a short-list of highly qualified Teams.

3.1 Phase One: Technical Proposal Volume 1

Phase One is an open competitive process whereby qualifications are solicited from interested Offerors. In Phase One, Offeror qualifications are reviewed against the stated evaluation factors and subfactors and the list of respondents is short-listed to the top three technically ranked Teams based on evaluation of qualifications.

3.2 Phase Two: Priced Proposal (Short-Listed Teams ONLY) Volume 2 In Phase Two, the short-listed Teams will be required to submit price proposals responsive to the RFP, which will also include an oral presentation/interview.

Proposals will be evaluated separately against the stated evaluation factors and subfactors. Selection of the successful Team will be based on best value to BSA and the Government. The date of a pre-proposal site meeting will be set once the short-listed Teams have been identified. Failure by an Offeror to attend the mandatory pre-proposal site meeting will result in rejection of that Offeror’s proposal as being non-responsive.

4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

4.1 Schedule

BSA has established the following schedule for achieving evaluation, selection, approval, and award.

MILESTONE DATE

Issuance of the RFP January 10, 2023 Technical Proposal Due March 3, 2023 Price Proposal Due April 25, 2023 Award (estimated) June 30, 2023

4.1.1 Proposals shall remain firm for 120 days after due date to allow time for review, selection, and award.

4.2 Form of Proposal and Manner of Submission

4.2.1 A complete electronic proposal must be received by BSA no later than the due date March 3, 2023. Award is estimated to be made on or about the date as noted herein. Proposals, including their withdrawal or modification, received after the closing date shall be considered late. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this RFP, such responses may be considered for award if the PPM Manager or designee determines that the award is in BSA’s best interest. Proposals will be opened in private.

4.2.2 The Offeror will be required to submit a Technical Proposal (Volume 1) and a Price Proposal (Volume 2 – Short-Listed Teams Only). One (1) electronic copy of the Technical Proposal and one (1) electronic copy of the Price Proposal are to be submitted. The Technical and Price Proposals shall be submitted as separate volumes and both volumes are to be submitted in English only. The proposals and all supporting relevant documentation which fully describes the proposed capability should be submitted electronically via email and the contents clearly identified. The email subject line shall read “BSA RFP Number 396466 Architect and Engineering Services (A/E) – Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) Project” emailed and addressed to:

1. Kevin Kirkendall

Contracts Administrator Brookhaven National Laboratory

Procurement and Property Management Division Contact Information:

Telephone: (631) 344-4605 Fax: (631) 344-5499 E-mail: kkirkenda@bnl.gov

4.2.3 Proposals must be complete in all respects. Failure to respond or follow the instructions regarding the organization, content, layout, or format of the proposal may result in the Offeror’s proposal being deemed non-responsive.

Proposals that are incomplete or partial in any material respect affecting the responsiveness of the proposal may not be considered. BSA reserves the right to postpone the proposal due date, and to amend this request as it considers necessary. Proposals may be withdrawn by email request, at the address noted above, prior to the proposal due date. Modifications to proposals must submitted electronically via email as required in 4.2.2 above and received prior to the proposal due date.

4.3 Explanation of Proposal Documents

Should an Offeror find any discrepancies in, or omissions from, any of the documents, or be in doubt as to the meaning of any document, it should immediately advise BSA by email to kkirkenda@bnl.gov, no later than three (3) business days prior to the proposal due date to allow time for responses to be received by all prospective Offerors. Oral explanations or instructions given before the award of a contract are discouraged and will not be binding. Any information given to a prospective Offeror concerning this RFP will be furnished to all other prospective Offerors as an amendment to the RFP if that information is deemed necessary by BSA to submitting proposals or if the lack of it would be prejudicial to other prospective Offerors.

mailto:kkirkenda@bnl.gov mailto:kkirkenda@bnl.gov

5.0 CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL

5.1 General Information

The proposals shall be concise and clear in every instance and restricted to relevant information only. The response shall clearly and fully demonstrate the Offeror’s capability, knowledge, and experience regarding the technical requirements described herein. Stating that the Offeror understands and will comply with the technical requirements is not sufficient, nor is a simple affirmative restatement of the requirements. Similarly, phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed,” or “well-known techniques will be used,” without explanatory detail will be considered inadequate.

5.1.1 Disclosure of Proposals

Proposals provided to BSA in response to this RFP will not be disclosed except to appropriate BSA personnel and BSA subcontractor consultants involved in reviewing responses to this RFP, and/or U.S. Government personnel.

Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by BSA except for evaluation purposes, shall:

(1) Mark the title page with the following legend:

“This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed except to appropriate BSA personnel, its subcontractor consultants involved in reviewing responses to the RFP, and/or U.S. Government personnel, and shall not be disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror because of/or in connection with the submission of this data, BSA shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract.

This restriction does not limit BSA’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”; and

(2) Mark each sheet of data that Offeror wishes to restrict with the following legend:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.”

5.2 Phase One: Technical Proposal Volume 1

Provide an electronic file copy of the technical portion of your proposal and any amendments to this RFP. Offerors must provide specific detailed descriptions and capabilities for the main and sub-categories which support how the Offeror plans to perform the SOW. Do not include the Price Proposal in this volume. Volume 1 shall contain technical information only and shall be legible, clear, coherent, and individually tabbed (by section) in accordance with the sections noted below. Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the associated categories noted herein.

5.2.1 General Overall Summary

The Offeror shall discuss, in general terms, how it plans to accomplish the requirements of the SOW. This submission will not be evaluated or scored as part of the evaluation criteria.

Note: Offerors deficient in the capability or experience required to accomplish any facet of the SOW must describe it briefly in the summary.

Detail is to be provided in the appropriate section of the proposal outlining a course of action to remedy these deficiencies.

5.2.2 Submission Requirements (Technical Proposal Only)

Contractors shall submit all supplemental and requested information using the following parameters:

• 8-1/2” x 11” and/or 11”x17”

• 50-page limit, excluding the cover page and tabs

• Minimum font size used shall be 10):

In addition, the following information shall be in accordance with the tabs noted below:

• Tab 1 – Specific Experience, Qualifications, Organization, Project

Management Process and Roles and Responsibilities of the Project Team:

• Tab 1A – Evaluation of the Organization and Project Management Process

• Tab 1B – Experience, Qualifications, and Roles/Responsibilities of Key Project Team Personnel

• Tab 2 – Experience and Technical Competence in Comparable Work

• Tab 3 – Record of Past Performance in Technical, Schedule, and Budget Compliance

• Tab 4 – Quality of Proposal, Method of Accomplishment, and Ability to Meet BSA’s Expectation Relative to Delivering a Successful Design

5.2.3 Tab 1 – Specific Experience, Qualifications, Organization, Project Management Process, and Roles/Responsibilities of the Project Team

5.2.4 Tab 1A – Evaluation of Organization and Project Management Process

A. Submission Criteria

Provide an organization chart of the project team, including subcontractors, proposed to work on this contract, and indicate the approximate percentage of total work the A/E expects to complete with its own work-force. Describe the project management process that will be used to plan and execute this contract/work scope. Provide a description of the roles and responsibilities of the project team assigned to manage the contract.

B. Evaluation Criteria

BSA will evaluate the A/E’s team structure and project management process for its range, depth, and experience to effectively manage, control, administer, and execute the successful design of projects similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the EIC Infrastructure.

5.2.5 Tab 1B – Experience, Qualifications, and Roles/Responsibilities of Key Project Team Personnel

A. Submission Criteria

The A/E shall provide a consolidated list to include name, position title, and description of project team’s roles and responsibilities. Provide resumes or narrative description as to roles and pertinent experience on other comparable projects for the following key personnel:

• Project Executive

• Senior Structural/Civil Engineer

• Senior Electrical Engineer

• Senior Electrical Engineer (High Voltage Power Distribution)

• Senior Mechanical Engineer

• Senior Architect

Indicate whether each individual has had a significant role in any of the cited projects provided in response to Tab 2, Experience and Technical Competence in Comparable Work. References on cited project(s) may be asked about the performance of key personnel proposed for this project

Firms will be evaluated in terms of the relevant experience, qualifications, roles, responsibilities, and organization of the project team assigned to the project, specifically for the type of design work required by this procurement.

BSA will evaluate the required information to determine the degree to which the A/E’s key personnel meet the qualifications necessary, which includes performance on completed projects of similar scope, size, and/or complexity and the ability to design and provide Construction Support Services. References on cited project(s) may be asked about the performance of key personnel’s roles and responsibilities proposed for this project. Each key person will be evaluated individually and the scores for each will be tallied to arrive at the final score for this factor.

5.2.6 Tab 2 – Experience and Technical Competence in Comparable Work

A. Submission Criteria The A/E shall submit a list of all qualifying projects, as defined above, constructed during the past twenty (20) years. Include the following information for each project:

• Project title

• Contract amount at start and completion

• Description of services provided and location

• Description of the level of subcontractor/consultant utilization

• Name, address, and telephone number of owner or contracting representative

B. Evaluation Criteria Firms will be evaluated in terms of their relevant experience in planning and preparing detailed designs and providing construction support for facilities comparable to the EIC Infrastructure. Responsive firms will list all projects completed in the last twenty (20) years, which are of similar nature and scope as described herein, particularly the firm’s ability and past experience working on facilities of similar scope and complexity.

BSA will evaluate the specific project references submitted as part of its past performance evaluation. BSA may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference if the listed reference is not available.

The successful design of multiple projects, with a size, scope, and/or complexity equivalent to or greater than the EIC Infrastructure, will carry a higher rating than design of a single project. BSA will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in A/E performance.

More recent and more comparable projects are indicative of the A/E’s current capabilities and may, therefore, have greater impact on the past performance evaluation than less recent, less comparable projects.

In evaluating the experience of joint ventures, teams, or firms having multiple divisions, BSA will only evaluate past performance of the business entities comprising the joint venture or team, and for firms with multiple divisions, the division or unit submitting a response to this RFP based upon the roles and responsibilities related to the EIC Infrastructure.

Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of the technical design and programming, timeliness, management of the work, and relations between the owner and A/E.

For BSA to obtain candid, unbiased interview comments, BSA will not release the interview results to the A/E at any time. BSA may seek clarifications from the A/E based upon owner/reference responses.

BSA will place a higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation or personal knowledge of EIC project personnel. BSA will also place a higher value on projects that provided particularly difficult or unique challenges, and in the innovative methods the A/E used to resolve problems successfully. BSA’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

5.2.7 Tab 3 – Record of Past Performance in Technical, Schedule, and Budget Compliance

A. Submission Criteria

“Past Performance in Technical, Schedule, and Budget Compliance Risks” refers to the quality of recent project performance from the owner’s perspective. Demonstrate cost and schedule performance on projects represented in Tab 2. Discuss successes, challenges and mitigation strategies for the referenced projects. BSA may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference if the listed reference is not available.

BSA will evaluate completed projects, under Tab 2 considering schedule and budget performance, owner satisfaction for each project offered, and the degree of success of the A/E’s firm’s relevant performance on these projects. Successful cost and schedule performance on multiple projects will carry a higher rating then design of a single project. Completion of projects within or below budget will carry a higher rating than those projects experiencing schedule delays and cost overruns. BSA will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in A/E performance. More recent and more comparable projects are more indicative of the A/E’s current capabilities and may, therefore, have greater impact on the schedule and cost performance evaluation than less recent, less comparable projects. In evaluating joint ventures, teams, or firms having multiple divisions, BSA will only evaluate cost and schedule performance of the business entities comprising the joint venture or team, and for firms with multiple divisions, the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items’ budget and schedule performance.

For BSA to obtain candid, unbiased interview comments, BSA will not release the interview results to the A/E at any time. BSA may seek clarifications from the A/E based upon owner/reference responses.

BSA will place a higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation or personal knowledge of EIC project personnel. BSA will also place a higher value on projects, that provided particularly difficult or unique challenges, and in the innovative methods the A/E used to resolve problems successfully.

5.2.8 Tab 4 – Quality of Proposal, Method of Accomplishment and Ability to Meet BSA’s Expectation Relative to Delivering a Successful Design

A. Submission Criteria

Provide a brief narrative description of the proposed method to achieve a cost-effective design for BSA while maintaining schedule goals and providing reliable systems and facilities capable of supporting an effective EIC program into the foreseeable future. Include method to accomplish the preliminary and detailed design, rationale for selection of the proposed project team, and methods to assure quality of design.

Description should not exceed 1,500 words.

BSA will evaluate the A/E’s narrative and all necessary/supporting documentation to provide a clear and logical understanding of the A/E’s management and design approach and organizational structure for the EIC Infrastructure design.

5.3 Phase Two: Price Proposal -Volume 2 (Short-Listed Teams Only) Provide one (1) written e-mail copy of the price portion of your proposal and any amendments thereto. Do not include the Technical Proposal in this volume.

Volume 2 should be prepared simply, be legible, clear, coherent, and in accordance with the tabs noted below:

5.3.1 Tab 1: - Corporate Profile and Financial Capability

Provide a corporate profile of your organization. Include your three (3) most recent audited financial statements/yearly reports. Such reports for any parent organization shall also be included. If a joint venture is proposed, the above is required of all parties.

5.3.2 Tab 2: - Draft Contract with Terms and Conditions

The Draft Contract with Terms and Conditions is provided in Enclosure (1).

The Offeror shall clearly note its acceptance in full. The successful Offeror will be required to execute a Contract in accordance with the provisions of the Draft Contract. Any exceptions shall be noted accordingly, however, the Offeror shall not construe noted exceptions, if any, to be accepted by

BSA.

5.3.3 Tab 3: - Price

The Offeror shall provide pricing information in strict accordance with this RFP Any exceptions should be noted accordingly.

The Offeror shall provide separate pricing on AMS-Form-043 Pricing Sheet for the construction support services option as follows:

• Continuous A/E Services During Construction

• Twice Monthly Site Inspection During Construction

The above is for two (2) options for the A/E to provide services during construction. The frequency of those options will be chosen at the discretion of BSA at time of election.

Note: Only pricing in U.S. dollars will be accepted.

5.3.4 Tab 4: - Small Business Subcontracting Plan

All Offerors certifying that they are other than a “small business” and that they expect to submit an offer that will exceed $750,000 must submit a

Small Business Subcontracting Plan for BSA’s approval prior to contract award. Reference shall be made to FAR 52.219-9 before completing this subcontracting plan. Firms certifying that they are small businesses need not complete the plan.

The following BSA small business stretch goals are provided as an example for this procurement. Any exceptions to this Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement shall be noted accordingly.

Small Business ...................................................................................... 50% Small Disadvantaged Business ................................................................ 5% Women-Owned Business ......................................................................... 5% Hub Zone ................................................................................................. 3% Veteran-Owned Business ......................................................................... 3% Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Business............................................. 3%

5.3.5 Tab 5: - Offeror Representations and Certifications

The Offeror shall complete and return the following forms:

1. AMS Form 050 Annual Representations & Certifications

(Enclosure 2)

2. AMS Form 043 Quotation Pricing Sheet (Enclosure 3)

6.0 PROCUREMENT TYPE, EVALUATION METHODOLOGY, AND CRITERIA

6.1 Type of Procurement

This is a “Best Value” procurement. BSA intends to award a contract resulting from this RFP to the responsive, responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors, subfactors, and price as noted in this RFP. The utilization of this procedure is expected to provide the greatest overall benefit to BSA. Best Value employs a trade-off process that permits award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or to the highest technically rated Offeror. The trade-off process associated with Best Value involves a comparative weighing of the evaluation factors and subfactors identified in the RFP. Specifically, the trade-off process involves selecting the most advantageous offer based on an integrated assessment of both technical factors and price. Price will not be rated or scored but will be a factor in the Best Value analysis. All factors and subfactors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

An award may be made without discussion or negotiation of proposals received;

therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms which can be submitted in response to this request. BSA reserves the right to conduct pre-selection site visits to assess the Offerors’ capabilities, to hold fact-finding discussions, and/or to negotiate with any one or all of the Offerors on any aspect of this RFP prior to making an award, or to make an award without further discussion or negotiation at any time during this process. BSA may request such supplementary information as determined sufficient, in the opinion of BSA, to assure that an Offeror’s technical competence, business and technical organization, facilities, and financial resources are adequate to successfully perform the contemplated work. BSA reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or to accept any proposal. BSA will not be obligated to award all or any part of the work solicited, and in any event will not be responsible for the Offeror’s cost of proposal preparation or any other cost incurred in connection with this RFP.

6.2 Methodology

It is the practice of BSA, in making an overall evaluation of qualifications and proposals received, to establish a Source Selection Board (SSB) that will evaluate the qualifications and proposals to enable due consideration to performance and price. The final evaluation assessment is derived from the composite reviews. As explained previously, this procedure is intended to result in Phase 1 with the top three technically ranked Teams, and in Phase 2 the selection of the most advantageous proposal, considering price in determining the Best Value trade-off.

6.2.1 Qualifications from all Offerors will initially be point-scored by voting team members of the SSB in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub-factors described in section 5.2. Phase 1 evaluations will be used to short-list the top three technically ranked Teams. Phase 2 submissions, short-listed Teams only, will be initially evaluated on responsiveness to the RFP requirements in all aspects. The price proposals will be point-scored by technical members of the SSB in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub-factors described in section 5.3.

The tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors (i.e., technical factors) and allows BSA to accept other than the lowest-priced proposal, or the highest technically rated Offeror. Under a trade-off process, the perceived technical benefits of the higher-priced proposal shall merit the additional cost to receive award. In conducting the trade-off analysis for this procurement, the technical factors, when combined, are more important than price. Offerors are advised, however, that as the range of the overall technical scores among Offerors narrows, the more important price will become in making the award decision. An independent estimate, historical pricing data, and competitive pricing will be used in the consideration and analysis of price.

6.3 Technical Evaluation Criteria

Each proposal will be evaluated based on how well it meets or exceeds the requirements of this RFP. The proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following evaluation criteria, listed in order of importance, and more fully explained in Section 5 above:

1. Specific Experience, Qualifications, Organization, Project Management Process, and Roles and Responsibilities of the Project Team 1A. Evaluation of the Organization and Project Management Process 1B. Experience, Qualifications and Roles/Responsibilities of Key Project Team Personnel

2. Experience and Technical Competence in Comparable Work

3. Record of Past Performance in Technical, Schedule and Budget Compliance

4. Quality of Proposal, Method of Accomplishment and Ability to Meet BSA’s

Expectation Relative to Delivering a Successful Design

Each Offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies will be addressed accordingly in each resultant technical evaluation.

To be considered technically responsive to the RFP, each Offeror must score a total of (60) percent of the points of the proposal overall. Any proposal that fails to achieve this parameter shall be deemed technically non-responsive and will be excluded from further evaluation.

6.4 Final Selection Process

After completion of discussions with Offerors and after receipt of Best and Final offers (if required), the SSB will recommend the “Best Value” Offeror to the SSO.

The recommendation will be based on the evaluation of technical capabilities of the Offerors and the prices being offered. The SSO will subsequently use all Source Evaluation analysis and evaluations as guidelines in making the final selection.

6.5 Basis of Award

Award of the resulting contract will be based on the SSO’s evaluation of the SSB’s recommendation and will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the overall Best Value.

7.0 PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

It is understood that any contract resulting from this request shall be on the basis that the Offeror who undertakes the work represents and guarantees that it possesses the necessary skills, means of performance, and financial resources to complete the effort. Inability to perform, including loss of key personnel or facilities, will not excuse default.

8.0 CLOSURE

BSA believes the information contained herein is sufficient to permit you to prepare a complete and definitive proposal; however, should there be any questions, please contact the undersigned. All questions must be submitted in writing via e-mail. Replies to questions will be provided in writing and, if considered to be of general interest, will be transmitted to all other Offerors.

If for any reason you are unable to submit a proposal, kindly reply in writing and return this letter with all the attachments.

Sincerely, Kevin Kirkendall Contracts Administrator

Enclosure 1 – BSA Draft Contract Enclosure 2 – AMS Form 050, Annual Representations and Certifications Enclosure 3 – AMS Form 043, Quotation Pricing Sheet

8.0 CLOSURE