Criteria and Factors for Evaluation_Basis of Award_Evaluation Criteria_Rating System.pdf

Evaluation Criteria

W912D25RA002

Repair, Bldg. 606 West Point, NY

CRITERIA AND FACTORS FOR EVALUATION, BASIS OF AWARD, EVALUATION CRITERIA,

RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITION

SECTION 00 22 10 – SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

BEST VALUE TRADE OFF

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

5.1 TAB A – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.2 TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, PHASING AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

5.3 TAB C – FACTOR 3 –TECHNICAL APPROACH

6.0 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 4 - SMALL BUSINESS

6.1 TAB A – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

6.2 TAB B – PAST UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS

7.0 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 5 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1 TAB A – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442, PROPOSAL DATA SHEET AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM

SCHEDULE)

7.2 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

7.3 TAB C – SELF PERFORMED WORK

ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

3 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE PRIME CONTRACTOR OR KEY SUB CONTRACTOR

4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

Repair, Bldg. 606 West Point, NY

1.0 OVERVIEW

This is a single phase/turnkey "Best Value Trade Off" solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 for the Building 606 Renovation located at West Point, NY. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible Offeror, whose proposal conforms to all the terms and conditions of the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

This is a Best Value Trade Off procurement where the Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price construction contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority and Contracting Officer have determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors described herein, and price.

Non-price actors (1-4) when combined are approximately equal in importance to price factor 5. Non-price factor 1 is the most important non-price factor, followed by non-price factor 2 and non-price factor 3 that are equal in importance to each other and less important than non-price factor 1. Factor 4, Small Business Participation Plan is the least important non-price factor. . The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best value for the Government. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value.

The price used in the trade-off analysis shall be the aggregate amount for the base items and options (CLINS 0001-0023). The trade-off analysis will be conducted based on an evaluation of all factors, including price, and a best value proposal will be determined. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a Deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. If there is a lower priced conforming offer(s), the SSA must determine that the added value of a more expensive proposal (within an acceptable range) would justify award to that Offeror.

The magnitude of the project is between $100,000,000 and $250,000,000.

3.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1.1 Who May Submit:

a. Competition will be unrestricted (i.e., open to all businesses regardless of Small Business status). Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

3.1.2 Inquiries about this solicitation:

a. Prospective Offerors should submit inquiries related to this solicitation only by e-mail to the

Contract Specialist, Brian Winters, at brian.h.winters@usace.army.mil and Contracting Officer. Nicholas Emanuel, at nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil

b. Include the solicitation number, and project title with any questions/clarifications. Written questions must be received by this office not later than 7 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers. TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an Offeror which impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the solicitation.

As this is a competitive negotiated acquisition, there is no public proposal opening and no information will be given out as to the number of Offerors or the results of the competition until award is made.

3.1.3 Page Limit and Size of Electronic Materials shall be submitted in the following volumes:

In order to evaluate all proposals effectively and equitably, the Contracting Officer must receive information sufficiently detailed to clearly address submission requirements as outlined below.

Pages containing text shall be submitted electronically on standard 8-1/2 x 11-inch size paper.

Schedules, drawings and/or sketches may be submitted electronically on paper not exceeding 11 x 17-inch, (each 11 x 17 counts as two pages). Use of 'TAB' pages are encouraged to identify each section of the proposal and shall not count against proposal's total page count. Each page of text shall be minimally single spaced with a minimum 12-point font and one-inch margins all around.

Any sheet with printed material (text or graphics) shall be considered a page, excluding dividers, cover sheets, letters of commitment, team agreements, and/or Joint Venture agreements.

3.1.4 Joint Ventures

a. When an Offeror is submitting a proposal as a joint venture, all members of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 and any financial surety instrument that is required, unless a written agreement by all members of the joint venture is furnished with the proposal designating one firm with the legal authority to bind the other member(s) of the joint venture. Signatures on the written agreement designating one member of the joint venture as having legal authority to bind all other members of the joint venture must be executed by the duly authorized representatives of the respective joint venture members. All joint venture members will remain jointly and severally liable for all actions, representations, and other activities by the joint venture and by other joint venture members in connection with this solicitation and subsequent contract. A copy of the joint venture agreement and agreement providing evidence of the authority to legally bind all other members of the joint venture must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration.

b. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the experience, past performance, and other information about each of the joint venture partners can be submitted for the joint venture.

The experience, past performance, and other information about each joint venture partner will be considered the experience, etc. of the joint venture entity. Joint ventures must also submit the following additional documentation:

Volume Tab Title Maximum Pages

1 A Factor 1: Past Performance No Page Limit

1 B Factor 2: Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing and Summary Schedule

1 C Factor 3: Technical Approach 15

2 A Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan No page limit

2 B Factor 4: Past Utilization of Small Business No page limit

3 A Factor 5: Price (Standard Form 1442 & Contract Line Item Schedule)

No page limit

3 B Factor 5: Bid Guarantee No page limit

3 C Factor 5: Self-Performed Work No page limit

3.1.4.b.1 A copy of the Joint Venture Agreement.

3.1.4.b.2 A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate:

3.1.4.b.3 The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

3.1.4.b.4 The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the joint venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work under the contract.

3.1.4.b.5 Identification of key personnel having the authority to bind the joint venture to any and all agreements, including any subcontracts, executed by the joint venture.

3.1.4.b.6 Identification of party or parties maintaining the joint venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposit of all receipts, keeping the books and records of the joint venture, and paying applicable taxes for the joint venture.

3.1.4.b.7 Identification of party or parties having overall control of the joint venture.

c. Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual joint venture entities and identify the entity, or whether they are hired directly as employees of the joint venture.

d. A complete and legally binding document with all information required under this section titled “Joint Venture” shall be included in Volume I of the proposal.

3.2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Proposal Requirements and Submission

Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms. Do not assume that Offerors will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

Do not submit any material not required by this solicitation (such as company or system brochures). Offerors must meet all technical portions (construction criteria) of the RFP. The fact that the technical specifications and the drawings are not evaluated factors during solicitation does not relieve the Offerors from meeting all technical, or other, requirements of the RFP.

The Government will not make assumptions concerning the intent, capabilities, or experiences of the Offerors. Clear identification of proposal details shall rest as sole responsibility of the Offeror.

Therefore, the proposal shall meet the following basic requirements:

a. Proposals shall be typed and easy to read. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear.

b. Must contain a Proposal Cover Sheet, to include the Offeror’s e-mail address, cell phone number, Name, Address, DUNS, and CAGE code. The proposal cover sheet is required by Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition.”

c. Proposals shall be organized, concise, and submitted in the volumes and in the order indicated herein. Volumes shall be clearly identified and tabbed. Each factor shall be described in a separate tabbed section.

d. Proposals shall contain a Table of Contents and include at the bottom left side of each page the volume and page number.

e. Offerors shall submit a signed dated Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

Any and all amendments must be acknowledged by the Offeror in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation.

f. Offerors are reminded that elaborate corporate marketing information, formatting, special reproduction techniques, and the like are not necessary. However, proposals shall completely and adequately address the requirements of this solicitation.

g. Failing to submit attachments or failing to properly complete the proposal, may result in rejection of the Offer without further evaluation. Therefore, Offerors are urged to follow instructions and contact the Contract Specialist if instructions are not understood.

3.2.2 Where to Submit:

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically, as described below.

The RFP will provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

NOTE: The only authorized transmission method for proposals in response to this solicitation is electronically via EMAIL. NO OTHER TRANSMISSION METHODS

(FACSIMILE, REGULAR MAIL, HAND CARRIED, ETC.) WILL BE ACCEPTED.

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government by the date/time specified in the solicitation. Offerors shall email their proposals.

Please send proposals to Contract Specialist Brian Winters at brian.h.winters@usace.army.mil and to Contracting Officer Nicholas Emanuel at nicholas.p.emanuel@usace.army.mil.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically through email. Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format. If you have a large number of files, recommend that you combine or ZIP your files before uploading in email (total size cannot exceed 5MB). Offerors may use compression utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

FILE DESCRIPTION: Include a “File Description” for each file(s) you upload. The “File Description” will be included in the email notice to each of the recipients you choose to have access your file(s). NOTE: Do NOT enter Privacy Act Data (Personally Identifiable Information (PII)) in the File Description.) Submission shall be in Adobe PDF format.

RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS:

For the purposes of establishing whether a proposal submission is considered timely, the government considers the date and time the submission is received by the

Government.

The government will not be responsible for submissions delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipients. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

3.3 VOLUME 1– MINIMUM SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL): For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 9.6. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal, if the Offeror provides a firm, unequivocal Letter of Commitment signed by both parties.

In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror’s “affiliate,” as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm, unequivocal commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully (e.g., roles, responsibilities, etc.)

in the performance of the contract. This commitment, nature of each entity’s relationship and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate. If a teaming agreement or Letter of Commitment is not provided, the projects and experience of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered.

The contractor team agreement/commitment shall be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal, prior to Factor 1, and will not be included in the overall page count.

The following are to be used in determining the status of the Offeror’s team for the evaluation of project submissions under Factor 1:

3.3.1 In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a Prime Contractor and Subcontractor(s), where the Prime Contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the Prime Contractor is considered the “Prime Offeror.”

3.3.2 In the case of joint ventures, the “Prime Offeror” experience and past performance is limited to entities with signed agreements.

3.3.3 In the case of mentor/protégé relationships, the relationship must be established by the two Offerors and approved by the chosen Government Agency prior to proposal submission. The “Prime Offeror” experience and past performance is limited to entities with signed agreements. The approved mentor/protégé document from the Government Agency must be submitted along with the teaming agreement.

3.3.4 In the case of additional projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with total project cost and all other required information.

3.3.5 In the case of Offerors that are large, multi-function firms (consisting of subsidiaries), experience and past performance should be limited to the segment of the firm (e.g., division, group, and unit) that is submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

3.3.6 In the case of affiliates, past performance of an Offeror's "affiliate," as that term is defined in FAR 2.101, will be evaluated (as described within this section) if the Offeror demonstrates a firm commitment that the affiliate will participate meaningfully in the performance of the contract. This commitment and meaningful participation shall be described in a document signed by authorized representatives of both the Offeror and its affiliate.

3.3.7 If a teaming agreement or commitment is not provided, the projects of any team members outside of the Prime Offeror will not be considered. If the Joint Venture/Mentor Protégé is a

Small and Large Business, the Small Business will be evaluated as the Prime Offeror.

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, RATINGS AND ELEMENTS

The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for the non-price evaluation factors.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submission. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government. If discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Determination of Competitive Range refers to the range of proposals that are identified as the most highly rated, unless the range is further reduced for the purposes of efficiency. Competitive Range will be determined on the basis of the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The Government must then indicate to, or discuss with, each Offeror still being considered for award, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. . The Contracting Officer will notify all contractors eliminated from the Competitive Range.

If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those firms in the Competitive Range, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Government will provide the Firm an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered within the Competitive Range, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

4.1 VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

LOCATION FACTOR NUMBER DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Volume 1 Tab A Factor 1 Past Performance Non-price Factor 1 is the most important technical factor, followed by non-price Factors 2 and 3 that are equal in importance but less important than Factor 1.

Volume 1 Tab B Factor 2 Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule

Volume 1 Tab C Factor 3 Technical Approach

4.2 VOLUME 2 – SMALL BUSINESS

LOCATION FACTOR NUMBER DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Volume 2 TAB A Factor 4 Small Business Participation Plan

Non-price Factor 4 is the least important non-price factor.

Volume 2 TAB B Factor 4 Past Utilization of Small Business

4.3 VOLUME 3 – PRICE

LOCATION FACTOR NUMBER DESCRIPTION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

Vol 3 Factor 5 Price All non-price factors (1-4) when combined are approximately equal in importance to price.

VOLUME 1 – PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

GENERAL: The non-price factors consist of examples of Past Performance that meet the relevant scope, complexity, and magnitude described below. This Volume also includes factors for a Proposed Contract Duration, Phasing & Summary Schedule, and Technical Approach..

DEFINITIONS:

• Deficiency: A material failure of a response or 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.

• Weakness: A flaw in the response or proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the response or proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

• Strength: Any aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

• Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance. Denoted with an (S).

• Deviation: Proposal implies or specifically offers a deviation below the specified criteria. The Offeror may or may not have called the deviation to the Government's attention. A deviation is a deficiency. The proposal must conform to the solicitation requirements for award.

• Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor response or proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the response or proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

EVALUATION RATING SYSTEM

• General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other.

• Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

• Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of "Outstanding," "Good," "Acceptable," "Marginal," or "Unacceptable" to each factor except the Past Performance Factor, which will reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the evaluation criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will provide Past Performance information on relevant projects using the Past Performance and Specialized Experience Questionnaires included in the solicitation. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be submitted for projects, when available. Your client should receive form ATTACHMENT 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ) with items 1 through 4 completed and the “Note” that appears on its reverse side as well as the “Adjective Rating and Definitions” that are used for the ratings in the form. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ form, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s points of contact, the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer, prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last seven (7) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

The Government reserves the right to verify the Past Performance by reviewing the Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DoD or Government appraisal systems or to interview commercial owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. The relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project will not be evaluated or considered under this factor.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

The source selection evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance competence assessment as described in the guidelines, below.

Less than satisfactory performance information includes the issuance of cure notices, terminations for default, or the requirement for excessive oversight in order to achieve satisfactory completion. A single example of less than satisfactory performance, if significant enough, may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor. Likewise, multiple examples of less significant less than satisfactory performance may lead to a less than satisfactory rating for this factor.

In conducting the performance competence assessment, the Government will consider the relevancy of the past performance information available. Highly relevant projects are those that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the current solicitation, although the past performance may still be considered if the projects do not fully meet the criteria for Factor 1.

In addition, the Offeror is required to provide any information on past projects (within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation) that were terminated (for any reason) or in which they have been issued a CURE NOTICE and provide accompanying information as to the details for such action(s) with an explanation of why they were terminated or issued a cure notice.

4.3.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The SSEB will evaluate the risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each past performance.

Rating Guidelines for Factor 1: Refer to the Table in section 5.1.3

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral confidence”) past performance.

4.3.2 RELEVANT PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will be evaluated on the recency and relevancy of the past performance demonstrated in the submitted form, ATTACHMENT 3 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE. The Offeror should list their experience of similar project scope, complexity, and magnitude.

Submit a minimum of two (2) projects but no more than four (4) projects. All projects must be complete or substantially complete. Substantially complete is defined as 75% construction complete as of the date of issuance of the solicitation. A minimum of two projects must be completed and turned over to the customer. All the submitted projects shall be recent construction experience which means that completion should be no more than seven (7) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. The projects should meet the descriptions of scope, complexity and magnitude as outlined below. At least two (2) projects must be examples showing building renovation as described in this solicitation.

If any firm has multi-function firms, project examples should be limited to those performed by the division submitting the offer.

Firm, unequivocal letters of commitment (Signed by both the Subcontractor and Offeror) are required in order for the Government to consider Subcontractor past performance in the proposal evaluation. Other divisions within the Offer’s company may be considered as subcontractors for the submitting division. See Appendix G for sample letter.

The projects submitted should include the following criteria. Projects do not have to include all of the criteria; however, projects that meet many or all of the criteria may be given a higher degree of relevancy. Projects should demonstrate a similar scope, similar complexity, and similar magnitude.

i. Similar scope is defined as the construction of or renovation of a facility to include academic buildings, administrative buildings, municipal buildings, and other buildings with similar usage/occupancy greater than 120,000 square feet in size.

ii. Similar complexity is defined as projects demonstrating:

a. Coordination between multiple technical disciplines including

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, HVAC, Fire Protection, plumbing, and electrical.

b. Experience with work on a constrained site and/or on a campus setting.

c. Historic architecture rehabilitation. Historic architecture rehabilitation might include masonry repointing, careful removal of old finishes and protection of existing artifacts, complex painting, ornate detailing, façade repair, and installation of modern systems/utilities to meet current building codes and criteria within historic architecture.

d. Structural reinforcement of existing facilities and/or replacement of e3ct9bhw Highlight structural members and components in existing facilities to meet current building code requirements. This might include partial replacement of floor slabs to support new floor loads, modification or addition of structural footings, and reinforcement or addition of structural framing.

Experience with sequence of structural demolition, temporary shoring, and erection of new structural elements is preferred.

iii. Similar magnitude is defined as projects greater than $75,000,000..

The Government will consider the experience demonstrated by the projects in its evaluation.

Proposals may be highly rated when the Offeror demonstrates extensive experience in all or nearly all of the aspects defining relevance and listed below. Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given additional consideration (the following list does not encompass all possible items for which additional consideration may be given):

i. Projects demonstrating experience working at college and university campuses.

ii. Experience with historic architecture rehabilitation.

iii. Projects demonstrating experience with waterproofing facilities, including repair of water infiltration at exterior envelope, basement waterproofing, and under-slab drainage systems.

iv. Experience with integration of new fire protection systems.

v. Experience with storm water retention and detention system installation.

vi. Experience with installation of Curtain Wall systems within historic facilities.

vii. Projects demonstrating experiences with new HVAC systems, specifically chilled beam system, into architecturally historical spaces.

viii. Projects showing past experience working with USACE.

ix. Projects demonstrating self-performance by the prime contractor or past experience demonstrating the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors working together.

x. Prime contractor experience working as a prime contractor.

xi. Projects showing experience working in constrained locations including excavation in close proximity to existing structures.

xii. Completed and turned over projects may be rated higher than projects that are submitted at 75% construction complete.

xiii. Where this experience includes the following, the proposal may be given weaknesses (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

a. Few or no projects are provided where the Offeror acted as Prime contractor.

b. Few or no projects that involve a renovation.

c. Few or no projects that demonstrate work on a college and university campuses.

d. Few or no projects that demonstrate work on historic architecture rehabilitation.

e. Few or no projects that demonstrate work waterproofing facilities.

f. Few or no projects that demonstrate new fire protection systems.

g. Few or no projects that demonstrate water detention and retention system installation.

h. Few or no projects that demonstrate curtain wall systems within historic facilities.

i. Few or no projects that demonstrate new HVAC systems.

j. Few or no projects that demonstrate experience working in constrained locations including excavation in close proximity to existing structures.

k. Example experiences are from proposed subcontractors in lieu of the Offeror.

l. Few or no projects that include repair and/or replacement of existing building systems such as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.3.3 RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 1

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

PAST PERFORMANCE (CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM)

Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the Offeror's demonstrated performance on recent, relevant contracts. Performance Confidence Assessment (Overall) Rating System:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the Offeror’s recent relevant performance record, the Government will make a determination as to the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned.

Where no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will receive a Neutral Confidence (neutral) rating. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

4.4 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 2 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION, PHASING, AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Submit a summary level schedule for the construction of Building 606 Renovation. The schedule must be task oriented, indicating number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved.

Schedule pages must be legible on 11x17 sheets of paper. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10: Project Schedule shall have the same minimal requirements described herein. The length of the schedule can match the proposed contract duration but not exceed it. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it is binding.

The schedule at a minimum must include the following activities.

i. Kick-Off Meeting

ii. Submission of quality control and safety plans

iii. Procurement for material and equipment such as switchgear, mechanical systems and other items that have long lead times as to not delay completion

iv. Site and foundation work

v. Site utilities

vi. Phasing of interior and exterior demolition

vii. Phasing to include no access from north of Building 606 until 15 January 2027

viii. Demolition of existing structural elements, temporary shoring, and installation of new structural elements including but not limited to new spread footings, underpinning, floor slabs, columns, beams, and walls

ix. Building construction addressing at a minimum Steel, Masonry, Mechanical systems, Electrical/Communications, Finishes, Façade Restoration, Roofing, Glazing Installation, Mechanical work

x. Testing and Balancing, Whole Building Commissioning

xi. Other critical closeout activities including as-built drawings and O&M Manuals

xii. Coordination with furniture installation

xiii. Beneficial Occupancy Date

xiv. Post construction commissioning endurance testing

xv. Turn-over of laydown and storage area to Government

xvi. Contract Closeout

Schedule submission must include the following for each activity: activity duration, early start, early finish, late start and late finish, float, predecessors and successors. This information can be provided in table format or graphically.

The time to complete the project and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor's CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor- Government turnover inspection.

The schedule must include all anticipated commissioning activities, and clearly indicate accurate logic and succession of commissioning activities. The schedule must include sufficient time to complete all commissioning requirements in accordance with the RFP.

Submit a narrative discussing the project’s critical path. The critical path must be shown on the summary level schedule. Discuss critical path activities that have the greatest risk to project delivery including destructive testing early. Discuss how your schedule mitigates those risks and what measures you will take to ensure the project is delivered on time. Submit narrative discussing submittal procedures and linkage of submittal register to scheduled activities. Include in the submittal narrative a list of materials and equipment, such as mechanical systems and switchgear, that has long lead times, and how these items will be procured without causing a delay in construction completion. In the narrative, discuss how the schedule accounts for management of the submittal process and lead time is reflected in the submittal register to meet activity early start date. Discuss internal procedures for preventing late submittal submission to minimize time growth. Identify any constraints on the schedule presented (e.g., labor or material availability, weather, permits, etc.).

The narrative and summary schedule must also discuss all preconstruction activities, anticipated durations of the shutdown of utilities/equipment, anticipated closures of roadways and parking.

Submit a phasing plan for construction activities based on constrained location.

Phasing plan must provide a narrative explaining phases of work, identify activities, limits, locations, and durations and include explanations for what work cannot occur during this phase, and how the phased plan will provide an efficient means to accomplish work.

4.4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The SSEB will evaluate the schedule, the narrative, and the phasing plan to assess the offeror’s understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., long lead items, etc.). The SSEB will evaluate the strength of understanding of all elements required in the submission and the offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule, narrative, and phasing plan that offer advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration. Elements the Government may consider advantageous include, but are not limited to:

i. Plan to reduce risks and mitigate schedule growth during demolition of existing structural elements, temporary shoring, and erection sequence of new structural elements including major elements on the project including but not limited to underpinning, footings, floor slabs, columns, beams, and walls.

ii. Minimum 30 Calendar Day Early Contract Completion Date. A logical and realistic approach to early completion much be demonstrated.

iii. Plan to accurately and efficiently address and document existing conditions early on and throughout selective demolition process.

iv. Plan to effectively identify long-lead materials and equipment early on during construction in order to procure and install without causing delays.

v. Planning for seasonally dependent activities such as HVAC commissioning and landscaping establishment

vi. Narratives which demonstrate understanding of USACE schedule management tools and techniques

vii. Narratives which provide actionable insight to the Government

The proposal may be assigned weaknesses for (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

i. Commissioning schedule that is incomplete, has improper logic, or that does not demonstrate sufficient time to complete all commissioning activities.

ii. A phasing plan that that is disorganized or lacking a logical flow of activities leading to potential delays and increased costs.

iii. A phasing plan that does not account for or follow access restrictions and does not allocate sufficient resources to work through restrictive access.

iv. A critical path that has weather sensitive activities scheduled during months that are known to provide less than optimal conditions.

v. A plan that relies on using the northern access point before the set date, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the restrictions.

The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the schedule, the narrative, and the phasing plan focused on logic, task duration and critical path.

The Government will not award to an Offeror who receives an Unsatisfactory rating for this factor.

4.4.2 RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 2

5.2.2.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating

DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high. Proposal is unawardable.

The Government will not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating in this factor.

4.5 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Technical Approach Factor consists of technical approach narratives.

Submission Requirements

Factor 3 proposal must include the following:

i. Describe the approach for the full scope of work in the contract, including a list of specific scope features and address specific constraints. The Government is looking for the proposed construction/installation approach employed by the Offeror in schedule management, material/equipment delivery and management, methods of restoring historic craftmanship, structural retrofit and related phasing, labor management, cost management, site security and personnel assurance.

ii. Describe the technical approach for interior restoration including selective demolition up front, conservation and repair historic fabric including brick, stone masonry and cast stone, restoration of historical stairs, painting, historical preservation, and protection of historical elements and artifacts.

iii. Describe the technical approach for structural retrofit including demolition, shoring, and installation of new structural elements. Include technical approach for sheeting, shoring, bracing, and underpinning that may be necessary to maintain structural integrity.

iv. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the construction.

Describe the role and interaction of the construction team during construction, addressing elements such as schedule management, material/equipment delivery and management, labor management, cost management, site security and personnel assurance system management, progress meetings, documentation and quality control.

v. Describe quality control procedures during construction. Include description of quality control verification and communication plan with the Corps of Engineers regarding submittal register, request for information, payment, change order and schedule control. Particular attention should be paid to effectively incorporating the requirements of the list external requirements into both the Quality Control Plan and Submittal Register.

vi. Describe the contractor’s plan to accomplish mechanical system testing and commissioning within the period of performance.

vii. Describe the contractor’s approach for efficient and early identification of existing conditions including identification, documentation, and remediation of hazardous materials.

4.5.1 Evaluation Criteria

The Government places a higher value on an Offeror that provides proposed methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site fabrication and susceptibility to inclement weather delays. The Government will consider proposed methods to demolish and replace building elements in an organized, contained manner with minimal impact to the remainder of the facility. The Government will consider proposed methods to minimize conflicts between trades on site. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction.

Technical Approach items the Government may consider advantageous include, but are not limited to:

i. Planning for construction taking place on a constrained site.

ii. Planning for construction access and staging with restriction from the north until a set date.

iii. Technical approach that outlines a logical flow of activities, that identifies a feasible staging plan, and labor management.

iv. Description of the contractor’s approach for careful renovation of a historic structure.

The technical approach may be assigned weaknesses for (the following list does not encompass all possible weaknesses):

i. Technical approach that does not discuss traffic flow and restrictive access, does not account for possible bottlenecks and possible necessity to utilize remote staging.

ii. A delivery plan that does not account for increased time and effort required to transport materials to and from the building due to limited staging and access.

iii. Sequence of activities is ineffective.

iv. A technical approach that does not adequately address how different trades and subcontractors will be coordinated to avoid conflicts and delays.

4.5.2 RATING GUIDELINES FOR FACTOR 3

5.3.2.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating

DESCRIPTION

Bl…