VMO00166_Pre_Solicitation_Synopsis_2014.12.pdf

Robert A. Young Federal Building Seismic Renovation

GS-06P-15-GZ-C-002 Project Number VMO 00166

Category: Z- Maintenance, repair and alteration of real property NAICS Code: 236220-Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Size Standard: 36.5 Million Date Published: December 17, 2014 Solicitation Number: GS-06P-15-GZ-C-0002 Project Number: VMO00166 Notice Type: Pre solicitation

Pre solicitation:

This procurement is a 100% Full and Open Competition. This procurement is not a set aside for small business.

Proposed Work:

Seismic Renovation Construction services for a 30% (approximate) Designed Two Phase Design-Build Bridging procurement.

Place of Performance:

Robert A.Young Federal Building, St. Louis Missouri.

Contracting Office Address:

General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service (PBS), Acquisition Management Division (AMD) West Acquisition Branch (6PQW), 1500 E. Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO, 64131-3088

Design Build Contract:

A Design-Build (DB) Offeror is defined as a firm engaged under direct contract to a building owner or client, in this case the United States General Services Administration (GSA), to provide architectural, engineering and construction services required for the project in a single contractual agreement.

The Two Phase design build selection procedures authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2305a and 41 U.S.C. 253m will be used. Two solicitations will be issued in sequence. Proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. One contract will be awarded using competitive negotiation.

Types of Services Required Under the Contract:

A firm fixed price contract (FFP) will result from this solicitation. The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) Code for this project is: 236220, size standard $36.5 million. GSA anticipates issuing the Request for Proposals in January 2015 with receipt of Phase 1 proposals due in February 2015 and Phase 2 proposal due in March 2015. Base Year Performance Period: 1095 calendar days after receipt of notice to proceed (for contract). A Phase 1 pre-proposal conference will be held via conference call. A Phase 2 pre-proposal conference will be held in St. Louis MO. The purpose of this conference is to address general questions regarding the overall project and Request for Proposal (RFP) package.

Per FAR 36.204, the magnitude of this construction project (total of the base contract award and any option periods) is over $10 million.

This project addresses Life Safety issues for Structural and Non-Structural Seismic Renovations.

Structural collapse mitigation includes installation of new micro pile foundations and full height shear walls in structurally important locations throughout the building. Non-structural risk mitigation includes the basic retrofitting of items which may impede safe exit from the facility following a seismic event. These items include: bracing demountable partitions, installing safety film on select glazing, bracing tall file systems along egress paths, installing clips on grid ceiling tiles, installing flexible gas lines, independent light fixture support, bracing of selected ducts and piping, and bracing selected masonry walls, parapets, and unsupported exterior walls. Due to the magnitude of this project in a 98% occupied federal building, the project is anticipated to be phased in a floor by floor approach and contain multiple substantial completion dates.

The DB contractor must have the ability to compile documentation, evaluate significant features and spaces, assess the condition of the building and risk hazards and evaluate local and state codes all while coordinating a working relationship between the Design and Construction teams. For this procurement, the contractor will continue with the 30% design documents what will be issued as part of the Phase Two solicitation, and work through the construction phase until completion. As part of the contract, the DB Offeror shall provide a wide range of management, professional, and construction services. The DB Offeror must maintain a team (consisting of architectural, structural, mechanical, building automation, elevators and electrical reviewers; cost estimators; CPM analysis; field engineers;

field support staff; construction supervisors; construction superintendents; testing engineers/technicians; and other architect, engineer and construction disciplines) with the expertise and capabilities to manage and coordinate the timely and orderly development of the design and construction of the proposed contract. The contractual requirements of the project include, and are not limited to; providing management, administrative, professional, and technical services necessary to perform Architect and Engineering services and project construction for the entire facility. The selected Offeror is responsible for all services needed to perform the requirement including, but not limited to, those described in the statement of work (SOW) such as:

Professional qualifications necessary to satisfy performance of required services.

Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including experience in seismic engineering.

Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time.

Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

General geophysical knowledge of the area and knowledge of the locality of codes.

Production of Design Document Submittals not limited to, the following: Construction Drawings, Specifications, Detailed Construction Cost Estimate and Meeting Minutes.

Offerors are cautioned to read this announcement in its entirety.

Questions concerning this announcement may be submitted in writing, via email, to Michael Flanigan michael.flanigan@gsa.gov and Audra Harrison audra.harrison@gsa.gov . Personal visits with the purpose of discussing this announcement will not be scheduled.

Minimum Submission Requirements:

Notice of Bonding Offerors must provide Bonding capacity in the aggregate amount of $70 million.

Notice of Project Labor Agreement Offerors will be invited to submit a proposal subject to Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements (a PLA proposal), a proposal not subject to PLA requirements or both. If a PLA proposal is accepted by GSA, the apparent successful offeror shall be required, as a pre-condition to award, to execute and deliver to the Contracting Officer a PLA meeting the minimum requirements of the Solicitation.

Notice of Subcontracting Plan A Subcontracting Plan will be required and competition amongst subcontractors will be sustained by adhering to the approved goals.

Notice of Apprenticeship Programs GSA is promoting the use of registered apprenticeship programs on this project. An Apprenticeship Plan is required after the award.

Notice of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Compliance Plan GSA has partnered with the Department of Labor to ensure compliance with equal employment opportunity requirements that apply to this project. An EEO Compliance Plan is required after the award.

This contract will include Buy American Act clause FAR 52.225-11. As a result, one or more of the items under this acquisition is subject to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and Free Trade Agreements.

In Phase 1, Offerors are required to provide bonding capacity (a statement from their federally approved bonding corporate surety), technical approach, technical qualifications (including specialized experience, technical competence, capability to perform, past performance of the Offeror’s team and other appropriate factors excluding cost or price related factors). In Phase II, a shortlist of no more than five Offerors will be scored and ranked according to the technical evaluation factors and standards outlined in the solicitation. Phase II technical proposals will be reviewed and evaluated prior to and separately from the review of the price proposals. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding total price for all options (if applicable) to the total price for the base requirements. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Acceptance of option(s) are at the discretion of the government at award or subsequent of contract award. GSA reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors, (except clarifications in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)) as it deems necessary.)

A stipend for offerors who remain eligible during Phase II is being offered. Offerors that submit incomplete or unacceptable proposals are not eligible for a stipend.

Evaluation Factors and Relative Importance:

This acquisition is conducted utilizing the two-phase selection process in accordance with FAR 36.3. The project delivery method is Design-Build. The government intends to award a firm, fixed-price contract as a result of this source selection. A best value concept will be applied for evaluation of offers and selection of the successful Offeror for this procurement. The best value approach, in accordance with FAR Part 15.101, provides the opportunity to select an Offeror who is not necessarily the lowest-price or the highest technically-ranked. GSA will select the proposal that represents the best value based on the evaluation of technical factors and price, with technical factors when combined being significantly more important than price in accordance with FAR Part 15.101. Offerors are encouraged to submit their proposal on the best terms possible. All Offerors will receive notification as to their disposition for the resultant procurement.

The Government will make award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government, technical factors and cost or price considered. For this solicitation, technical quality is significantly more important than cost or price. As proposals become more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated price becomes more important. The following technical evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance:

A. Evaluation of Submissions in response to the Phase I

Phase I factors and evaluations are independent of the Phase II factors and evaluation. The Phase I factors and evaluation will only be used to evaluate and select firms to compete in Phase II.

Evaluation Criteria

Based upon weighted evaluation criteria the matrix below will be used as a general guide when evaluating proposals:

ADJECTIVALNUMERICAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Excellent 5 Significantly exceeds the standard. Proposal has no deficiencies. Innovative, comprehensive proposal which is complete in all details.

Good 4 Exceeds the standard in some areas. Proposal has no deficiencies. Proposal is in clearly, definable detail.

Acceptable 3 Meets the standard.

Marginal 2 Does not meet the standard. Proposal contains some minor deficiencies.

Poor 1 Does not meet the standard. Proposal contains significant deficiencies.

Proposal lacks essential information to substantiate data presented.

Unacceptable 0 Fails to meet the standard. Major revision required to make the proposal acceptable.

The following criteria represent the factors for Phase I.

The factors below demonstrate the Offeror has experience successfully completing similar projects.

“Similar” is defined as Design-Build or Bridging Design-Build structural renovation projects of multi-story construction containing a minimum of 500,000 gross square feet. Examples of such “similar” building structures include courthouses, hospital facilities, Class A office space, research laboratories, and government facilities with a minimum construction cost of $25 million. Projects submitted that contain any of the following would exceed the standard:

Historic building projects Work completed while the building was fully or partially occupied

Factor 1: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence Factor 2: Technical Approach Factor 3: Past Performance of Offeror’s Team

Factor 1: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. This factor will evaluate the specialized experience and technical competence of the Offeror’s Design-Build Team, including the designer and constructor. For this factor, Offerors must identify by name its member firms, both designer (Architect-Engineer) and constructor. Accordingly, this factor will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s experience with similar project types.

Experience will be evaluated based on the information received for this factor.

Information Required: Offerors shall address the following in its submission for this evaluation factor:

Factor 1a: Provide three (3) similar projects, of which at least two (2) was substantially or contractually completed within the last ten (10) years of this solicitation issue date. Provide the name and location of each project along with a brief description of the scope, including the date the original building was constructed. Provide the project delivery method of each project (design-build or bridging design-build) and the name of the designer (Architect/Engineer) and of the constructor for each project along with a brief description of their roles and responsibilities.

1. Describe how each project is similar to this project requirement in this solicitation. Submit the description of any unusual physical site constraints that had to be overcome for each project.

2. Provide the contract award amount at time of initial award and final contract amount (including all modifications) for each project.

Factor 1b: Describe Offeror’s knowledge of and experience with the St Louis, Missouri local subcontractors, the general area labor market, and city and state government.

Standard for Evaluation

The standard is met when:

a. The Offeror submits three (3) similar projects, of which at least two (2) was substantially or contractually completed within the last ten (10) years of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issue date.

Name and location of each project along with a brief description of the scope, including the date the original building was constructed is provided. The project delivery method of each project (design-build or bridging design-build) is provided. Name of the designer (Architect/Engineer) and of the constructor for each project along with a brief description of their roles and responsibilities.

1. The Offeror describes how each project is similar to this project requirement in this solicitation. Offeror submits description of any unusual physical site constraints that had to be overcome for each project.

2. The contract award amount at time of initial award and final contract amount (including all modifications) is provided for each project.

b. Offeror shows knowledge of and experience with the St Louis, Missouri local subcontractors, the general area labor market, and city and state government by illustrating past relationships with local subcontractors.

Factor 2: Technical Approach. This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach to performing site investigation, design and construction document preparation, project management, construction, contract administration, and how the Offeror plans to achieve the project requirements.

Information Required: Offerors shall address the following in its submission for this evaluation factor:

Factor 2a: General Approach: Offerors shall describe their general approach to managing and delivering design-build projects of similar complexity. In describing this general approach, Offerors should address such areas as risk analysis/management/mitigation; cost estimating and how costs are controlled; schedule development and monitoring; and, site access. Offerors are encouraged to provide examples of where they have successfully utilized such approaches.

Factor 2b: Organizational Chart and Explanatory Statement: Offerors shall provide a detailed organizational chart that clearly delineates the following:

The name of the design-build entity with which the Government will enter into a contract;

The name of the Constructor;

The name of the Design firm (Architect/Engineer)

In addition, Offerors shall provide a statement that explains the general organizational structure of the proposed entity and a detailed description of the proposed overall project team and development responsibilities for each individual and/or firm.

Factor 2c: Resource Capacity: Offerors shall describe/verify the capacity of the project team members to be available on this project as proposed during the term of the contract. Offerors shall provide its means, methods, and processes used to manage clients, trade subcontractors, consultants, and other entities during Design Phase Services and Construction Phase Work. Offerors also shall address their resources from the standpoint of information technology. Offerors are advised that a contract requirement will be the use of the Government’s electronic Project Management (ePM) application to distribute deliverables, and communicate and coordinate its work activities. Offerors will be required to use the ePM system to its fullest extend for all of its work activities. Offerors shall discuss whether they have experience with electronic project management systems on past projects, and, if they have had to learn an owner’s similar application.

Factor 2d: Coordination: Offerors shall provide a written narrative that describes its means, methods, and processes used to manage clients, trade subcontractors, consultants, and other entities. Of particular importance will be the Offeror’s experience with managing and coordinating design services within a Design-Build contract. Offerors may submit flow charts and illustrations of the processes or systems.

Factor 2e: Methodologies for Claims Avoidance, Delays, and Change Management: Offerors shall provide a written narrative that describes its means, methods, and processes used to manage changes.

Offerors shall also describe the types of changes, claims and delays associated with this type of project, and shall also describe methodologies it will follow to avoid such causes. Offerors shall list (a minimum of

2) projects where their best practices and methodologies were implemented and describe what was done and whether or not the outcome of avoidance of delays and claims was achieved. Offerors may submit flow charts and illustrations of the processes.

Standard for Evaluation

This standard is met when:

a. The Offerors general approach addresses risk analysis/management/mitigation; cost estimating and how costs are controlled; and, schedule development and monitoring is provided.

b. An Organizational Chart is provided that explains the general organizational structure of the proposed entity along with a detailed description of the proposed overall project team and development responsibilities for each individual and/or firm.

c. A written narrative is provided that describes the Offeror’s capacity of its member team to be available during the term of the contract. Offeror describes its means, methods, and processes used to manage clients, trade subcontractors, consultants, and other entities. Offeror describes its experience using electronic project management system.

d. A written narrative is provided that describes the means, methods, and processes used for coordination on a project. Two project examples were provided to show best practices.

e. A written narrative is provided that describes the means, methods, and processes used to manage changes. Two project examples were provided to show best practices.

Factor 3: Past Performance of Offeror’s Team. This factor will evaluate the extent to which the past performance of the Offeror’s Team, including the designer and constructor have a successful and satisfactory performance record on similar projects providing design and construction services over the last ten (10) years. For this factor, Offerors must identify by name its member firms, both designer and constructor. Accordingly, this factor will demonstrate the extent to which the Offeror has a successful and satisfactory track record on similar projects.

Past performance will be evaluated based on the information received for this factor and references.

Information Required: Offeror shall address the following in its submission for this evaluation factor:

Factor 3a: Offeror shall provide three (3) same or similar projects completed, within the last ten years of this RFQ issue date. The Offeror may use the same projects submitted in Factor 1 if they are substantially or contractually completed. The Offeror is defined as the design-builder that will contract with the Government. Provide the name and location of each project along with a brief description of the scope, including the date the original building was constructed. Provide the name of the member firms for each project. At a minimum, the designer (Architect/Engineer) and constructor must be provided. In addition, provide the following information for each project submitted for evaluation:

1. Demonstrate how each project is similar and comparable in scope and complexity to the project requirement for this RFQ.

2. Provide the contract award amount at the time of initial award and the final contract amount (including all modifications) for each project. Provide how the costs were managed during the execution of each project. Describe all scope changes during each project, who initiated them and how they were managed.

3. Provide the performance period at the time of initial award and the actual performance period for the contract of each project. Provide how the schedule was managed during the execution of each project, and if the performance period increased, provide the reasons why it did so.

4. Describe any key features or constraints that required additional effort, creativity, or innovations to successfully complete each project (e.g., a limited budget, accelerated schedule, difficult site, unusual functional requirements, or phased construction in an occupied space).

5. Provide a minimum one (1) reliable* reference to complete the Questionnaire for each project submitted in accordance with the Instructions for the Questionnaire.

Design Phase Services and Construction Phase Work can be represented by a single project and Offerors are encouraged to submit projects wherein both types of services were provided on the same project. In cases where the Offerors member teams (designer and constructor) have not worked together on similar projects the Offeror may submit projects that demonstrate the work of either the designer or constructor or both.

*The term reliable relates to the ability of GSA to readily contact these references.

Factor 3b: Provide a list of all claims submitted by the Offeror's member teams with the last five years.

For each claim briefly describe the claim and the final resolution, if already resolved.

Standard for Evaluation

The standard is met when:

a. Offeror shall provide three (3) same or similar projects completed, within the last ten (10) years of this RFQ issue date. The Offeror may use the same projects submitted in Factor 1 if they are substantially or contractually completed.

1. Offeror demonstrates how each project is similar and comparable in scope and complexity to the project requirement for this RFQ.

2. Offeror provides the contract award amount at the time of initial award and the final contract amount (including all modifications) for each project; how the costs were managed during the execution of each project; and describes all scope changes during each project, who initiated them and how they were managed.

3. Offeror provides the performance period at the time of initial award and the actual performance period for the contract of each project; provides how the schedule was managed during the execution of each project, and if the performance period increased, provides the reasons why it did so.

4. Offeror describes any key features or constraints that required additional effort, creativity, or innovations to successfully complete each project (e.g., a limited budget, accelerated schedule, difficult site, unusual functional requirements, or phased construction in an occupied space).

5. Offeror had at least one (1) reliable references complete the Questionnaire for each project submitted and sent to GSA in accordance with the Instructions for Questionnaire.

b. A list of all claims by the Offeror's member teams with the last five years was submitted. For each claim a description of the claim and the final resolution, if already resolved, was submitted.

B. Evaluation of Submissions in response to the Phase II Evaluation

The Phase II evaluation will be based on technical factors as well as price. Technical factors are significantly more important than price and the technical factors will be weighted. The price proposal will include pricing of the DB’s cost for Design/Build Phase Work including profit, and other overhead costs, change order markup and extended overhead costs. The price proposal shall be segregated from the technical proposal. Proposals will be evaluated and scored according to technical evaluation factors and standards outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The technical proposals will be reviewed and evaluated prior to and separately from the review of price proposals. If the Contracting Officer determines that a competitive range will be established, and discussions are to be held, those Offerors within the competitive range will be advised of technical deficiencies and significant weakness noted by the technical advisors and the SSEB prior to review of the price proposal, and given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies, if the SSEB determines this to be in the best interest of GSA.

As part of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer and Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct interviews. However, GSA reserves the right to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions or oral presentations (clarifications may be made as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Interviews, if held, will be conducted at GSA’s Office in Kansas City, MO. Interviews, negotiations and/or discussions, if held, will only be held with Offerors that are in the competitive range of the Phase II evaluation. Negotiations, if conducted, will be conducted by the Contracting Officer or their authorized representative. GSA may negotiate the DB Contractor’s fee for Construction Phase Work including profit, general conditions and other overhead costs as well as any other aspect of the offer as deemed necessary. After technical and price evaluations, discussions and/or negotiations, and revised proposals, if required, the SSA will select the Offeror whose offer is the best value and most advantageous to the Government.

The following criteria represent Phase II factors. The Offerors may use projects submitted in Phase I to respond to the Phase II evaluation factors.

Evaluation Criteria

SSEB will consider the following factors in order to determine an Offeror success in completing similar projects. “Similar” is defined as Design-Build or Bridging Design-Build renovation type projects of multi-story construction containing a minimum of 500,000 gross square feet. Examples of such “similar” building structures include courthouses, hospital facilities, Class A office space, research laboratories, and government facilities with a minimum construction cost of $25 million. Projects submitted that contain any of the following would exceed the standard:

Historic building projects Work completed while the building was fully or partially occupied

Factor 1: Quality of Concept Design Factor 2: Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel Factor 3: Management Plan Factor 4: Project Labor Agreement

Factor 1: Quality of Concept Design: Prepare and submit for GSA’s evaluation, a plan for structural and non-structural renovations to be implemented at the Robert A Young Federal Building. The Design presentation shall include:

BIM Model in Autodesk REVIT 2015 o A Level of Development (LOD) 200 BIM model in REVIT 2015 of the existing conditions and preliminary seismic strengthening component locations shall be made available for the D/B Teams' use.

o The provided BIM model may contain MEPFP components (specifically) that are at a higher LOD than other model components based on field observations at specific locations. These MEPFP components are represented only as conflicts at preliminary structural retrofit locations and do not indicate the origins or terminations of MEPFP systems.

Preliminary project implementation schedule and sequencing approach.

Floor Plans and Reflected Ceiling Plans (if needed) of all floors and shear wall locations that clearly identify locations of all structural shear wall additions and foundation additions/modifications. All plans shall be of similar scale and layout as the Bridging Documents that were prepared for the D/B Teams.

Sections/elevations of all seismic strengthening components, including basement and foundation modifications or additions. Include preliminary details of connections to foundations, floor plates, and roof.

Preliminary calculations, analytical approach, and a structural narrative describing the analytical approach for design of the seismic strengthening system proposed.

A narrative in 10 point font of no more than 5 pages per floor for the Basement through F10 and 5 pages for the tower floors F11 through F20 describing significant conflicts and proposed resolutions of MEPFP systems, elevators and equipment; shutdowns, sequencing, and tenant impacts related to the MEPFP systems.

Bracing details for MEPFP equipment and non-structural partitions.

A narrative in 10 point font of no more than five pages, describing how the proposed structural and non-structural approaches will be implemented. Construction sequencing or phasing should be addressed and any anticipated building shut downs. Within this narrative, the Offeror should provide a detailed analysis of the expected swing space needed to implement their proposed plan.

A narrative of no more than three pages in 10 point font, describing the quality of the finishes that will be replaced and any related assumptions or pricing allowances included in the Offeror’s price proposal.

A Schedule of Values for all structural and non-structural work that is assumed and included in the Offeror's price proposal.

Any additional information provided other than that described above will not be evaluated. The Offeror’s pricing proposal shall be based on the scope and quality of materials, finishes, and furnishings shown in the Offeror’s proposed conceptual design drawings and narratives submitted as part of this factor.

Standard for Evaluation

This standard is met when:

All required information (drawings and narratives) are provided and the proposed design concept meets requirements of GSA Design Standard (P100), and ASCE 41-13.

Factor 2: Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel: This factor considers the qualifications and experience of key personnel on the Offeror’s team. The RFP requests resumes or other relevant documentation for certain positions. The Offeror may submit additional resumes as it believes necessary to fully describe the talents and depth of their team. The qualification of each individual is based upon the skill, experience and education level of the individual. This factor will be evaluated based upon the written responses to the RFP by the Offeror. The scope of this project requires construction-related experience in key positions to ensure reasonable expectation of project success. At a minimum, key personnel are the Designer of Record, Design Manager, Construction Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control Superintendent.

Note: The DB Contractor will not be allowed to substitute key personnel during the course of the project without prior approval by the Contracting Officer or his/her representative. All substitutions MUST have equal or better qualifications and experience.

Qualifications and Experience will be evaluated based on the SF 330 and the information received for this factor.

Information Required: Offerors shall address the following in its submission for this evaluation factor:

a. Provide a project organization chart identifying how the design-builder will organize and staff the project from project award and inception of design through construction completion. The chart should identify the title of key positions in the organization, and the names of the persons proposed to fill those positions. At a minimum, the chart should address design management, project management, project superintendence, quality assurance/control (both design and construction), and project controls. The reporting relationships between these functions and the company's senior management should also be defined. By including this information in this proposal, the Offeror is making a commitment to assign specific individuals to specific roles in this project, and that commitment is a consideration in the evaluation of the proposal. Provide a narrative on the project organization. It should define the roles, responsibilities and authority to be delegated to the incumbent of each position, and discuss how work flows through the organization

b. Provide a one-page resume for each person shown in the organization chart, highlighting previous work experience similar to this project. For each proposed key person, identify their proposed duties in the project. Identify the person as a part-time or full-time employee and the firm that person is employed (i.e. Designer or Constructor). Offeror must state how long the key personnel have worked for the firm. Indicate the specific geographic location of employment where each proposed employee is located at the time of response to this announcement. Also include the amount of time anticipated to be spent on-site and the amount of time to be spent working in the home office on this project. State which personnel will be involved in the design phase and which will be involved in the construction phase.

c. Provide a staffing summary for the design-builder that identifies the proposed design and construction staffing for this project. The summary should include the number of people employed, the number that would be available for this project, and the estimated number required for this project. If design and construction are being provided by separate companies, provide a staffing summary for each company.

d. Indicate how the Project Manager guides the work; how change orders, claims and disputes will be handled; and how shop drawings, submittals, etc. are coordinated.

e. For each proposed key person, describe their knowledge and experience with local markets, subcontractors, the general labor market, and local government in the location where the project is being built.

Standard for Evaluation

The standard is met when:

The offer provides a project organization chart, a narrative on the project organization, a one-page resume for each person shown in the organization chart (at a minimum the qualifications, experience, education, background for the Project Manager, Superintendent and Quality Control Superintendent), a staffing summary, a discussion of how the work is managed, and a discussion of how each key person has experience in local markets.

Factor 3: Management Plan: This factor considers the Offeror's approach to planning, organizing and controlling the execution of the concept design services, and design-build services on the project that maximizes the opportunity for successful completion of the project on time, on budget, within quality expectations, and to include building occupant satisfaction.

Information Required:

a. Provide a not-to-exceed 5-page narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to planning, organizing and controlling the execution of the design and construction on the project. The plan should identify how the Offeror plans to implement management techniques to ensure the success and quality of the design and construction of this project. Provide a proposed project schedule in Gantt chart format for execution of the design-build project from award of the contract to completion. The proposed schedule should provide sufficient detail to illustrate the proposed flow of design and construction activities for the project with the overall duration clearly shown.

b. Provide a narrative on the project schedule that highlights key assumptions on which the schedule is based, and discusses the Offeror's strategy for sequencing the work. The narrative should also discuss any significant contingency issues that could potentially delay overall progress on the project, and what actions the Offeror would propose to mitigate the impact on project completion.

c. Provide a not-to-exceed 2-page narrative on how the project will be executed in a fully occupied building without causing disruption to the daily operation of the building and its tenants.

d. Provide a narrative outlining how the Offeror intends to manage the responsibilities of its team.

e. The Offeror’s plan must also include:

● Coordination of trade subcontractors and suppliers to minimize installation conflicts and ensure that specified products, and installation means and methods comply with contract requirements;

● Monitoring construction schedule and costs, including change orders, to ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget, to include describing construction means and methods in the form of a network analysis schedule.

● An example of a Quality Control Plan. (Not subject to page limitation)

● An example of a Safety Plan. (Not subject to page limitation)

● Discussion related to the management of extended overhead costs in the event of contract modifications.

The standard is met when:

The Offeror provides the required narratives and examples of a Quality Control Plan and Safety Plan.

Factor 4: Project Labor Agreement A proposal submitted subject to the PLA requirements set forth in this solicitation will receive full credit under this evaluation factor. A proposal submitted not subject to such PLA requirements will receive no credit under this evaluation factor.

Cost and Price Evaluation.

In Phase II, the price proposal shall include pricing for Phase Services AND Construction Phase Work, including pricing for overhead and profit. A proposal may be rejected at any time should it exceed the funding authorization. Cost or price will not be assigned a numeric weight, point score or adjectival rating.

The Contracting Officer will use cost and/or price analysis to evaluate the proposed price. The proposed price is also a measure of price realism that illustrates the offeror's understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. The price/cost proposals will only be considered after all technical evaluations have been completed. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding total price for all options (if applicable) to the total price for the base requirements.

Use of Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) When responding to the upcoming solicitation, Offerors should fully address their capability with regard to each of the above stated submission requirements and evaluation criteria. Offerors are solely responsible for demonstrating that they meet/exceed the evaluation criteria.

The solicitation will be available through the Federal Business Opportunities website (FedBizOpps.gov).

FedBizOpps is a secure website designed to safeguard sensitive but unclassified (SBU) acquisition information. It is the vendors responsibility to monitor FedBizOpps for any changes and/or conditions.

Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this announcement shall complete electronic Annual Representations and Certifications in conjunction with required Entity Contractor Registration through https://www.sam.gov website. No federal material can be downloaded until you have registered. There is no cost to register or download information.