Bakersfield_DB_RFQ.doc

RECOVERY: The General Services Administration (GSA) announces an opportunity for Design and Construction Excellence in Public Buildings, GSA will be using funds from the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for this project.

Continuing a legacy of outstanding public architecture that was initiated with the founding of the nation, the General Services Administration (GSA) Design and Construction Excellence Programs seeks to commission our nation’s most talented architects, landscape architects, interior designers, and engineers to design federal buildings of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of true integrated design that balances aesthetics, cost, constructability, and reliability; create environmentally responsible and superior workplaces for civilian Federal employees; and give form and meaning to our democratic values.

In this context, GSA announces an opportunity for Design Excellence in public architecture for performance of Architectural-Engineering Design in accordance with GSA quality standards and requirements. As required by law, the facilities will be required to meet or exceed Federal Energy Goals, including new standards mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and Executive Order 13423. It will also incorporate cost-effective and innovative “green” strategies (all projects are to be LEED certified with a goal of LEED silver). The building must comply with PBS-100 (Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service), U.S. Building Codes, U.S. Government requirements, including Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards (ABAAS) U.,S. Courts Design Guide, USMS Publication 64 and the Interagency Security Committee’s security requirements. The facility will be designed in metric units.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This acquisition encompasses the design and construction of the offices and related space required for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (Magistrate Judge Chamber/Courtroom), U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Probation and U.S. Pre-Trial. The facility will consist of approximately 28,904 rentable square feet (33,400 gross square feet) along with controlled-access non-public parking spaces.

The project shall include the performance of architectural/engineering services based on an approved concept during the Request for Proposal phase of the acquisition process and in accordance with GSA quality standards and requirements for a New U.S. Courthouse in Bakersfield, CA As required by law, the facility will meet federal energy goals and all federal accessibility requirements and standards. The project goal will meet LEED-Silver rating requirements.

SCOPE OF WORK

This project includes the construction of a new Federal Courthouse and related systems, controlled-access parking, and site development. The scope of professional services will require at a minimum: Professional architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, interior design, and related consulting services for concept design documents, design development documents, Building Information Modeling (BIM), metric construction documents, specifications, cost estimates, schedules, space planning, value engineering services, LEED services, computer-aided design and drafting (CADD). The project is also to include GSA design standards for secure facilities; conformance to the P-100 (Facility Standards for Public Buildings), including LEED Silver certification; and customer agency requirements. All design work will be required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The design-builder should incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. The winning firm will also be required to work with artist(s) in support of the Art-in-Architecture Program.

GSA will contract separately for Construction Management as Agent (CMa/CMx) services. The CMa will be involved in the design process to provide construction expertise, estimating and cost information, and functionality and constructability reviews. There will be a formal partnering process throughout the design and construction phases to promote successful project development and execution through voluntary commitments to accomplish established agreed-upon project objectives by all involved parties.

The estimated cost for the design-build delivery of the U.S. Courthouse in Bakersfield and related infrastructure upgrades is between $17,000,000 and $22,000,000.

Opportunities for other than Large Businesses: This procurement will be open to large and small business firms. Any qualified responsible firm, including small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business is encouraged to participate as a prime contractor or as a member of a joint venture with other small businesses, or as a subcontractor Pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d), FAR subpart 19.702 and FAR subpart 19.12. An Offeror that is not a small business concern, offering to perform a contract that has subcontracting possibilities, must submit a Subcontracting Plan that is acceptable to the Contracting Officer which provides subcontracting opportunities to small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. In this procurement, GSA intends to promote contractors’ and subcontractors’ use of registered Apprenticeship Programs.

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

GSA intends to award a firm-fixed price Design-Build Contract based on the approved design documents for the new U.S. Courthouse, Bakersfield, CA, based upon an approved design concept during the acquisition process for this procurement pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures, FAR Subpart 36.3, Source Selection Procedures, FAR subpart 15.3 and the GSA Design Excellence Program. For this contract award process, GSA will issue two Solicitations in sequence: 1) Phase One, and 2) Phase Two. The Phase One procedure (which is analogous to a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is designed to select a “short list” of the most highly qualified Offerors who will be requested to submit Phase Two proposals (the short list will be published in FedBizOpps). All responsible sources may submit a Phase One Proposal. A maximum of up to five (5) firms will be short listed unless the contracting officer determines that a number greater than five (5) is in the Government’s best interest. The most highly rated Offerors will be selected to participate in Phase Two (analogous to Request for Proposals (RFP)).

A best value concept will be applied for evaluation of offers and selection of the successful Offeror for this procurement. The best value approach provides the opportunity to select an Offeror who is not necessarily the lowest-priced 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 being weighed more heavily than price. Therefore, the Offeror's proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms.

In Phase One, the Government shall identify the evaluation factors other than cost or price that will serve as the basis for the determination of the most highly qualified Offerors. Interested Offerors will be required to submit their responses to the RFQ by the due date established in the RFQ. The Government will evaluate all the responses to the RFQ in accordance with the criteria in the RFQ, and advise each Offeror in writing whether it will be invited to participate in the Phase Two process. Offerors that do not submit a timely RFQ response in Phase One will not be allowed to participate in the remaining phase of the procurement.

In Phase Two, the Government will issue the RFP to the most highly qualified Offerors from Phase One and request that they submit Phase Two proposals. Phase Two of the solicitation shall be prepared in accordance with FAR Part 15 and include Phase Two evaluation factors, developed in accordance with FAR 15.304. Phase Two of the solicitation shall require submission of technical and price proposals, which shall be evaluated separately in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government will reserve the right to make an award upon the basis of the initial Phase One and Phase Two offers without discussions.

GSA is hereby requesting Phase One Proposals. This Phase One Solicitation provides Offerors with instructions regarding the submission of their complete Proposals and the evaluation thereof. Utilizing the format prescribed within, Offerors are to provide the requested information and demonstrate their qualifications. Responses shall be as complete and accurate as possible and present data relative to the specific Project under consideration. Offerors shall make every effort to present information clearly and concisely in accordance with the formats described herein.

A. Phase ONE – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Mandatory Requirements: The following evaluation factors will be evaluated on a “go/no-go” basis, i.e.; offerors not meeting all of the following criteria will be eliminated from further consideration. The Contracting Officer will make the initial determination as to offer responsibility/responsiveness, and submit only those offers to the SSEB for full evaluation.

a. Proposal conforms to the requirements of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), including, but not limited to:

· Proof of CCR Registration

· Proof of bonding capacity to $17,000,000 to $22,000,000.

b. Proposal must meet the minimum requirements of the RFP

c. Proposal contains a commitment to maintain the evaluated Design Team intact through the entire design phase.

d. Proposal must commit that design drawings and/or construction documents will be prepared by professional architects and engineers registered in the state of California. The Design Team must have demonstrable experience in designing and delivering projects similar in scope and size.

e. Proposal must contain a commitment that a minimum of 60% of the overall value of the contract shall be contracted with consultants and contractors within the State of California..

f. Proposal includes the required 50 foot set-back required to meet Government security standards for a High Security Building, as described in the most recent Interagency Security Committee (ISC) security survey.

g. Proposal must include controlled-access non-public parking.

EVALUATION FACTORS – GENERAL CONTRACTOR

Factor 1 - Past Performance – This factor considers the quality of the Offeror’s past performance, within the last ten (10) years, in performing contracts for construction with regards to considerations as technical success and customer satisfaction. This factor also considers the quality of the offeror’s performance in carrying out the work required, specifically, workforce management, and scheduling.

1. General Approach:

The offeror demonstrates itself as a construction business providing verifiable information and references for four (4) projects completed over the last ten (10) years that:

a. Demonstrate ability to meet project budget constraints by managing cost changes and claims.

b. Demonstrate ability to effectively coordinate trades.

c. Demonstrate ability to complete projects within the approved schedule.

d. Demonstrate ability to ensure high degree of trade’s craftsmanship.

e. Demonstrate success in achieving subcontractor goals.

The offeror shall also submit at a minimum two references for each similar project. References shall be in letter format and must include the name, address, and current telephone numbers of the person or company providing the reference. The offeror is responsible to ensure that contact information is current and reliable. The Government will consider information provided by reference as well as other relevant information for other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past experience. If negative information is received from sources not noted in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond.

Factor 2 - Qualifications/Experience of General Contractor -

This factor considers the experience and qualifications of the proposed staff and how the offeror organizes and manages the project team. Project Manager’s experience directing similar project work and that the key personnel and subcontractors identified have the qualifications and experience in all areas necessary to effectively perform the required work.

1. General Approach:

Each Offeror shall submit an organizational chart and resumes for each key person on the proposed Project Team as defined below:

a. Project Team organizational chart

b. Project Manager

c. Project Superintendent

d. CPM Scheduler

1) Resumes must include a description of training and experience in respective areas of expertise.

2) Duties of each key individual must be clearly defined.

3) Resumes must describe current and proposed position titles, education, professional licensing, and any personal awards.

4) Resumes should be no longer than 2 pages per individual.

5) Past experience must be attributable to the person named on the resume. Minimum experience permitted is as follows:

Years

A. Project Manager

B. GC Superintendent

C. CPM Scheduler

Factor 3 - Project Experience on Similar Projects -

This factor considers the extent of the offeror’s past experience and the quality of the offeror’s past performance on projects of similar size and complexity. The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) projects of similar scope and complexity.

Each Offeror shall provide:

1) A list of (3) similar projects completed or underway.

2) Narrative summaries of (3) three similar projects, performed within the past ten years, that demonstrates the offeror’s capabilities, technical expertise, and experience managing complex projects with reference to considerations of timeliness and technical success. Interior and exterior photos are required for each project submitted. Limit the summaries to one (1) page each.

Include for each project submitted, title and location, project summary including square feet, contract award amount and final contract amount including all changes, dollar value of work self-performed and the percentage it represents of the final contract amount and project completion date.

For purposes of determining “similar scope and complexity”, the following is a brief description: New construction of a multi-story building that included high-end finishes and security requirements, with a cost range of $17,000,000 to $22,000,000.00.

EVALUATION FACTORS – LEAD DESIGNER

Factor 1 - Past Performance on Design - This factor considers the extent of the lead designer’s past experience and the quality of the lead designer’s past performance.

The offeror submits a lead designer’s portfolio of not more than five projects completed in the last (10) ten years (maximum of five pages per project). The narrative shall address the design approach with salient features for each project and discuss how the client’s program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operational objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. This section of the submission should include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating design excellence, and provide a client reference contact for each project, including name, title, address, email, phone, and fax numbers. A representative floor plan, a site plan, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, and a minimum of two photographs must be included for each project.

Factor 2 - Philosophy and Design Intent - This factor considers the lead designer’s flexibility and attitude toward design.

In the lead designer’s words (maximum of two pages), as related to this project, the offeror shall state: the parameters of an overall design philosophy; his/her approach to the challenge of public architecture and related issues; parameters that may apply in creating a courthouse; and commitment to integrated and sustainable design.

Factor 3 - Lead Designer Profile - This factor considers the lead designer’s credentials and the quality of the lead designer’s past performance.

The offeror submits a biographical sketch of the lead designer (maximum of three pages) including education, professional experience, recognition for design efforts inclusive of the portfolio examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

Factor 4 - Lead Designer Portfolio This factor considers the extent of the lead designer’s ability to demonstrate innovation and creativity.

The offeror submits a portfolio representative of the Lead Designer’s ability to provide design excellence. Address his or her participation in each project. If a single designer, submit a portfolio of up to three projects completed in the last ten years (maximum of five pages per project). If the Lead Designer is a team, submit graphics and a description of up to two projects from each Lead Designer or Lead Design discipline. The narrative shall address the design philosophy with salient features for each project and discuss how the client’s program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operations and maintenance objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc., demonstrating design excellence. Where there is duplication with criteria (1) Past Performance on Design, the Lead Designer shall address his or her participation in the project.

EVALUATION FACTORS – DESIGN TEAM

Factor 1 - Past Performance - This factor considers the extent of the proposed design team’s past experience and the quality of the past performance.

The offeror shall submit at a minimum two (2) references for each design team member. References shall be in letter format and must include the name, address, and current telephone numbers of the person or company providing the reference. References should be provided for all key personnel as identified below under “Design Team Personnel”. The offeror is responsible to ensure that contact information is current and reliable. The Government will consider information provided by reference as well as other relevant information for other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past experience. If negative information is received from sources not noted in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond.

Factor 2 - Qualifications/Experience of Design Team Personnel – This factor considers the experience and qualifications of the proposed staff and how the offeror organizes and manages the project team.

1. General Approach:

Each Offeror shall submit an organizational chart and resumes for each key person on the proposed Design Team as defined below:

a. Design Team organizational chart

b. Lead Designer

c. LEED Architect

d. Engineers (mechanical, structural, civil, electrical, fire protection)

e. Building Envelope Consultant

f. Security/Blast Consultant

g. LEED Consultant

h. High Performance Green Building Consultant

1) Resumes must include a description of training and experience in respective areas of expertise.

2) Duties of each key individual within the Project Team must be clearly defined.

3) Resumes must describe current and proposed position titles, education, professional licensing, and any personal awards.

4) Resumes should be no longer than 2 pages per individual.

5) Past experience must be attributable to the person named on the resume. Minimum experience permitted is as follows:

Years

A. 1. Lead Designer

B. 2. Project Manager

C. 3. LEED Architect

D. 4. Engineers (each)

E. 5. Building Envelope Consultant

F. 6. Security/Blast Consultant

G. 7. LEED Consultant

H. 8. High Performance Green

I. Building Consultant

Factor 3 - Project Experience on Similar Projects –

This factor considers the extent of the offeror’s past experience and the quality of the offeror’s past performance on projects of similar size and complexity. The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) projects of similar scope and complexity for the Design Build Team. If the Project Team has not performed together as a team on prior projects, the offeror must provide detailed information on three (3) projects of similar complexity for each Project Team member that best illustrates that team member’s skills and capabilities.

1. General Approach:

a. A list of (3) similar projects completed or underway by key personnel.

b. Narrative summaries of (3) three similar projects, performed within the past ten years, that demonstrates the offeror’s capabilities, technical expertise, and experience managing complex projects with reference to considerations of timeliness and technical success. Interior and exterior photos are required for each project submitted. The projects should be as similar to the Billings Courthouse project as possible. Limit the summaries to one (1) page each.

Include for each project submitted, title and location, project summary including square feet, contract award amount and final contract amount including all changes, dollar value of work self-performed and the percentage it represents of the final contract amount and project completion date.

For purposes of determining what “similar to the Bakersfield’s Courthouse project”, the following is a brief description of the Bakersfield Courthouse project. This acquisition encompasses the design and construction of the offices and related space required for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (Magistrate Judge Chamber/Courtroom), U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Probation and U.S. Pre-Trial. The facility will consist of approximately 28,904 rentable square feet (33,400 gross square feet) along with controlled-access non-public parking spaces. It will be constructed in the central downtown business district on a site donated by the City of Bakersfield at 19thStreet, between R and S Streets.

B. Proposal Content and Format Instructions

Utilizing the format prescribed below, Offerors are to provide the requested information in a brief and succinct manner making every effort to present information clearly and concisely. Lengthy narratives containing extraneous information are discouraged. All information shall be submitted in English. Proposals that do not follow these Instructions, or otherwise include documentation that is difficult to read, may result in Phase One disqualification or a lower Phase One evaluation rating.

Proposals shall be submitted in the following format. Pages shall be 8-1/2x11 inch white paper, with lettered/numbered dividers for each section to correspond with the evaluation factors. Single sided pages shall be used. Proposal text shall be in a standard font a minimum of ten (10) points or a maximum of twelve (12) points in height, single-spaced. The entire Proposal must be submitted on white paper. Proposal submissions must include one (1) original and four (4) copies contained in 3-ring binders or “GBC” bound. The external cover of each Proposal (original and copies) shall clearly identify the Offeror’s name and clearly be labeled “Proposal for Phase One Solicitation, RFQ – GS-09P-KT-0077.” The information provided in the Proposal shall be easily reproducible by normal black and white photocopying machines.

All signatures on all documents, originals and copies, must be original signatures in ink and in a color other than black.

All Phase One Proposal development costs shall be borne by the Offerors without reimbursement from GSA.

C. Questions to the Phase One REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Submit all questions to the Phase One RFQ in writing to the Contract Specialist, Joseph Nolan on or before 2:00 P.M., PST, July 10, 2009. At GSA’s discretion, GSA may provide written responses to the questions as appropriate. Any such responses will be published on FedBizOpps via an Amendment.

D. PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING

A pre-proposal meeting will be scheduled at a later date. The date, place and time will be sent to FedBizOpps under a separate notification.

E. DATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF SUBMISSION

Qualifications must be received at General Services Administration by July 17, 2009.

Submit Your Proposal To:

U. S. General Services Administration, Design and Construction ATTN: Joseph Nolan 450 Golen Gate Ave., 3rd Floor West

San Francisco, CA 94102-3434 F. Notification of Phase One Qualification and Selection

Upon completion of the Phase One evaluation and selection process, a maximum of up to five (5) firms will be deemed the most highly qualified, unless the contracting officer determines that a number greater than five (5) is in the Government’s best interest. The most highly qualified offerors will be invited to submit proposals in response to the Phase Two Solicitation. Only those Offerors selected to participate in Phase Two will be sent a Phase Two Solicitation after their selection. Unsuccessful Phase One Offerors will be sent a notice of their non-selection at the same time. Phase Two proposals will not be accepted from Offerors that are not invited to submit a proposal.

G. Summary of the Phase Two Solicitation Process The following information is provided in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 36.303-1(a)(3). DO NOT SUBMIT A RESPONSE TO PHASE TWO EVALUATION FACTORS AT THIS TIME. Only firms selected during the Phase One evaluation process will be requested to submit a response to Phase Two.

The most highly qualified Offerors selected in Phase One will be provided the opportunity to submit competitive technical and price Proposals as detailed in the Phase Two Solicitation. Phase Two Proposals will require submittal of design concepts, No-Cost Test Fit, and a project management plan. Exhibit boards and a massing model shall be prepared by each Offeror. Exhibit boards will be limited to ten (10). Phase Two will require an acknowledgment by each Offeror that the selected Offeror will comply with all the mandatory performance criteria, technical specifications, and space program requirements within a pre-established maximum cost for the complete Project. Phase Two shall be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 in accordance with competitive negotiations.

The Evaluation Factors to be used in Phase Two are listed below in descending order of importance. While price is an important consideration, all non-price evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price. However, as proposals become more equal in their technical merit (as determined by the evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors set forth below), the evaluated price becomes more important and may become the determining factor for award. The non-price evaluation factors are set out below in descending order of importance.

Phase Two Evaluation Factors:

Design Concept No-Cost Test Fit Project Specific Project Management Plan

PAGE