Request for Qualifications Final Finall.doc

Phase 1 - Request for Qualifications Design/Build of

Sol. # GS-09P-09-KTC-0078 New U.S. Federal Courthouse

GSA Pacific Rim, Region 9 Bakersfield, California

Phase 1 - Request for Qualifications Design/Build of

Sol. # GS-09P-09-KTC-0078 New U.S. Federal Courthouse

GSA Pacific Rim, Region 9 Bakersfield, California

Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

Solicitation No. GS-09P-09-KTC-0078

DESIGN/BUILD OF A NEW U.S.

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA

RECOVERY PROJECT

PHASE 1 RFQ TECHNICAL

SUBMITTAL

JULY 2009

PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE , REGION 9

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION

Building for the People of the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 — PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

1.0 Project Overview

1.1 Organization of RFQ

1.2 Services to be Provided

1.3 Project Summary

1.4 Summary of Acquisition Strategy

1.5 Source Selection Evaluation Criteria

SECTION 2 — QUALIFICATIONS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2.0 Estimated Award Date

2.1 Estimated Completion Date

2.2 RFQ/RFP Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award

2.3 Questions, Clarifications and Interpretations

2.4 Required Technical Data for Qualifications Submittal

2.5 Qualifications Submittal Preparation

2.6 Qualifications Submittal Delivery Date and Location

2.7 Qualifications Submittal Sealing

2.8 Phase 1 Submission

APPENDIX A — PAST PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B — PROJECTS

APPENDIX C – FAR REGULATIONS

SECTION 1 - PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 1.0. Project Overview Continuing a legacy of outstanding public architecture that was initiated with the founding of the nation, the General Services Administration (GSA) Design Excellence Program seeks to commission our nation's most talented architects, landscape architects, interior designers, engineers, and contractors 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 contemporary form and meaning to our democratic values.

This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is issued by the Public Buildings Service of the United States General Services Administration (GSA), Pacific Rim, Region 9, hereinafter referred to as the "Government", in order to obtain the services of a Design/Build Contractor also referred to as Offeror or Contractor, who shall be singularly responsible to satisfy the terms of the resulting contract. This contract is for the Contractor, who will provide design/build services for the design and construction of the New Bakersfield Courthouse.

The contract will be a Firm Fixed-Price Contract as specified under FAR Subpart 16.2. The contractor for this project will be competitively chosen using Source Selection procedures in accordance with FAR Subpart 15 in conjunction with the "Best Value process." GSA will evaluate all responses using the criteria stated herein.

1.1. Organization of RFQ

This RFQ is composed of two (2) Sections and three (3) Appendices: Section 1 includes the Project Overview and Services to be provided. Section 2 contains Qualifications Submittal Requirements. Appendix A contains the contractor past performance questionnaire form. Appendix B contains the projects submittal. Appendix C contains relevant Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) related to the RFQ process and the American Reinvestment Recovery Act (ARRA).

1.2. Services to be Provided

The Contractor services shall include, but are not limited to: design and construction of the facilities, administration of the construction contract and all subcontracts, coordination of regular construction meetings, CPM scheduling, maintaining of construction records, including daily logs and monthly reports, monitoring of construction costs, all services included in the contract documents, building commissioning and turnover to designated facility management staff, warranties and guarantees and other required supplemental services as required under the contract.

The Contractor will provide professional, technical, administrative, and clerical personnel as needed to perform all required services including, but not limited to, those described in this Solicitation.

1.3. Project Summary

The purpose of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is to short list a maximum of five (5) firms to proceed to the Phase Two process. In the Phase Two process a Design Excellence Design Build Team (DBT) will be selected, either one firm or joint venture, to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment and services necessary to complete design and construction of the New Bakersfield U.S. Federal Courthouse in Bakersfield, California. Funding for this project will come from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.

The project must be designed and constructed to provide a fully functioning facility within the designated limitations of estimated construction contract price and scope. This project includes completion of design/build construction documents and construction of a new U.S.

Federal Courthouse in Bakersfield’s central business district.

During Phase Two, the General Services Administration (GSA) will be sending out Requests for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competitive design/build proposals from the short listed firms for a new Courthouse in Bakersfield, California. This courthouse will include one Magistrate courtroom and chamber, district clerk's office, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Pretrial Services and U.S. Probation, and surface parking in a total of approximately 33,400 gross square feet.

The scope of services will require as a minimum: Architecture and engineering services, BIM modeling, Renderings, Construction drawings in CAD, Specifications, Cost estimates, Value engineering, Project scheduling, Submittal preparation, Construction quality control, Construction Documentation and preparation of record drawings in CAD and Commissioning. This project is required to include sustainable design elements as specified in the RFP documents to meet a Silver Certification Level according to the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System. It will be the responsibility of the Offeror to design and construct this project under GSA's design and construction excellence guidelines and complete construction while meeting all the specified project requirements within budget.

The Government intends to have a completion of all elements of work accomplished 24 to 30 months after award. GSA and the primary tenant agency, the U.S. District Courts, are endeavoring to work collaboratively with the design/build team in order to deliver this outcome. The work will require coordination with GSA Design and Construction, future building tenants, other Government contractors and stakeholders. The capability to sequence and schedule the work while completing quality control for the design and construction efforts are required.

1.4. Summary of Acquisition Strategy

This procurement will be for Full & Open Competition. The design-build contract shall be awarded as a Best Value procurement to the most highly qualified team by evaluating both price and technical factors. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation process described in FAR Part 15.

This procurement will be conducted as a Two-phase process. Phase One evaluates initially the technical qualifications, experience and the past performance of the design and construction teams formed by each potential offeror for this procurement. Phase-Two will evaluate the building design concept and all other evaluation factors. These two Phases are further described below in paragraph 1.5 Source Selection Evaluation Criteria.

1.5. Source Selection Evaluation Criteria

The procurement for this solicitation will be conducted in two (2) phases. The following criteria represent the technical factors that will be used by GSA's Source Selection Evaluation Board in evaluating the Offeror's submission. Technical Qualifications submittals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine the short-listed offerors will submit competitive proposals for Phase Two. Information submitted by the qualified firms in Phase Two will be evaluated to determine the Contractor that offers the best value to the Government.

1.5.1. Phase One — Technical (RFQ) Submittal: The technical factors for Phase One are as follows:

Mandatory Requirements: The following 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.

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

Proof of CCR Registration

Proof of bonding capacity for construction between $17 to $22 Million.

Proposal must meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ, Phase One.

Proposal must contain a commitment to maintain the evaluated Design Team intact through the entire design/build phase.

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, complexity and size.

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

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.

In accordance with FAR 15.305 for all factors on past performance the following applies to all instances: “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favourably or unfavourably on past performance.”

Phase One – TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

General Contractor/Design Builder

Past Performance

Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel

Project Experience on Similar Projects

Lead Designer

Past Performance on Design

Philosophy and Design Intent

Lead Designer Profile

Lead Designer Portfolio

Design Team

EVALUATION FACTORS – GENERAL CONTRACTOR/DESIGN/BUILDER

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 of two references for each similar project as defined below. 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 performance. 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 Key Personnel This factor considers the experience and qualifications of the proposed key personnel.

1. General Approach

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

a. Project Manager

b. Project Superintendent

c. 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 on projects of similar scope, size and complexity as defined below. The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3) projects of similar size, 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. 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 this solicitation similar project means:

Projects of “similar scope and complexity” for new construction of a multi-story building that included high-end finishes and security requirements (I.e., including but not limited to: court houses, office buildings, hospitals, etc.,) with a minimum cost of $17,000.000.

EVALUATION FACTORS – LEAD DESIGNER

Factor 1 - Past Performance on Design This factor considers the extent of the lead designer’s past performance on projects of similar scope, size and complexity.

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.

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 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 team personnel and how the offeror organizes and manages the project team.

1. General Approach:

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

a. Lead Designer

b. LEED Architect

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

d. Building Envelope Consultant

e. Security/Blast Consultant

f. LEED Consultant

g. 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 5

F. 6. Security/Blast Consultant

G. 7. LEED Consultant

H. 8. High Performance Green 3

I. Building Consultant 3 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. Interior and exterior photos are required for each project submitted. The projects should be as similar to the Bakersfield 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.

Projects of “similar scope and complexity” for new construction of a multi-story building that included high-end finishes and security requirements (including but not limited to court houses, office buildings, hospitals, etc.,) with a minimum cost of $17,000.000.

Following the evaluation and scoring of the Phase One technical submittals, a short list of offerors will be established, in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3.

A maximum of five (5) firms of the highest rated Offerors will be selected and given the opportunity to submit a response to the evaluation criteria and cost proposals in Phase Two. Final selection and basis for award of the Design/Build Contract will be on the basis of qualifications, technical quality, price, and other salient factors considered to be in the Government's best interests. If awarded the contract, the Offeror shall complete the design and construction documents and construct the facility in compliance with these completed requirements.

The evaluation process will include consideration of written responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire, along with follow up verbal contacts to references. Written responses from other sources determined knowledgeable of the past performance of the Offeror may also be considered.

1.5.2. Phase 2 — Design Excellence Design and Cost/Price Proposal: During this phase the Government will request price submissions from short listed offerors (maximum of five (5). The factors governing Phase Two are as follows:

Design Concept

No-Cost Test Fit

Project Management Plan

Prior to award to the final offeror selected from the short-listed offerors and; if it is a non-small business (large) Offeror, a proactive Subcontracting Plan must be submitted pursuant to FAR Subpart 19.7 encompassing the Socio-Economic Program minimum goals for Small Business which should include Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Women-Owned Business, HUBZone Business, Service Disabled Veteran-owned business and Veteran-owned. The minimum requirements of the Subcontracting Plan will be provided in Phase Two. If successful negotiations cannot be reached with the selected offeror prior to award, the government reserves the right to move to the next highest ranked offeror from the short-listed offerors for award.

The Phase Two proposal will include a cost/price proposal that shall reflect the contractor's Firm-Fixed-Price Proposal for Design/Build Services. The Government estimates the cost for this project is between $17 million to $22 million.

The combination of each ranked factor will determine the Contractor's overall technical ranking. Upon evaluation of all factors and any revised technical and price proposals, the Government will award to the firm that offers the best overall value.

END OF SECTION 1

SECTION 2 QUALIFICATIONS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2.0. Estimated Award Date The Government anticipates award of this contract no later than December 2009; with the expectation that the Design/Build Team will commence services within 15 calendar days after issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The Government does not guarantee award within this period nor shall the Government be liable for any costs should award occur before or after this period.

2.1 Estimated Completion Date The project shall be completed based upon a 24 to 30 month schedule; subject to the issuance of the Notice-to-Proceed (NTP) award date noted above. (This completion milestone includes all aspects of the design and construction).

2.2 RFQ/RFP Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award A Design Excellence Design/Build Team is being solicited through this Request for Qualifications/Proposal (RFQ/RFP) process. A contract will be awarded to the firm that successfully completes Phases One and Two and is determined to provide the best overall Design Excellence value to the Government, including technical and price considerations. Specific details relating to the Source Selection process are set forth in this RFQ (Phase One) and further to the short-listed firms in the RFP (Phase Two).

2.3 Questions, Clarifications and Interpretations Any prospective Offeror desiring an explanation or interpretation of the RFQ, etc. must request so in writing and shall direct such inquiries via mail, email or fax to:

Attention: Joseph Nolan General Services Administration Design and Construction Division (9PCG) 450 Golden Gate Ave., 3rd Floor West San Francisco, CA 94102

Fax: (415) 522-3470

Joseph.Nolan@gsa.gov Such requests must be received no later than ten (15) calendar days prior to the submission date, so as to allow a reply to reach all prospective Offerors before the submission of their qualifications. Oral explanation or instructions given before award of a contract will not be binding. Any information given a prospective Offeror concerning a solicitation will be furnished promptly to all other prospective Offerors as an amendment to this solicitation, if that information is necessary for submitting qualifications, or if the lack of it would be prejudicial to other prospective Offerors.

2.4 Required Technical Data for Qualifications Submittal Offerors are advised that the required data will be utilized for review and evaluation and used for determination of a "Quality Rating" by a Technical Evaluation Board and that all data submitted for consideration under this RFQ will be reviewed only for the purposes required for evaluation and award. The Government will not make assumptions concerning the Offeror's intent, capabilities, facilities, or experiences. Clear identification is the sole responsibility of the Offeror.

2.5 Qualifications Submittal Preparation Instructions for the preparation and organization of the Qualification submission are included herein. The documents shall be submitted as summarized below and as further required by this solicitation.

2.5.1 Phase One — Submittal for Technical Evaluation

General Contractor/Design/Builder

Lead Designer

Past Performance on Design

Philosophy and Design Intent

Lead Designer Profile

Lead Designer Portfolio

Design Team

2.5.2 Qualifications Submission Information (Phase One)

A. RFQ Submission

To aid in the evaluation of the Offeror's submission, the Qualifications submittal shall be clearly and concisely prepared in writing. Telephone, telefax, and telegraphic offers will not be accepted. The Offeror shall include all information required by this solicitation with pages numbered and logically assembled. Each copy of the Offeror's Qualifications submittal shall identify the name of the Offeror, the date of submission, and the solicitation number.

Offerors are advised that hand carried submittals must be complete and must be received at the place designated in this RFQ before the time and date set for receipt of the Qualifications submittal. Hand carried as well as mailed submissions are subject to the provisions in FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition.

This RFQ Phase One does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the submission of the RFQ, nor does it commit the Government to procure or contract for said services. The Contracting Officer is the only individual who can commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with this proposed procurement.

The content of the Offeror's submissions will remain confidential until an award is made. There will be no public opening of the Qualifications submittals. In accordance with FAR 15.306 (e) (4) name of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance shall not be disclosed.

2.5.3 Submission of Offers in the English Language

Offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall be in the English language. Offers received in any other language than English will be rejected.

2.6 Qualifications Submittal Delivery Date and Location Phase 1 Qualification submittals must be delivered to the Government location listed below by 2:00 PM PST on August. 3, 2009:

Attention: Joseph Nolan General Services Administration Public Buildings Service, Region 9 Design and Construction Division 450 Golden Gate Ave. 3rd Floor West San Francisco, CA 94102

Phase One Offerors should note provisions of FAR 52.215-1 "Instructions to Offerors — Competitive Acquisitions".

For informational purposes only: Offerors are advised that the RFP for Phase Two proposal submissions is anticipated to be released to the short-listed firms on or about August 17, 2009.

2.7 Qualifications Submittal Sealing The Qualifications submittal is to be placed in a single sealed enclosure and identified with the Offeror's Name, Project Name, Phase One, RFQ Submittal, Solicitation Number GS-09P-09-KTC-0078, and the Government's time and date delivery requirement.

2.8 Phase One Submission Firms having the capabilities to perform the services described herein are invited to respond by submitting the required technical information as specified herein. Offerors are required to submit ten (10) bound copies of the Offeror's Phase One Qualifications.

Submittals shall be tabbed and labeled in a manner to afford easy identification from a Table of Contents. Each page shall be identified with the appropriate page number centered at the bottom of the page.

Font size shall be not less than 10 point.

Sheet size of the submittal shall be 8 1/2 x 11 inches. Tabloid sheets (11 x 17 inches) will be allowed for charts and tables but will be counted as 4 single-sided pages or 2 double-sided pages. Legibility, clarity, coherence, and the contents are important. The Phase One Qualifications document length shall be limited to 50 single-sided or 25 double-sided pages, exclusive of the cover sheet, dividers and table of contents. Questionnaires are received separately and also not counted as part of the 25 page limitation. Offers that do not meet these requirements may be subject to rejection.

A cover sheet identifying the Offeror and the project shall be provided. The second sheet shall be a Table of Contents.

The Qualifications submittal shall contain a detailed Table of Contents and shall be included in each binder used.

Materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures and equipment lists) shall be relegated to appendices.

Technical Submissions Requirements:

The Technical submittal shall include information as described previously and shall be presented in the sequence as requested above. Technical submissions shall be organized to correspond with the evaluation factors listed herein.

A project is considered similar when, based on the consensus judgment of the evaluating board members, the project has enough characteristics or similarities in common with the subject project that they could be determined comparable in size, scope and complexity.

For each project, the Offeror shall be evaluated based upon performance as stated in the Past Performance Questionnaire — see Appendix A at the end of this document. Offerors shall submit, through available references, completed questionnaires for each project submitted from the owners (or their designated representative, i.e. project manager, design, architect, etc.) of the facility. The term "available" relates to the ability of GSA to contact these references. GSA will expend only a "reasonable" amount of time and effort to contact those submitted as references Offerors are to fill out most of the information on the first page of the questionnaire before sending it to the owner's representative for completion. Failure to obtain the required questionnaires shall result in lowered technical scores for this evaluation factor. Note that GSA will not limit reference contacts to those provided by the Offerors; instead GSA may choose to contact references independent of those provided. It is the Offerors responsibility to contact, request and track the receipt of questionnaires. Offerors shall not collect completed questionnaires, instead they shall be sent directly to the Contract Specialist (see Section 2.9 for the address) by the owner representatives. Questionnaires received after the due date for Phase 1 submissions will not be considered.

OFFEROR'S FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT

Submit a letter of current bonding capacity from a Bonding Company. This letter will not count toward the aforementioned page limitation. The project budget is in the range of $17 million to $22 million.

END OF SECTION 2

Appendix A Past Performance Questionnaire Note: Completed questionnaires shall be considered confidential information and may not be seen or reviewed by the contractor/Offeror. Mail, email or fax completed questionnaires directly to:

Attention: Joseph Nolan, Contract Specialist

General Services Administration

Design and Construction Division (9PCN), 3rd Floor West 450 Golden Gate Ave.

San Francisco, CA 94102

Fax: (415) 522-3316 Joseph.Nolan@gsa.gov

Name:

Company:

Role/position during construction:

Current Telephone No.:

(Use this cover sheet for each past performance questionnaire submitted)

FIGURE 1 General Contractor – Design/Builder

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Name of Offeror:

Name of Contact:

Title:

Telephone No.:

Contract No.:

Location of Contract Performance:

Contract start/completion dates:

Price/cost for services at contract start:

Completion:

Type of space/building:

Type of Contract:

# of Stories in Bldg:

New Construction ____

Renovation_______

Questions: (Some questions may not apply to roles)

1. Describe the contract work and overall rating?

2. Who was the Project Manager or Field Superintendent on the project? Also, please provide and overall rating.

3. Did the Offeror complete the project within the original contract schedule and budget?

If not, was it due to factors within their control? Also, please provide overall rating.

4. How would you describe the cooperation of the Offeror and their commitment to the project? Please also provide and overall rating.

5. How would you describe the quality of work and their overall performance? Also, please provide and overall rating.

6. How responsive was the Offeror in administrative areas (processing paperwork)? Also, please provide and overall rating.

7. Were the number and final price of Offeror-initiated change orders reasonable for the size of the project?

8. Did the Offeror readily address ripple effect, such as time extensions, on change order proposals? Also, Please provide and overall rating.

9. Did Offeror prepare an excessive or non-essential number of RFI’s which resulted in change order requests? Also, please provide an overall rating..

10. How well did the Offeror coordinate the work of their subcontractors? Also, please provide an overall rating.

11. How did the Offeror handle change order requests, claims or disputes submitted by their subcontractors and suppliers? Did they do an initial review/make determination prior to or instead of passing on to owner? Please provide an overall rating.

12. Did the key personnel ensure that the finished product met your requirements as set forth in the construction contract documents? Also, please provide and overall rating.

13. Were there any serious accidents or numerous minor accidents on this job? If so, how much time was lost due to the accidents? If yes, please state outcome. Also, please provide and overall rating.

Additional Comments:

Name of Interviewer: _______________________________________Date:________________

FIGURE 1/Lead Designer Past Performance –Questionnaire

Questions: Please provide answer and overall rating as requested for each question below.

1. Describe the contract design work? Also, please provide and overall rating.

2. Who was the Design Manager/Designer on the project? Also, please provide an overall rating.

If not, was it due to factors within their control? Also, please provide an overall rating.

4. How would you describe the cooperation of the Offeror and their commitment to the project? Also, please provide an overall rating.

5. How would you describe the quality of work and their overall performance? Also, please provide and overall rating.

6. How responsive was the Offeror in administrative areas (processing paperwork)? Also, please provide an overall rating.

7. Were the number and final price of Offeror-initiated change orders reasonable for the size of the project?

8. Did the Offeror readily address requests for a time extensions, on change order proposals? Also, lease provide an overall rating.

9. Did Design Manager or Designer adequately reply to RFI’s upon requests regarding the design documents? Also, please provide an overall rating.

10. How well did the Offeror coordinate the work of their consultants? Also, please provide an overall rating.

11. How did the Offeror handle change order requests, claims or disputes submitted by their consultants? Did they do an initial review/make determination prior to or instead of passing on to owner? Also, please provide and overall rating.

12. Did the key personnel ensure that the finished product met your requirements as set forth in the contract documents? Also, please provide an overall rating.

13. Were there any serious design deficiencies on this project? If so, how much and how were they resolved by the Designer or Design Manager? If yes, please state outcome. Also, please provide an overall rating on resolving the design deficiencies, if any.

Signed : _______________________________________Date:________________

Name ___________________________________

FIGURE 1 Design Team

PAST PERRFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Questions: (Some questions may not apply to roles)

1. Describe the contract work?

2. Who was the Project Manager or Field Superintendent on the project? (If same as proposed, interview reference about the key personnel).

If not, was it due to factors within their control?

4. How would you describe the cooperation of the Offeror and their commitment to the project?

5. How would you describe the quality of work and their overall performance?

6. How responsive was the Offeror in administrative areas (processing paperwork)?

7. Were the number and final price of Offeror-initiated change orders reasonable for the size of the project?

8. Did the Offeror readily address ripple effect, such as time extensions, on change order proposals?

9. Did Offeror prepare an excessive or non-essential number of RFI’s which resulted in change order requests?

10. How well did the Offeror coordinate the work of their subcontractors or sub-consultant?

11. How did the Offeror handle change order requests, claims or disputes submitted by their subcontractors or subconsultants? Did they do an initial review/make determination prior to or instead of passing on to owner?

12. Did the key personnel ensure that the finished product met your requirements as set forth in the contract documents?

Signed _______________________________________Date:________________

Name _______________________________________ Appendix B

Projects For Design/Build Team (DBT), Construction and/or Design Project Name

Project Address

Specific Building Function

(e.g., corporation HQ, federal office building)

New Construction or Renovation (circle one)

Name of Contractor (DBT)

Address of Offeror's office where project was managed

Name of Project Manager

Name of contractor's on-site Superintendent

Acreage of site-work including building Footprint(s)

Gross Square Feet

Office space including incidental areas

Parking Area

Parking structure

Construction Type (structural frame/floors) of Building

Design Excellence Strategies

Fagade material(s) of Building

Other Items of Interest

Construction Cost Original Award Amount Constructruction Cost

Critical Dates Construction Start Date

Original Scheduled Completion Date

Actual Completion Date

Construction work performed by Offeror's work force

Number of claims against Offeror by owner

Total Dollar amount of claims

Nature of claims

Provide a brief description of Project challenges and/or project-unique issues

How did the development and compromises in this project effect the design quality and performance of the building as it was designed and delivered by the DBT?

Appendix C Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) References The following FAR references are included behind this cover sheet:

a. FAR Subpart 15

b. FAR Subpart 16.2

c. FAR Subpart 19.7

d. FAR 52.215-1

e. FAR 52.215-5

f. FAR 52.225-17

Part 15—Contracting by Negotiation

15.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions. A contract awarded using other than sealed bidding procedures is a negotiated contract (see 14.101).

15.001 Definitions.

As used in this part—

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

“Proposal modification” is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.

“Proposal revision” is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a contracting officer, as the result of negotiations.

“Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

15.002 Types of negotiated acquisition.

(a) Sole source acquisitions. When contracting in a sole source environment, the request for proposals (RFP) should be tailored to remove unnecessary information and requirements; e.g., evaluation criteria and voluminous proposal preparation instructions.

(b) Competitive acquisitions. When contracting in a competitive environment, the procedures of this part are intended to minimize the complexity of the solicitation, the evaluation, and the source selection decision, while maintaining a process designed to foster an impartial and comprehensive evaluation of offerors’ proposals, leading to selection of the proposal representing the best value to the Government (see 2.101).

Subpart 15.1—Source Selection Processes and Techniques

15.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart describes some of the acquisition processes and techniques that may be used to design competitive acquisition strategies suitable for the specific circumstances of the acquisition.

15.101 Best value continuum.

An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.

15.101-1 Tradeoff process.

(a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

(b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply:

(1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and

(2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price.

(c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

15.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

(a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

(b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

(1) The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in Subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7)).

(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).

15.102 Oral presentations.

(a) Oral presentations by offerors as requested by the Government may substitute for, or augment, written information. Use of oral presentations as a substitute for portions of a proposal can be effective in streamlining the source selection process. Oral presentations may occur at any time in the acquisition process, and are subject to the same restrictions as written information, regarding timing (see 15.208) and content (see 15.306). Oral presentations provide an opportunity for dialogue among the parties.