FBO_Schwartz_FY16_Probation_ _Childcare_Phase_1_with_Attachments_2016.6.10.pdf

GSA Request for Qualifications for Design-Build Services for the Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse FY16 U.S. Probation & Childcare Center

Solicitation #: GS-09P-16-KT-C-7010 Agency: General Services Administration Office: Public Buildings Service (PBS) Location: Design & Construction Division (9PH)

Region: 9 Pacific Rim

City: San Diego

State: California

Contracting

Officer: Shelita Harper

Shelita.harper@gsa.gov

Phone: 415-522-3206

Fax: 415-522-3316

Secondary Point of Contact: Ana Lau ana.lau@gsa.gov

Phone: 415-522-4097

Project: Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse

880 Front Street / 221 W. Broadway Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Building Type: Federal Office Building and U.S. Courthouse

Historic Structure: [X] NO

Client Agencies: Primary tenants include U.S. Probation and GSA Childcare Center

Size: The gross area of the building is 895,538 SF. The rentable and usable areas are 625,715 SF and 473,726 SF respectively. U.S.

Probation will backfill approximately 20,000 SF on the 1st floor of the Courthouse side and Childcare Center will backfill approximately 9,000 SF on the 1st floor of the Federal Building side.

Parking Spaces: The existing parking is not impacted by this project.

GSA Solicitation No. GS-09P-16-KT-C-7010

Budget: Estimated Design & Construction Cost is between $11,000,000 and $13,000,000

Geographic

Limitation: This project is open nationwide with at least 35% of the level of contract effort performed within a 60 mile radius of San Diego, California.

Small Business

Set Aside: As part of its commitment to socioeconomic initiatives of the Federal Government, the General Services Administration has established national subcontracting goals of 36.5% to include the following:

HUB Zone Small Business - 3%;

Women-Owned Small Business - 5%;

Small Disadvantaged Business - 5%;

Veteran-Owned Small Business - 3%; and

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business - 3%.

GSA announces an opportunity for Design-Build Services of a General Contractor (GC) and Architectural Engineer Design (A/E) team (also referred to as Offeror or DB Contractor) who shall be singularly responsible to satisfy the terms of the resulting Design-Build contract.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Edward Schwartz building at 880 Front / 221 W. Broadway Streets in downtown San Diego consists of two wings: the 5-story courthouse wing (CT) and the 6-story federal building wing (FB). The CT houses the courtrooms and chambers of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California, as well as the Court of Appeals and certain U.S. Marshal Service operations. The FB houses the District Court Clerk and various other federal agencies.

This Renovation & Alteration project proposes the backfill of space on the 1st floor of the CT with U.S. Probation Office and on the 1st floor of the FB with a Childcare Center.

Renovation and alteration of work includes but not limited to: tenant improvements in approximately 20,000 SF for U.S. Probation and 9,000 SF for the Childcare Center, with related MEP upgrades, ABAAS upgrades of restrooms, replacement of water shut-off valve on 1st floor, renovation of electrical distribution systems, and structural blast protection on north side of Courthouse. Fire & life safety work in tenant improvement areas will include sprinkler coverage retrofit with quick response sprinkler heads. The Childcare Center project will also include an outdoor play yard space of 6,300 SF.

SCOPE OF WORK

The DB Contractor shall provide all supervision, labor, materials, equipment, and testing required to accomplish the design and construction for the U.S. Probation & Childcare Center projects at Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building & Courthouse.

Design services shall include, but not be limited to, design and certification by a State of California licensed Architect-Engineer (A/E), design reviews, weekly progress meetings, design development, construction documents, detailed phasing plan, cost estimating, BIM modeling, site investigation, site measurements and verification, code compliance, reproduction services, consultant coordination, contract administration, contract close-out, and as-builts.

Construction services shall include, but not limited to, security clearances for workers (HSPD-12), 4-week look ahead schedules, demolition, site supervision, drywall, mechanical, electrical, automatic sprinkler system, architectural finishes, submittal samples, HVAC, system balancing, fire and life safety, security infrastructure, protocols for utility outages, dust and noise mitigation, clean up after work, file and record management, and all other work to meet the tenant agencies' requirements. 100% construction documents prepared by the selected DB Contractor shall be required for the execution of detailed drawings and construction.

The Schwartz FB & CT must remain fully operational throughout design and construction of the project. Work deemed to be disruptive to tenants (loud noise, hazardous odors, dust, etc.) must be scheduled after hours in order to minimize disruptions to building occupants and to maintain public safety.

The project delivery method is Design-Build with Bridging Documents provided to the contractor. This contract is expected to be awarded in the 1st Quarter of 2017. Design of this project is to start in the 1st Quarter of 2017, and construction is expected to start in the 3rd Quarter of FY2017, so that tenant move can start in the 3rd Quarter of FY2018.

SELECTION PROCESS

This procurement is being conducted using the two phase selection process pursuant to the procedures in FAR part 36.3. All responsible sources may submit a Phase 1 proposal. Qualifications will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will be short-listed to submit proposals for Phase 2. A minimum of three and no more than five firms will be selected to submit Phase 2 proposals. Official Notification will be given to those offerors competing in Phase 2. Only those selected offerors are authorized to submit a Phase 2 proposal. Those offerors not selected for participation will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a). The Government will award the Contract to the selected Offeror after Phase 2 evaluations, subject to the conditions set forth herein.

One contract will be awarded using best value determination.

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

The following will be evaluated on a “go/no-go” basis. Offerors not meeting all of the following criteria will not be given further consideration. The Contracting Officer will make the determination as to offer responsibility/responsiveness, and submit only those proposals that meet all of the requirements for full evaluation.

Offerors must be registered and provide proof of active status in the System Award Management (SAM) https://www.sam.gov on-line system at time of Phase 1 RFQ submission.

Proof of ability to provide bonding capacity of $13,000,000.00 in the form of a letter from a surety

Signed Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) Information Form (Attachment 1)

Representations and Certifications. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this Solicitation shall complete electronic Annual Representations and Certifications in conjunction with required Entity registration in the System for Award Management.

DEFINITION OF SIMILAR PROJECT

SIMILAR PROJECT is defined as a project that is similar in size, type and complexity.

To qualify as a SIMILAR PROJECT, the project must meet all three elements of size, type, and complexity as further defined here:

To be considered similar in size, projects must exceed $13,000,000 in construction cost and be completed within the last 10 years, be at least 29,000 gross square feet, and is located in building of at least 6 vertical stories.

To be considered similar in type, projects must include renovation, alteration, office, school, childcare center, outdoor recreation play yard, professional food service preparation facility or related facility with similar characteristics.

To be considered similar in complexity, projects must include, but are not limited to, construction in fully occupied building, secured space with minimal disruption to existing occupants, MEP work in an existing multistory building, federal facilities with exterior security requirements, and federal childcare centers. Firms should demonstrate past experience with Physical Security Criteria for Federal Facilities, and security design for Federal childcare centers according to the Federal Childcare Center Design Guide.

PHASE 1 – EVALUATION FACTORS (TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS PHASE)

Proposals must address the technical approach, technical qualifications, and the other Phase 1 evaluation factors stated herein. Any proposal that does not meet all of the following criteria will be rejected as unresponsive.

Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach (Lead Designer) – 20%

This factor considers the lead designers credentials and quality of project experience on similar projects.

Submittal Requirements:

Provide a biographical resume of the Lead Designer including education, professional experience, recognition for design efforts inclusive of the portfolio examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project. Resume shall not exceed three pages.

Lead Designers portfolio of at least three (3) building projects, which meet the definition of “Similar Project” defined in the RFQ. For each project, the narrative should address the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client’s program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule and operational objects were satisfied by the overall design solution. This section of the proposal could include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, peer recognition etc. demonstrating design excellence.

Also provide a client reference contact for each project, including name, title, address, email, phone and fax numbers. Additionally, the proposal may include for each project a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3-D model, a building section or other appropriate drawing and photos. Each project shall not exceed three (3) pages.

Additional Consideration may be given for

Outstanding ratings from owner references Demonstrated ability to partner with a construction firm to develop on-budget, value added construction document package(s).

Demonstrated ability to “add value” through constructability reviews, value engineering, material and/or method substitutions.

Demonstrated creative solutions and “can-do” culture

Evaluation Factor 2: Technical Approach (Construction Firm) – 30%

This factor considers the credentials and quality of project experience of the Construction Firm's personnel on similar projects.

Submittal Requirements:

Provide biographical resumes of the Project Manager, Construction Superintendent, and MEP Coordinator which includes their level of education, special training and highlight previous work experience relevant to this project. Resume shall not exceed two pages.

Each of the key individuals should have experience on at least three (3) construction projects in a position similar to the one being proposed for this project. Experience for the construction services must include a level of involvement of not less than 50 percent of the construction period for similar projects. Each project shall not exceed three (3) pages.

Additional Consideration may be given for

Outstanding ratings from owner references Demonstrated ability to partner with an A/E firm to develop on-budget, value added construction document package(s) Demonstrated ability to effectively coordinate the trades.

Demonstrated ability to complete projects within the approved schedule.

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

Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance for Design & Construction – 40%

This factor evaluates past performance for both the A/E Design Firm, including Lead Designer and the Construction Firm on projects that meet the definition of “Similar Project”. In evaluating past performance, the Government may consider the information in the offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, federal databases and other references. An offeror who has no record of past performance will receive a neutral rating. If the GSA receives negative past performance information, the offeror may be given an opportunity to respond.

Submittal Requirements:

Both the offeror’s A/E Design and Construction Firm must each submit three (3) projects for review that meet the definition of “Similar Project”. Additional consideration will be given for teams that have relevant design build experience. Each project must identify at least one (1) reference, including name, address telephone number and email address.

Offerors shall distribute Past Performance Evaluation Survey (Attachment 2) to each reference.

These references shall email the completed Past Performance Survey to Shelita Harper, Contracting Officer at shelita.harper@gsa.gov no later than Friday, July 15, 2016.

The email subject line must contain the solicitation number and the name of the offeror.

The Government reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an offeror’s proposal should a survey not be received by the date proposals are due.

Additional Consideration may be given for

Teams that have relevant design build experience Offers which feature experience from similar projects that are in California

Evaluation Factor 4: Project Small Business Subcontracting Plan – 10%

The GSA is committed to supporting the Small Business Program. All Offerors who do not qualify as a small business in accordance with the definition as identified in FAR Clause 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representation, must submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Alt II (JAN 2011). Small Business concerns are exempt from the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and will receive a rating of “Excellent” on this technical evaluation factor.

Submittal Requirements:

At least 1, but no more than 3 past historical examples demonstrating the Offeror was able to meet the small business subcontracting goals for those past projects.

Additional Consideration may be given for:

Historical example(s) of meeting subcontracting goals for past Similar Projects.

Historical examples from San Diego area in which the subcontracting goals were met or exceeded.

Submission of more than one historical example showing that the Offeror has met or exceeded the subcontracting goals for the past project.

PHASE 2

The short-listed Design-Build teams will be notified and asked to submit more detailed information. The Government will establish the detailed evaluation criteria and the date that these submittals are due and provide the selection criteria for the interviews along with the Phase 1 short-list announcement.

The Source Selection Board will interview each team. Candidates should be prepared to discuss all aspects of the evaluation criteria as established for Phase 2, and demonstrate their ability to fulfill all project requirements. Responses to the evaluation criteria and interview questions will be used to rank the Design-Build teams.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR PHASE 1 - SUBMITTALS

Offerors are to provide the requested information in a brief and succinct manner making every effort to present information clearly and concisely. Proposals shall be submitted in the following format. Pages shall be 8.5x11 white paper with lettered/numbered dividers for each section as directed below. 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. Proposal submissions must include one (1) original that is not bound and six (6) copies contained in 3 –ring binders. The external cover of each Proposal (original and copies) shall clearly identify the Offerors name, clearly be labeled “Proposal for Phase One Solicitation, RFQ-GS-09P-16-KT-C-7010, and clearly state the time and date for the receipt of proposal. Each copy shall be identified on its cover as Copy of 6 copies.

Additionally one (1) electronic copy shall be submitted via compact disc (CD).

All proposal development costs shall be borne by the Offerors without reimbursement from the GSA.

Phase 1 Proposal shall be structured as such:

Section I – Cover Letter – Provide a letter consisting of no more than (2) pages on letterhead identifying a single point of contact, address, phone, fax, email (if any) where the GSA inquiries or notices shall be directed.

Section II – Forms: Include in this section all of the documentation necessary to satisfy the “Mandatory Requirements” described in this RFQ.

Section III – Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Approach (Lead Designer) Section IV – Evaluation Factor 2 – Technical Approach (Construction Firm) Section V – Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance for Design & Construction Section VI – Evaluation Factor 4 – Project Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Firms having the capabilities to perform the services described in this announcement are invited to respond by submitting Standard Form 330 Architect Engineer Qualifications

Part II, which must not be dated more than twelve (12) months before the date of this synopsis along with letter of interest and the Technical Proposal TO:

Contracting Officer: Shelita Harper

Delivery Address: 50 United Nations Plaza, Room 3675

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone number: 415-522-3206

The following information must be on the outside of the sealed envelope:

1) Solicitation Number/Title

2) Due Date

3) Closing Time Late responses are subject to FAR 52.214-7.

ALL SUBMISSIONS ARE DUE by 3:00 PM local time on July 15, 2016.

This procurement is being made under the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program (FAR 52.219-19). This procurement is open to small and large business concerns. Before award of the contract, the A/E (if not a small business of $12,000,000 gross receipts over a three (3) year period or no more than $4,000,000 gross average receipts per year for the same time frame) shall be required to present an acceptable Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Public Law 95-507. Small, women-owned, and small disadvantaged firms are strongly encouraged to participate as prime contractors or as members of joint ventures with other small businesses. All interested large business firms are reminded that the successful firm will be expected to place subcontracts to the maximum practical extent with small and disadvantaged firms as part of their original submitted teams.

Contract will be procured under FAR Part 15. The government will not allow payment for travel, living expense, computer time or hookups for the prime or the consultants during the selection process.

GSA Solicitation No. GS-09P-16-KT-C-7010 Attachment 1

DOCUMENT SECURITY

NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS/OFFERORS

This solicitation includes Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) building information. SBU documents provided under this solicitation are intended for use by authorized users only. In support of this requirement, GSA requires bidders/offerors to exercise reasonable care when handling documents relating to SBU building information per the solicitation.

REASONABLE CARE:

1. Limiting dissemination to authorized users. Dissemination of information shall only be made upon determination that the recipient is authorized to receive

it. The criterion to determine authorization is need-to-know. Those with a need-to-know are those who are specifically granted access for the conduct of business on behalf of or with GSA. This includes all persons or firms necessary to do work at the request of the Government, such as architects and engineers, consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, and others that the contractor deems necessary in order to submit an offer/bid or to complete the work or contract, as well as maintenance and repair contractors and equipment service contractors.

Note: It is the responsibility of the person or firm disseminating the information to assure that the recipient is an authorized user and to keep records of recipients.

Authorized users shall provide identification as set forth below:

Valid identification for non-Government users. Authorized non-Government users shall provide valid identification to receive SBU building information. The identification shall be presented and verified for each dissemination. Valid identification shall be all items (a) through (c), below, and including item (d), as necessary:

(a) A copy of a valid business license or other documentation granted by the state or local jurisdiction to conduct business.

The license at a minimum shall provide the name, address, phone number of the company, state of incorporation, and the name of the individual legally authorized to act for the company. The business must be of the type required to do the work. A general contractor's license may be substituted for the business license in states that issue such licenses. In the rare cases where a business license is not available from the jurisdiction, the information shall be provided and testified to by the submitter; and

(b) Verification of a valid DUNS Number against the company name listed on the business license or certification. Verification may be obtained through http://www.fpdc.gov, or by calling Dun & Bradstreet at 703-807-5078 to set up an account; and

(c) A Valid IRS Tax ID Number of the company requesting the information; and, as necessary,

(d) A Valid picture state driver's license shall be required of person(s) picking up SBU documents. Phone verification must be made to a previously validated authorized user that the individual(s) picking up the documentation is authorized to do so by the company obtaining the documents. SBU documents will not be released to any individual or firm who has not, either previously or at the time of pickup, supplied the required documentation as outlined in paragraphs (a) through (c), above.

2. Retaining and destroying documents. The efforts required above shall continue throughout the entire term of the contract and for whatever specific time thereafter as may be necessary. Necessary record copies for legal purposes (such as those retained by the architect, engineer, or contractor) must be safeguarded against unauthorized use for the term of retention. Documents no longer needed shall be destroyed (such as after contract award, after completion of any appeals process or completion of the work). Destruction shall be done by burning or shredding hardcopy, and/or physically destroying CD's, deleting and removing files from the electronic recycling bins and removing material from computer hard drives using a permanent erase utility or similar software.

3. Term of Effectiveness. The efforts required above shall continue throughout the entire term of contract and for what specific time thereafter as may be necessary, as determined by the Government. Necessary record copies for legal purposes (such as those retained by the architect, engineer, or contractor) must be safeguarded against unauthorized use for the term of retention.

4. Written agreement of disposal. For all contracts using SBU building information, the contractor shall provide a written statement that he and his subcontractors have properly disposed of the SBU building documents, with the exception of the contractor's record copy, at the time of Release of Claims to obtain final payment. Documents no longer needed shall be destroyed (such as after contract award, after completion of any appeals process or completion of the work). Destruction shall be done by burning or shredding hardcopy, and/or physically destroying CDs, deleting and removing files from the electronic recycling bins, and removing material from computer hard drives using a permanent erase utility or similar software.

The recipient acknowledges the requirement to use reasonable care, as outlined above, to safeguard the documents and, if not awarded, the contract (and at the completion of any protest/appeal process) will make every reasonable and prudent effort to destroy or render useless all SBU information received during the solicitation.

I agree that I will abide by this agreement and will only disseminate Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) building information to other authorized users under the conditions set forth above.

Signature:________________________________________________________

Title:____________________________________________________________

Company Name: __________________________________________________

Date:____________________________________________________________

Copy of business license attached

DUNS Number:___________________________________________________

Verified: Yes No

IRS Tax ID Number________________________________________________

GSA Solicitation No. GS-09P-16-KT-C-7010 Attachment 2

PAST PERFORMANCE FOR DESIGN QUESTIONNAIRE

Edward J. Schwartz, San Diego, Ca

Agencies: U.S. PROBATION and Childcare Center

Architect/Engineer for Reference: _______________________________________________________________

Referenced Project/ Location: __________________________________________________________________

Type of Contract/ Date of Award: _______________________________________________________________

Contract Award Amount/ Completion Date (if applicable): __________________________________________

Name of Reference Provided: ___________________________________________________________________

Company: _________________________________ Reference's Role: ______________________________

Telephone No.: _____________________________ Email: _______________________________________

Use the following scale: 5 - Excellent, 4 - Very Good, 3 - Acceptable, 2 - Marginal, 1 - Poor, 0 - Not Applicable

1. What was the scope of services for the Architect/Engineer?

2. Describe the working relationship between the Architect/Engineer and the owner? Were they cooperative and committed to designing the project to meet the owner’s needs (cost, time, and quality)?

3. Did the Architect/Engineer have the ability to understand, capture, and implement the requirements of the owner throughout the design process?

Please rate that ability: 5 4 3 2 1 0

4. When issues arose during design and/or construction were they resolved efficiently? Was the Contractor proactive in identifying potential concerns?

5. Was the project designed within the allotted budget? If not, why?

6. Did the services provided meet the owner's needs and expectations and would you hire them again? If not, why.

7. If the referenced contract was Design Build, how was the working relationship between the A/E and Contractor?

Please identify the following individuals:

Project Architect: ________________________________

Project Executive: ________________________________

GSA Solicitation No. GS-09P-16-KT-C-7010 Attachment 2

PAST PERFORMANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Edward J. Schwartz, San Diego, Ca

Agencies: U.S. PROBATION and Childcare Center

Contractor for Reference: ___________________________________________________________________

Referenced Project/ Location: ________________________________________________________________

Type of Contract/ Date of Award: _____________________________________________________________

Contract Award Amount/ Completion Date (if applicable): ________________________________________

Name of Reference Provided: _________________________________________________________________

Company: __________________________________ Reference's Role: _________________________

Telephone No.: ______________________________ Email: __________________________________

Use the following scale: 5 - Excellent, 4 - Very Good, 3 - Acceptable, 2 - Marginal, 1 - Poor, 0 - Not Applicable

1. What was the scope of services for the contractor?

2. Describe the working relationship between the Contractor and the owner? Were they cooperative and committed to delivering the project (cost, time, and quality)?

3. Was the project completed on-time and within budget? If not yet complete, describe these conditions given its current status?

If not on-time and within budget explain why.

4. When issues arose during design and/or construction were they resolved efficiently? Was the Contractor proactive in identifying potential concerns?

5. Rate their ability to coordinate and address the given project documentation (i.e. inspections and RFI's)? 5 4 3 2 1 0

6. Did the Contractor’s services meet the owner's needs and expectations and would you hire them again? If not, why.

7. How well did the contractor manage their Quality Control, i.e. craftsmanship of deliverable?

Please identify the following individuals:

Project Manager: ___________________________________

Project Executive: __________________________________