Hartford Solicitation 47PB5126R0013_DB_2_Phase_Part_I_DECEMBER 2025.pdf

GSA Solicitation No. 47PB5126R0013

Design Build Contract for: New U.S. Courthouse, Hartford, CT

The Solicitation, Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications

Table of Contents

I. General Information A. The Project B. The Solicitation and Contract C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents D. Authorized Representatives E. Pre-Proposal Conference F. Estimated Price Range G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 H. Receipt of Qualifications

II. Proposals

A. Proposal Contents B. Proposal Format C. Technical Proposal D. Other Requirements E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

III. General Provisions

A. Availability of Funds B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation C. Notice to Small Business Firms D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results E. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals F. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirements) G. Contractor Performance Information H. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information

(CUI) Building Information

I. INFORM

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions To be issued in Phase 2

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions To be issued in Phase 2

VI. Method Of Award

A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals C. Determination of Responsibility D. Price Reasonableness/Price Realism E. Unbalanced Price F. Total Evaluated Price G. Non Price Factors H. Evaluation of Joint Ventures

I. General Information

I.A. The Project The existing Hartford Federal Courthouse, the Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building and Courthouse was constructed in 1963. The facility does not have the space functionality, security and existing conditions to meet the needs of the court. In 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut developed a long-range plan for the three existing court facilities, the Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building and Courthouse, the Richard C. Lee U.S. Courthouse, and the Brien McMahon Federal Building and U.S.

Courthouse. This plan identifies the relocation of the main court facilities for the district to Hartford, resulting in a need to increase the quantity of the court facilities.

Additionally, Ribicoff FB and USCH has a significant circulation challenge for the U.S.

Department of Justice - Marshals Service (USMS) prisoner movement throughout the public spaces of the courthouse that does not meet the operational and safety needs of the Judiciary.

Project Description

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service (PBS) is seeking a highly qualified Design-Build Firm to provide comprehensive site development, design and construction services for a new U.S. Courthouse in Hartford, CT. The proposed new courthouse is estimated to have a maximum total area not to exceed 281,000 gross square feet of office, storage, and special use space. The site selection for a new project site has been completed. The site consists of a 2.19 acre parcel located at 180 Allyn Street in Hartford. The new facility is to be designed to accommodate all court functions, specifically up to eleven (11) total courtrooms, and up to eighteen (18) separate chambers for U.S. District Court and US Bankruptcy Court judges. The facility will also house the U.S. District Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Clerk, the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Offices, Circuit Library, Federal Public Defender, U.S. Department of Justice - Attorney’s Office, GSA, and the USMS. The design will incorporate classical or traditional architecture, in accordance with the President’s Executive Order 14344, Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.

I.B. The Solicitation and Contract

(1) This procurement is being conducted using the two phase selection process found in FAR 36.3. Phase 1 will evaluate qualification proposals to determine which offerors will submit Phase 2 proposals. In Phase 1, GSA will select a short list of the most highly qualified offerors and request that those offerors submit Phase 2 proposals. All responsible sources may submit a Phase 1 proposal. The Government expects a maximum of 3 firms will be selected to submit Phase 2 proposals. Only those selected offerors are authorized to submit Phase 2 proposals. Those offerors not selected for participation in Phase 2 will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a). GSA will award one contract using competitive negotiation.

(2) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for Phase 1 qualifications proposals and the evaluation factors for Phase 2 proposals for a Contract to design and construct the project. Proposals conforming to the Solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the Method of Award set forth herein. The Government will award the Contract to the selected Offeror, subject to the conditions set forth herein.

(3) Stipend. In consideration for the cost associated with the preparation of an unsuccessful proposal, the Government will pay a stipend up to $500,000.00 to short listed but unsuccessful Offerors providing a fully compliant responsive proposal for Phase 2. Qualifying unsuccessful Offerors may submit their actual expenses for Government evaluation of reimbursement of up to $500,000.00. Offerors submitting incomplete, unresponsive, or unacceptable proposals which do not comply with the requirements of the Solicitation, will not be eligible to receive a stipend. Receipt of the stipend is conditioned on the Government receiving unlimited rights to the technical data contained in the Phase 2 proposal.

Note: Short listed firms shall also receive a stipend in the event the Government cancels the solicitation during Phase 2, provided they confer, with unlimited rights, their draft proposals, calculations, drawings, concepts and preliminary design documents generated to date.

(4) The Government reserves the right to implement an Award Fee Plan at a later date.

(5) Neither the Solicitation nor any part of an Offeror's proposal shall be part of the Contract except to the extent expressly incorporated therein by the Contracting Officer.

(6) The below table includes key information and schedule milestones for the task order:

Project Title

Solicitation Number 47PB5126R0013

Delivery Method Design Build

Design-Build To Budget $292,000,000

Solicitation Phase 1 Release 3/16/26

Offeror Questions Due 4/9/26*

Phase 1 Solicitation Response Due 4/22/26

Short List Issued 6/1/26

Solicitation Phase 2 Release 6/1/26

Proprietary Meeting #1 6/8/26-6/9/26

Proprietary Meeting #2 7/20/26-7/22/26

Industry Day 7/21/26

Proprietary Meeting #3 8/17/26-8/18/26

All Questions Due 9/1/26**

Phase 2 Solicitation Response Due 9/24/26

Proprietary Meeting #4 - Design Presentation and Interview

10/5/26-10/6/26

Notification of Award/Unsuccessful Offerors

1/7/27

Period of Performance 48 months

Stipend Offered (Phase 2) Up to $500,000

Project Labor Agreement Required

NOTE: All days are subject to change at the discretion of the Government.

*Cutoff for responses to be incorporated in Final POR

**Final cutoff for all RFI submittals

I.C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents The Solicitation Documents are comprised of:

(1) The Solicitation – Phase 1

(2) Offeror Representations and Certifications Form

(3) Standard Form (SF) 1442 – Solicitation Offer and Award

(4) Draft of the Agreement

(5) Design Build Scope of Work DRAFT

(6) Program of Requirements DRAFT

(7) Preliminary Geotechnical Report

(8) Site Risk Assessment Report (Utilities)

(9) Division 1 Specifications DRAFT (10)Selected Previous RFI responses

I.D. Authorized Representatives

The following individuals are designated as the authorized GSA representatives under this Solicitation:

Authorized Representative Information:

Contracting Officer’s Information

Name: Douglas Tumbrello

Address: One World Trade Center, 54th Floor, New York, NY 10007

Telephone: 917-574-3499

Email: douglas.tumbrello@gsa.gov

Alternate POC Information

Name: Mark Lewandowski

Address:100 South Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106

Email: mark.lewandowski@gsa.gov

I.E. Proprietary Meetings

The solicitation process will consist of at least four (4) proprietary meetings with individual offerors with the option for a fifth proprietary meeting, if needed. Offerors should ensure the participation of key members of their team for each meeting.

After Phase 2 is initiated, GSA will hold the first proprietary individual meeting to give Offerors an opportunity to provide additional feedback on the Scope of Work, Program and Reductions/Betterments List, and allow the Government to affirm that the scope, schedule, and target budget are achievable. The offerors will also have the opportunity to obtain feedback from the Government on certain key elements of site plan and building layout to allow them to advance their design concepts. At the second proprietary individual meeting, the Government requires a definitive response as to the Offeror’s ability to complete the project, with allowable scope reductions if necessary, within budget at this meeting. It will also provide an opportunity for the Offerors to discuss their initial concepts and options for site usage, building layout plans, building massing diagrams, building circulation and phasing of building construction.

The third proprietary individual meeting will allow Offerors an opportunity to present their concepts, options, and then receive clarification/feedback with oral interchanges.

Offerors should be prepared to discuss further development of their concepts including draft renderings, in progress models, draft finish boards, and draft functional objective matrix.

The fourth proprietary individual meeting serves as the Offeror’s presentation of their final design concept and response to the solicitation. It is a formal discussion about the design concept an Offeror submitted in response to the Phase 2 Solicitation. This meeting will provide the opportunity for dialogue between parties, although this meeting is conducted in a more rigorous process. The government will use this oral presentation to inform its overall evaluation of Offerors. In-person discussion is mandatory, unless extenuating circumstances demand a virtual or hybrid meeting format.

The maximum duration of the proprietary individual meetings in Phase 2 for each Offeror will be 3.5 hours, which includes Government introductions, Offeror presentation, Government breakout, and bilateral interchanges, the Government will take a forty (40) minute break occurring after the first and before the second half of the meeting to allow limited internal discussion and develop Government consensus on any guidance it may provide to the Offeror. Those individuals present for the Offeror, (i.e., key personnel responsible for contract performance, not professional proposal writer/business development/marketers) should be able to completely answer the Government’s questions during interchanges. A copy of the Offeror’s agenda shall be submitted two (2) days prior to the scheduled meeting date listed in the table above. An electronic copy of the Offeror’s presentation shall be submitted prior to the start of the meeting. The number of charts/models/briefing slides are unlimited. However, the presentation of the charts/briefing slides and any associated interchanges is limited to

2.5 hours for all proprietary meetings.

Any communication during these meetings will not be binding between the Offeror and the Government. Invitations, either in person or virtual, for the proprietary individual meetings will be provided later. If the proprietary individual meeting is in person, the Government will notify Offerors in advance to make travel arrangements.

I.F. Estimated Price Range The design and construction cost limitation is $292,000,000, including allowances. This is a design-build-to-budget project.

I.G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 Submit all questions regarding the Phase 1 utilizing the Request for Information form to the Contracting Officer on or before April 9, 2026. Questions must be numbered and include specific document references with page numbers and paragraph numbers, if applicable. Any responses provided by GSA will be posted on the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

I.H. Receipt of Qualifications

(1) In order to be considered for Phase 2 and award, Phase 1 qualifications proposals conforming to the requirements of the Solicitation must be received electronically no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on the following date and at the following email address.

Date: April 22, 2026 Email Address: douglas.tumbrello@gsa.gov

II. Proposals

II.A. Proposal Contents

Proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed and executed in accordance with this Solicitation:

○ Technical Proposal

○ Proprietary Information Agreement(s)

○ Other Documents as Required

II.B. Proposal Format

Firms responding to the Phase I solicitation notice shall submit one electronic version of the required technical information. The submission should be organized to correspond with the evaluation factors listed below. Standard Form 330 is not required. The total submission should not exceed 50 double-sided 8-½” x 11” pages. The cover letter, Table of Contents and Section Dividers are excluded from this page count.

GSA shall evaluate all responses in accordance with the criteria stated in the solicitation notice. Phase I factors and evaluations are independent of the Phase II factors in the solicitation notice. The Phase I factors and evaluation will only be used to evaluate and select firms to compete in Phase II. To the extent consistent with law, GSA may use artificial intelligence tools to assist in its review of proposals and/or documentation of evaluations.

II.C. Technical Proposal

All projects submitted should be relative in type, scope and complexity to this project.

PHASE I

EVALUATION CRITERIA ELEMENTS - RELATIVE WEIGHT

1. Technical Qualifications of Firms ………..………………………….. 60%

2. Approach to Design Build…………………………..………………... 20%

3. Lead Designer …………………………..……………………………. 20% Total = 100%

FACTOR 1: Technical Qualifications of Firms (60 %)

Prior experience and past performance are of equal importance for evaluation purposes.

Subfactor 1A: Prior Experience

This evaluation subfactor considers the extent of the past experience of the General Contractor (GC) and Architect/Engineer (A/E) members of the Offeror’s Bridging Design-Build (DB) team. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term A/E is defined as an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture and engineering in the State of Connecticut, that will have responsibility for developing detailed design and construction documents.

Submittal Requirements

Offerors shall address the following in the technical submissions for this evaluation factor: - Offerors shall provide a list of at least four (4) projects, (two (2) from the A/E and two (2) from the Construction Contractor) but not to exceed a combined total of six (6) projects that are ongoing or have been completed within the last ten (10) years of this solicitation issue date. The list shall include projects performed by both the proposed GC and the A/E; the provided projects do not need to be jointly performed, however, they do need to represent the experience of the GC and A/E. Of this group of projects, the GC must have served as the prime contractor on at least one project and the A/E must have had the responsibility for developing the detailed design and construction documents for its projects. A/E and GC can each take credit for a project they both worked on together.

The contractor is responsible for relaying how the projects submitted under this evaluation factor are similar to the project for which they are submitting a proposal.

For joint ventures, projects may be submitted for the joint venture as an entity or for an individual member of the joint venture. If the team is proposing as a joint venture, the team will be required to discuss if the joint venture has experience working together in the past. If a team is proposing a joint venture, the team will be required to provide a copy of the joint venture agreement. Demonstrated experience on projects where the joint venture has worked together will be considered more favorably than project examples submitted for each individual member of the joint venture.

A Joint Venture and Teaming Arrangement are NOT synonymous. A joint venture creates a new, distinct legal entity with shared assets and liabilities, while a teaming arrangement is a contractual agreement where companies work together on a specific project but remain independent entities.

Provide the following information for each project:

● Companies performing the project (offeror, GC, A/E)

● Project title and location of the project

● Contract type and Contractor's Responsibilities (Scope of Work)

● Name, current telephone number and email address of the owner’s representative most knowledgeable of the project

● Owner and/or Occupants(s)/Tenant(s)

● Contract number for Federal Government projects

● Contract Cost at Award and Contract Cost at Completion

● Roles of Offeror’s team members on the project (prime or subcontractor/subconsultant)

● Facility details, including type of facility, tenant mission and population, size

(building square footage and number of stories), security level, etc.

● Special Features (Security System, Historic Consideration, etc)

● Contract Award Date, Scheduled Contract Completion, Actual Date of

Substantial Completion, and the Date of Final Completion

● A Narrative explaining how the characteristics of the submitted project relate to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation.

● Images of completed work referenced.

Evaluation

For purposes of evaluation, projects will be rated higher to the extent they exhibit some or all of the following characteristics, listed in descending order of importance:

● Delivered as Design-Build or Bridging DB or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is defined as the execution of the multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for that project. Design-Build means combining design and construction in a single contract; the prime contractor could be a single entity, including a Joint Venture consisting of a GC and A/E.

● New Construction or significant alteration of a courthouse or other judicial facility

● Specialized experience and technical competence in traditional and classical architecture (as defined in Executive Order 14344, Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again)

● A minimum of 150,000 gross square feet of affected space

● Completed projects within 150 miles of Hartford, CT

● New construction of an institutional building* in an urban area

● Contract value at award in excess of $150,000,000 for new construction or alteration

● Facility with secure circulation paths.

● Urban construction site

*Acceptable institutional buildings are buildings built for schools, colleges, hospitals, laboratories, airports, fire and police stations. Projects that are primarily residential in nature, i.e. dormitories, condo/apartment buildings, hotels, as well as projects that are retail focused, i.e. shopping malls/centers, grocery stores, or projects with a primary function that are warehouse or industrial in nature, are not considered institutional buildings.

More favorable consideration will be given to projects that are recently completed by teams using the same GC and A/E as proposed for this solicitation as well as those aligned with Executive Order 14344, Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.

Subfactor 1B: Past Performance

This subfactor considers the Offeror’s Past Performance for the projects submitted under Evaluation Factor 1A, Technical Qualifications of the Firm. This subfactor considers the extent to which the Offeror’s team has a successful and satisfactory track-record on submitted projects. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on the information provided on the past performance questionnaires and any other sources the Government uses to obtain such information, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (CPARs/FAPIIS) and other institutional knowledge of past performance. In the case of the Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

Submittal Requirements

Past Performance Questionnaires:

The Offeror must submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (included in the solicitation as Attachment), completed by the applicable client, or FINAL CPARS evaluations for each project included in its proposal for Factor 1A. (The PPQ is included as an attachment to this Solicitation) The Offeror shall follow the instructions for completing and submitting the PPQ, which are due no later than the Phase I proposal due date and time. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submission of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the project. If the client requests, the client may submit a questionnaire directly to the Government's point of contact, via email at douglas.tumbrello@gsa.gov prior to proposal closing date. Offerors may resubmit questionnaires previously submitted with other proposals or may obtain an updated/new PPQ from a client for any submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other Requests for Proposals.

Past Performance can be described as how an Offeror performed on a job. The questionnaire information relates to ratings of the Offeror’s timeliness of performance, cost control, quality of product, business relationship, continuity of personnel, qualification of personnel, etc. Offerors are responsible for ensuring the references provided are willing and available to be contacted by the Government. The Government may contact those individuals who are provided as references by the Offeror to verify that the services provided comply with the similarity requirements of this Request for Proposal and to solicit an assessment of the quality of those services provided through a PPQ. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states, "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 favorably or unfavorably on past performance." This will result in a “neutral” rating. The Government is not required to conduct or complete reference checks. In addition to contacting references provided by the Offeror, the Government may solicit other sources to find references for other relevant, similar work performed by the Offeror.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), previously submitted PPQ information, and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from a variety of sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. GSA will not maintain a database of PPQs submitted by Offerors.

Factor 2: Approach to Design-Build (20%) mailto:douglas.tumbrello@gsa.gov

This Factor considers the Offeror’s approach to establishing a design-build team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the Government’s objectives, including the realization of design excellence. For purposes of this Evaluation Factor, “design excellence” refers to a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, urban design, interior design, historic rehabilitation, and construction) that delivers value by producing high quality, high performance facilities on budget and on time. GSA further seeks to commission our nation’s most talented constructors, classical or traditional designers, and artists to design and construct federal buildings of outstanding quality and value. These projects are to demonstrate the value of integrated design that balances aesthetics, cost, functionality, constructability, and reliability; creating superior workplaces for federal employees; and giving form and meaning to our democratic values.

Submittal Requirements Each Offeror must submit a written narrative (not to exceed (10) pages) concerning its approach to the DB process. An Offeror may allocate the ten (10) pages in any manner it chooses. Any pages in excess of the first ten (10) will not be reviewed.

Factor 3: Lead Designer (20%)

This factor considers the Lead Designer’s portfolio in the context of design excellence, including their experience with classical or traditional architecture. This factor also considers the Lead Designer’s philosophy and design intent which considers their creativity and appropriate design. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “Lead Designer” means an individual or team of designers who will have the primary responsibility to develop the concept and the project design. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “design excellence” has the same meaning as stated in Evaluation Factor 2.

Submittal Requirements Each Offeror must submit the information requested below.

A. Submit a portfolio representative of the Lead Designer’s ability to provide design excellence, including experience with classical or traditional architecture and ability to demonstrate appropriate design and creativity. Address his or her participation in each project.

B. If the Lead Designer is an individual, submit a portfolio of up to three (3) projects completed in the last ten (10) years (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

C. If the Lead Designer is a team, submit a portfolio of up to two (2) completed projects by the lead designer(s) on the team (maximum of five (5) five pages per project).

D. Each project must include a narrative that addresses the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client's program, functionality, image, mission, economics, schedule, and operational objects were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, or peer recognition demonstrating design excellence.

E. In addition to the page limits above, each Offeror may include:

1. One of the following for each project: a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, and

2. Two pages of photographs for each project.

F. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

II.D. Other Information to be Submitted with Proposals

(1) Representations and Certifications

Offerors are reminded their SAM registration status must be “Active”, at the time their offer is submitted, to be considered for award (see 52.204-7 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-04)). Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this Solicitation shall complete electronic Annual Representations and Certifications in conjunction with required Entity registration in System for Award Management (SAM), accessed via System for Award Management. In accordance with FAR 52.204-90 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-04), if an Offeror will not have an active Federal Government contracts registration in SAM when submitting its offer, it shall complete paragraphs (c) and (d) of FAR 52.204-90 and include its responses with its offer.

(2) Proof of Bonding to $292,000,000

(3) Proprietary Information Agreement(s)

Offerors are advised that employees of the firm(s) identified below may require access to your firm’s proprietary information in performing advisory and assistance services for the Government under separate contract. These individuals will be authorized access only to such information that is necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firm(s) are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition.

AECOM - 1 Federal Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA 02110, (617) 723-1700 - Alleyn Allie (alleyn.allie@aecom.com) and Mira Stanchak (mira.stanchak@aecom.com), Andrew Palladino (andrew.palladino@aecom.com)

Pursuant to FAR Part 9.505-4(b) (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-09), a contractor that gains access to proprietary information of other companies in performing advisory and assistance services for the Government must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. The contracting officer must obtain copies of these agreements and ensure that they are properly executed https://www.sam.gov/

II.E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

(1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of an executed joint venture agreement (with original signatures) which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability or authority for each member.

(2) An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

(3) In the case of corporations that are joint venture members, the corporation secretary must certify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture, either by certifying in the joint venture agreement, or by submitting a separate certification to the Government. The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

(4) Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

III. General Provisions

III.A. Availability of Funds Issuance of this Solicitation does not warrant that funds are presently available for award of a Contract. Award of the contract shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and the Government shall incur no obligation under this Solicitation in advance of such time as funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for the purpose of contract award.

III.B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation The Government will attempt to answer all requests for clarifications or interpretations of the Solicitation Documents prior to the date set for receipt of offers, but do not warrant that all such requests will be answered within 15 calendar days. Prospective Offerors should make such requests not less than 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers.

III.C. Notice to Small Business Firms A program for the purpose of assisting qualified small business concerns in obtaining certain bid, payment, or performance bonds that are otherwise not obtainable is available through the Small Business Administration (SBA) (Small Business Administration). For information concerning SBA's surety bond guarantee assistance, contact your SBA District Office.

http://www.sba.gov/ http://www.sba.gov/

III.D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results In accordance with FAR 3.104 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-03), after receipt of proposals, no information regarding the identity of those submitting offers, the number of offers received, or the information contained in such offers will be made available until after award.

III.E. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals Offerors are cautioned to carefully read the entire Solicitation and the Agreement to be included in the Contract contemplated by the Solicitation in order to be fully aware of all requirements and clauses in the contemplated Contract. Verify that all blanks requiring information to be supplied in an Offer have been properly filled out, that all pricing and other numerical data is accurately calculated, and that all copies of the Offer contain the same information.

III.F. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirements) If a bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer, any contract awarded will require a performance bond and payment bond as specified in the Agreement. Offerors who utilize individual sureties should note the requirement for a certified, audited, financial statement for each person acting as an individual surety under clause FAR 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee and the requirements of clause FAR 52.228-11 Individual Surety-Pledge of Assets.

III.G. Contractor Performance Information (1)Evaluating Contractor Performance: The General Services

Administration is using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) module as the secure, confidential, information management tool to facilitate the performance evaluation process. CPARS enables a comprehensive evaluation by capturing comments from both GSA and the contractor. The website for CPARS is Contractor Performance Assessment

Completed CPARS evaluations may then be used by the Federal acquisition community for use in making source selection decisions. CPARS assists acquisition officials by serving as the single source for contractor past performance data.

(2)CPARS Registration: Each award requiring an evaluation must be registered in CPARS. The contractor will receive several automated emails. Within thirty days of award, the contractor will receive an e-mail that contains user account information, as well as the applicable contract and order number(s) assigned. Contractors will be granted one user account to access all evaluations.

(3)Contractor CPARS Training: Contractors may sign up for CPARS training. A schedule of classes will be posted to the CPARS training site (CPARS Training) and updated as needed.

(4)Contractor Representative (CR) Role: All evaluations will be sent the Contractor Representative (CR) named on your award. The CR will be able to access CPARS to review and comment on the evaluation. If http://www.cpars.gov/ http://www.cpars.gov/ https://www.cpars.gov/cparsweb/lc your CR is not already in the CPARS system, the contracting officer will request the name and email address of the person that will be responsible for the CR role on your award.

Once an evaluation is ready to be released the CR will receive an email alerting them the evaluation is ready for their review and comment. The email will indicate the time frame the CR has to respond to the evaluation; however, the CR may return the evaluation earlier than this date.

GSA shall provide for review at a level above the contracting officer (i.e., contracting director) to consider any disagreement between GSA and the contractor regarding GSA’s evaluation of the contractor. Based on the review, the individual at a level above the contracting officer will issue the ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation.

Copies of the evaluations, contractor responses, and review comments, if any, will be retained as part of the contract file.

III.H. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Building Information Certain information contained in the Solicitation Documents may have been designated as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) building information. With respect to such information, Offerors shall agree to the terms for receipt of such information, as set forth in the provision “Administrative Matters” in Section III of the Agreement, as a condition of receipt of such information.

III.I. INFORM

A. Overview of the IN-depth Feedback through Open Reporting Methods (INFORM)

Process

This solicitation is part of GSA’s post award communication process called INFORM. The process is designed to enhance the quality and usefulness of post-award communications by providing greater transparency and openness into the procurement process. INFORM seeks to increase GSA-industry communication by providing clearer and more complete information to explain the award decision.

Through the INFORM process, GSA will seek to share additional information with offerors in writing and/or through an oral feedback meeting1 that is not required by statute or regulation. For Part 15 including mandatory debriefs and Part 16, and in addition to any information required by FAR 15.503 and 15.506, GSA is providing each offeror with the opportunity to participate in the INFORM process as further discussed below.

B. Detailed Description of the INFORM Process

B.1. Component 1 - Notification of Award

1 The oral feedback meeting may be held in person or via an electronic means.

After award and in accordance with any post-award notification timeframes required by regulation (i.e., FAR Parts 15.207-2(b) (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15) and 16.507-5(c) (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-16)), the contracting officer will issue written notices to the successful and unsuccessful offerors (the Notification Letter and Evaluation Statement (NLES)). The notices will contain:

● All information required by statute or regulation;

● An unredacted copy of the complete technical evaluation for that particular offeror that includes a full description of the unsuccessful offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies;

● An overall technical evaluation summary for that particular offeror and the successful offeror that includes evaluated price; overall technical ranking, rating, or score.

B.2. Component 2 - Request for Oral Feedback Meeting or Written Questions

Within three business days after receipt of the NLES, an offeror may, but is not required to:

● submit a written request to the contracting officer for an oral feedback meeting;

● submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer; or

● take no further action.

If the offeror timely elects to request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions, GSA will consider any such request to constitute a required debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.301 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15). If an offeror does not request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions within the three day time period, the receipt of the NLES concludes the INFORM process and satisfies the FAR requirement for debriefs pursuant to FAR

15.301 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15).

If the offeror submits a list of written questions in lieu of the oral feedback meeting, the contracting officer will attempt to respond within five business days of receipt of the written questions. Unless otherwise stated, the contracting officer’s response to the written questions will conclude the INFORM process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.301 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15).

If the offeror requests an oral feedback meeting, the offeror should provide the following information:

● Primary point of contact;

● List of participants with titles (e.g., Senior Vice President);

● List of topics to assist GSA better prepare for the oral feedback meeting;

and

● Preference for in-person, telephone, or web-based conferencing (if available).

B.3. Component 3 - Oral Feedback Meeting

During the oral feedback meeting, GSA’s objectives are to provide:

● Reasonable responses to written questions submitted by the offeror;

● Explanations for the evaluation conclusions and contract award decisions;

● Any additional information about the fairness and impartiality of the evaluation and why the award decision was rational;

● Reasonable responses to additional questions raised during the meeting;

● Additional transparency into the underlying competition process; and,

● A greater understanding of the evaluation and award process.

GSA will not provide any information that is prohibited by law or regulation.

B.4. Component 4 - Post Oral Feedback Meeting Questions

Within two business days after the conclusion of the oral feedback meeting, the offeror may submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer. The contracting officer will provide a written response within five business days and, unless otherwise noted by the contracting officer, the INFORM process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.301 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15) will have concluded.

If the offeror elects not to submit a list of written questions within two days after the oral feedback meeting, the INFORM process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.301 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15) is concluded.

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions

To be issued with Phase 2 solicitation.

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions

To be issued in Phase 2 solicitation.

VI. Method of Award

VI.A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals The Government will evaluate Phase 1 proposals based on the following evaluation factors and short list a maximum of three offerors to submit Phase 2 proposals.

EVALUATION CRITERIA ELEMENTS - WEIGHT

1. Technical Qualifications of Firms …………………… 60%

2. Approach to Design Build……………………………. 20%

3. Lead Designer ………………………………………... 20%

VI.B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the Solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, Total Evaluated Price and other factors considered. In addition to Total Evaluated Price, the following Phase 2 non-price factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

EVALUATION CRITERIA ELEMENTS - WEIGHT

1. Quality of Design Concept …….…………………….... 50%

2. Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel ...… 20%

3. Management Plan…. ……………….………... ……….20%

4. Project Schedule……. …………………………………. 5%

5. Small Business Utilization……….………………………5%

VI.C. Determination of Responsibility In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-09). The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer, and is independent of the evaluation of offers set forth herein.

VI.D. Price Reasonableness The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Price reasonableness determines whether an Offeror’s price is too high. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15) in order to determine price reasonableness. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1 (GSA Class Deviation RFO-2025-15). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this solicitation and for the avoidance of doubt, the Government will not perform a price realism analysis of the Offeror’s proposal.

VI.E. Unbalanced Prices Offers must include balanced prices. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall: (i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and (ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

VI.F. Total Evaluated Price

Total Evaluated Price shall be calculated using the prices indicated in the Phase 2 Price Proposal using the formula in the Phase 2 Solicitation. Note the design and construction cost limitation is $292,000,000, including options and allowances. This is a design-build-to-budget project.

VI.G. Non-Price Factors

FACTOR 1: Technical Qualifications of Firms (60 %)

Subfactor 1A: The standard is met when the offeror submits at least four (4) projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

For purposes of evaluation, projects will be rated higher to the extent they exhibit some or all of the following characteristics, listed in descending order of importance:

● Delivered as Design-Build or Bridging DB or IPD methods. For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is defined as the execution of the multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for that project. DB means combining design and construction in a single contract; the prime contractor could be a single entity, including a Joint Venture consisting of a GC and A/E.

● New Construction or significant alteration of a courthouse or other judicial facility

● Specialized experience and technical competence in traditional and classical architecture (as defined in Executive Order 14344, Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again)

● A minimum of 150,000 gross square feet of affected space

● Completed projects within 150 miles of Hartford, CT

● New construction of an institutional building* in an urban area

● Contract value at award in excess of $150,000,000 for new construction or alteration

● Facility with secure circulation paths.

● Urban construction site

*Acceptable institutional buildings are buildings built for schools, colleges, hospitals, laboratories, airports, fire and police stations.

Projects that are primarily residential in nature, i.e. dormitories, condo/apartment buildings, hotels, as well as projects that are retail focused, i.e. shopping malls/centers, grocery stores, or projects with a primary function that are warehouse or industrial in nature, are not considered institutional buildings.

More favorable consideration will be given to projects that are recently completed by teams using the same GC and A/E as proposed for this solicitation as well as those aligned with Executive Order 14344, Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again.

Subfactor 1B: The standard is met when offerors submit four (4) PPQs or FINAL CPARS demonstrating their performance on projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

Offerors will receive higher scores to the extent that references and any other information reviewed demonstrates a high level of customer satisfaction in delivering submitted projects. Past performance reviews being equal, projects rated more highly in Factor 1A will be judged more favorably than projects rated less highly in Factor 1A.

FACTOR 2: Approach to Design-Build (20%)

The narrative must discuss each of the subjects set forth below; the bullets are not subfactors; rather, they are elements the Government will consider when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

a. Philosophy and Design Intent: The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent as related to the project that is described in the solicitation. Such a discussion may include such topics as the parameters of an overall design philosophy; the Offeror’s approach to the challenge of public architecture and related issues;

parameters that may apply in creating a Federal courthouse that is in a traditional or classical architectural style in order to visually identify the facility as a civic building, uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit, command respect from the general public, and ennoble the United States and our system of self-government. The Offeror’s philosophy and design intent should be characterized by clarity, standard grammar, and the absence of clichés or jargon.

The Government expects clear, thoughtful phrases that demonstrate the ability of the team to communicate ideas. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project.

b. Management Process: The Offeror shall describe their overall management approach to DB and should discuss topics such as; planning, decision making;

the lines and methods of communication, interaction with consultants; the means to integrate client and community input; the physical location of major design and production work vs project location; the role of specialty contractors; uses of technology and innovation, cost management, and their ability to control and ensure the maintenance of design quality during design execution and construction. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort.

c. design excellence: The Offeror’s approach to supporting and collaborating as a cohesive team in order to realize design excellence. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror will realize design excellence on this project.

The standard is met when:

a.…