HHSI6117R00001-0002.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Solicitation Number: HHSI6117R00001 Northern California Youth Regional Treatment Center (NCYRTC) Project

See continuation page

Indian Health Service Department of Engineering Services, Dallas 1301 Young Street, Suite 1071 Dallas, Texas 75202

HHSI16117R00001

1 25

10/27/2016

10/14/2016

SF30 CONTINUATION OF BLOCK NARRATIVE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES PAGE 2 OF 25

The solicitation is hereby amended to address the following:

1. Respond to Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPI) received in addressing the solicitation package. The PPIs received are as follows:

INQUIRY 0001:

We request that IHS clarify and revise the standard for relevancy (paragraph 3.1.C page 7 of 16) to allow the review and submission health care / treatment center projects in the $5,000,000 - $20,000,000 range and allow the review of other relevant design build projects such as training centers, headquarters, and administration buildings. Please confirm IHS will allow.

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Paragraph 3.1.C does not state a specific dollar range, and while this current project is estimated between $10,000,000-$20,000,000, per paragraph 1.1.2, this is just one factor in the determination of relevancy, per the definition. Firms are encouraged to submit any projects they feel are relevant to this current project with respect to scope, magnitude, and complexity. IHS will determine relevancy in accordance with the terms and conditions included in the RFQ.

INQUIRY 0002:

Just to clarify, for Section 2—Factor 1—Specialized Experience, we are to submit 6 projects TOTAL—3 construction and 3 design, correct?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Per paragraph 3.1.1, "reference project tables shall be submitted for up to six (6) project examples demonstrating relevant construction and design experience." There is no mention on how these 6 projects are to be divided. Relevant design build projects shall be weighted more heavily than relevant independent design or relevant independent construction projects for purposes of specialized experience. See revised Paragraph 3.2.1, Amendment 0002 solicitation.

INQUIRY 0003:

Section 4.1.2.6. Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience: Are we to provide resumes for everyone identified in 1, 2, and 3 of this section (key personnel, alternate, and key designers) or just for those listed in item 5 (Project Manager, Architect of Record, Project Site Superintendent, and Safety Representative)?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Resumes are to be provided for the key personnel identified in subparagraph 5 of 4.1.2.6.

INQUIRY 0004:

Again to clarify, is it acceptable to submit a CPAR/CCASS report in lieu of a PPQ?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

While this factor does not require any submission, it is acceptable to submit a CPARS/CCASS that is at least 75% complete or completed within the last 7 years of the Phase I proposal due date.

INQUIRY 0005:

Our intended DOR is currently licensed in the following States (Arkansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Michigan) but not currently licensed in the State of California; this DOR is, however in the process of obtaining licensure in the State of California. Will it be acceptable for our intended DOR to pursue this work alongside the prime construction contractor with the understanding that if awarded the project the intended DOR will have obtained licensure from the State of California?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

No, this is not acceptable as all requirements stated in the RFQ must be met at the time Phase I proposals are due.

INQUIRY 0006:

Will the government consider waiving the specific requirement that the Project Site Superintendent have a minimum of 10 years of experience in government construction contracts?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Paragraph 4.1.2.6 has been revised to 4.1.1.6 due to a clerical error. See revised clarifying language Paragraph 4.1.1.6, Amendment 0002 solicitation.

INQUIRY 0007:

Will the government consider waiving the requirement to provide at least one alternate for all key personnel?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Yes. Paragraph 4.1.2.6 has been revised to 4.1.1.6 due to a clerical error. See revised Paragraph 4.1.1.6, Amendment 0002 solicitation.

INQUIRY 0008:

Will the government accept a 30 Hour Construction Safety course completion in lieu of the required 40 Hour course?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

No.

INQUIRY 0009:

3.1.B allows relevant projects that have been completed in the last 7 years however the language in Section 5 calls for projects that have been completed in the last 5 years. Please clarify this discrepancy. Our request is that at a minimum the 7 year requirement prevail or that it be extended to include the past 10 years.

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Projects that are evaluated for Factor 1, Experience, which includes paragraph 3.1.B, must be at least 75% complete or have been completed within the last 7 years. Factor 2 and Factor 3 (Section 4), Past Performance, have both been revised with this amendment to include evaluating projects that are at least 75% complete or have been completed within the last 7 years of the Phase I proposal due date.

INQUIRY 0010:

2.3 Technical Proposal Section 1-Cover Letter, Item E indicates that small business offerors must include SBA approval of Small Business status. What should be included as proof of this?

Will our HUB Zone letter suffice?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Yes, that will suffice. SBA certification proof would be in the form of a letter, on SBA letterhead, from your SBA representative showing your firm’s SBA status.

INQUIRY 0011:

Since this is an IHS procurement, will any Buy Indian considerations come into play? TERO?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

This requirement is a total small business set aside. Phase II RFP will include prescribed and applicable Indian Preference clauses. This project is being built on Federal land, so TERO is not applicable.

INQUIRY 0012:

(pg. 7) For the Specialized Experience Section, including the Specialized Experience Form and the Reference Project Tables, must the construction projects provided be from the prime offeror only, or may we use projects from our construction team members?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Projects submitted must show relevant experience from the offeror, not individual team members. As stated in paragraph 3.2.1, “The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the offeror (prime contractor and design firm) in design, construction or design-build, relative to their role on this project. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Relevant design build projects shall be weighted more heavily than relevant independent design or relevant independent construction projects for purposes of specialized experience”.

INQUIRY 0013:

(pg. 10) Is a resume desired for Quality Control Manager? Design Quality Control Manager?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

No, not at this time. Resumes are only required for the key personnel stated in subparagraph 4 of paragraph 4.1.1.6.

INQUIRY 0014:

(pg. 10) For the “consolidated list” of key personnel, are we to identify all of those individuals that we consider key or utilize the list of 4 key personnel located at item 5?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

The key personnel listed in subparagraph 4 of paragraph 4.1.1.6 are required to be shown;

therefore identification of other individuals your firm considers key is acceptable and welcomed.

Resumes are only required for the key personnel stated in subparagraph 4 of paragraph 4.1.1.6.

INQUIRY 0015:

(pg. 11) Can you please clarify what is meant by the requirement that designers of record be “registered in California”? Does this mean that, at the time of proposal submission, our DOR must have a current California Registration? Can this be in process or must it be finalized at time of proposal?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

All requirements stated in the RFQ, which include current California registration for the DOR, must be met at the time Phase I proposals are due.

INQUIRY 0016:

(pg. 12) Must the PPQs be for only projects completed by the construction prime and the designer, or can they also include projects completed by our other construction team members?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity.

INQUIRY 0017:

(pg. 12) If our projects have CPARS, can we submit those in lieu of PPQs? Are we allowed to use previously submitted PPQs, provided that they are in the same format as the one provided by

IHS?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

While this factor does not require any submission, it is acceptable to submit a CPARS that is at least 75% complete or completed within the last 7 years of the Phase I proposal due date.

Yes, you are allowed to submit previously submitted PPQs as long as they are at least 75% completed or completed within the last 7 years of the Phase I proposal due date.

INQUIRY 0018:

RFP page 7 of 27, Section 3.1, paragraph B requires Offerors to submit a maximum of 6 projects that are at least 75% complete/completed within the last seven (7) years for FACTOR 1 – Specialized Experience. RFP page 12 of 27, Section 5.1.1 states that for FACTOR 3 – Past Performance, “The Government will only evaluate up to ten (10) Customer Satisfaction Surveys/ Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs),” and paragraph (1) states "All projects submitted on a Customer Satisfaction Survey/Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) must be at least 75% construction progress complete or completed within five (5) years."

• a. Please confirm that the PPQs for Factor 3 do not have to be directly related to the projects provided for Factor 1.

• b. Please consider allowing PPQs for projects that were completed within the past 7 years so that offerors may include PPQs as verification of customer satisfaction for Factor 1 projects that were completed with the past 5-7 years.

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Amendment 0002 provides a revision from 5 to 7 years as well as a revised paragraph 5.1.1 that adds “Projects submitted under Factor 1 shall also include consideration under this Factor by either a PPQ submission or information obtained in PPIRS”.

INQUIRY 0019:

The RFP document did not provide an SF 1442 form. However, Amendment 0001 included an SF 30 form. Will the Government please provide the SF 1442 or issue instructions on how offerors need to acknowledge the amendments with the proposal submission?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Amendments shall be acknowledged in Section 1, Cover Letter submittal. Amendment 0002 provides for revised language in paragraph J in this Section.

INQUIRY 0020:

In the interest of reducing the workload and saving time for our Government clients, please confirm that it will be acceptable for Offerors to include the official completed CPARS/CCASS/ACASS evaluations in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire.

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

While this factor does not require any submission, it is acceptable to submit a CPARS/CCASS/ACASS evaluation that is at least 75% complete or completed within the last 7 years of the Phase I proposal due date. PPQ’s are not required to be submitted. All evaluation ratings submitted will be verified by the Government.

INQUIRY 0021:

In the interest of reducing the workload and saving time for our previous government clients, will the Government accept recently completed Past Performance Questionnaires that answer similar and/or the same past performance questions?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Yes.

INQUIRY 0022:

RFP page 7 of 27, sub-section 3.1.1.1 requires Offerors to complete Table 1 - Attachment 0.

However, the only attachment available for Table 1 is labeled "Attachment A". Please clarify that Attachment 0 is the same as Attachment A.

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Confirmed. Attachment A is Attachment 0. Amendment 0002 provides revised Attachment 0 reflecting the clerical error.

INQUIRY 0023:

Section 3.1 states, “The information provided for Factor 1, Specialized Experience, shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.”

• a. Please confirm that the 2-page Supplemental Narrative required in Section 3.1.2 is NOT included in the 20-page count limit for Factor 1.

• b. Please confirm that the Teaming, LEED, & Design-Build Experience required in Section 3.1.3 is NOT included in the 20-page count limit for Factor 1.

• c. Please confirm that the Building Information Modeling (BIM) experience required in Section 3.1.4 is NOT included in the 20-page count limit for Factor 1.

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Subparagraphs (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4) are included in the 20 page limit.

INQUIRY 0024:

For Section 4.1.1.1 Organization, in light of the page count limitation, will the Government allow the Simple Organization Chart (Item 1) and the Key Personnel Organization Chart (Item 5) to be illustrated in a single chart?

RESPONSE PROVIDED:

Yes, that is acceptable.

INQUIRY 0025:

In regards to the SBA requirement, does this apply to both the General Contractor and Architect individually or can one firm of the Design-Build Entity carry this certification? For example, can the Architect hold SBA certification and not the General Contractor?

RESPONSE:

The SBA certification shall be for the prime contractor.

Revised sections in the attached solicitation hereby replace any previous version(s). Changes are generally identified, for convenience, either by strikeout for deletions, and underlining of text for additions or a single dark line in the margin. All portions of the revised sections shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

The proposal due date is not extended. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

NCYRTC Project HHSI6117R00001 Yolo County, California

NOTICE TO OFFERORS

This Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is issued as a Total Small Business set aside for the two-phase design build construction procurement (FAR 36.303) of the Northern California Youth Regional Treatment Center (NCYRTC) project. The time and date set forth within is for the receipt of proposals for Phase I only. Phase II will be issued by amendment to the successful offerors determined to be the three most highly qualified during Phase I evaluation.

Solicitation No: HHSI6117R00001

Posted Date: October 14, 2016

Phase I Request for Qualifications Proposal Due Date: November 15, 2016, 2:00 PM CST

Project Title: Northern California Youth Regional Treatment Center

(NCYRTC) Project

All inquiries concerning the attached Phase I Request for Qualifications must be submitted in writing via email to Jenny.Scroggins@ihs.gov and must be received no later than ten (10) days prior to the proposal due date/time to allow responses.

Amendment 0002 mailto:Jenny.Scroggins@ihs.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

PART 1 – GENERAL……………………………………………………….......……………

1.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND SCOPE…………………………….......………………

1.2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS..…………………... 3

PART 2 – SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE I,

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS……………………………………………………………

2.1 PHASE I REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS…………………………………

2.2 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATTING…………………………

2.3 SECTION 1 – COVER LETTER……………………………………………………………. 5

PART 3 – TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION EVALUATION – PHASE I……………….....… 7

3.0 SECTION 2 – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE……………………

4.0 SECTION 3 – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION & TECHNICAL APPROACH... 8

5.0 SECTION 4 – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE……..……………………

6.0 PHASE I EVALUATION PROCEDURES……………………….……………………

PART 4 – PHASE II PROPOSAL SUMMARY (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)………… 15

4.1 BASIS OF AWARD, PHASE II…………………………………………………….....…… 15

4.2 PHASE II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS.………………... 15

PART 5 – PHASE I ATTACHMENTS……………………………………………….....…………. 16

5.1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS……………………………………………….....……………… 16

PART 1 – GENERAL

1.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW AND SCOPE

1.1.1. Set-Aside: This solicitation will be a Total Small Business Set Aside resulting in a negotiated Firm- Fixed price contract. The estimated price range for design and construction is between $10 million and $20 million.

1.1.2. Scope: Provide comprehensive design and construct a new 36,000-40,000 square foot residential treatment center that will serve American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adolescents who are experiencing life struggles with alcohol and substance abuse. The location requires access by the Tribes it serves, IHS staff and visitors, and access to various community amenities serving as elements of the treatment process. The facility will require a minimum of 10 acres of land. The site identified has the unique advantage of having only two fixed legal boundaries and one dominant limiting physical boundary, thus allowing flexibility in the net area. Along with required setbacks and other site development requirements, the site proposed area expanded to 12 acres. The proposed northern YRTC for the Indian Health Services/California Area Office (IHS/CAO) will be located on a site currently known as D-Q University, near Davis, in Yolo County. Emphasis will be placed on developing the project to incorporate specific sustainability goals, operational maintainability, community features, and how the site layout, massing, and organization enhances the public and staff functions of the youth treatment environment; specifically the unique, remote location and cultural setting of this project. The design build contract is anticipated to commence in mid-2017 with an approximate performance period of 2 years.

1.2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

1.2.1 In Phase I of the two-phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will short-list no more than three (3) of the Phase I offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase II. The evaluation method is the tradeoff process per FAR 15.101-1. In Phase II, the short-listed offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section M of the Phase II RFP.

1.2.2 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase II, the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor are required to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines as specified in Contract Clause, “Requirements for Registration of Designers.” All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

1.2.2 Phase I Evaluation Factors and Relative Importance

Qualifications will be evaluated in Phase I to determine no more than the three (3) most highly qualified Offerors. Each proposal will undergo a Technical Evaluation utilizing the Evaluation Factors as defined in PART 3 of this Phase I solicitation. Phase I does NOT involve a pricing submission or evaluation of price.

Location Factor

Number Description Relative Importance

Section 1 Cover Letter N/A Section 2 Factor 1 Specialized Experience 1st (Most Important Factor) Section 3 Factor 2 Organization & Technical Approach 2nd (Slightly less important than Factor 1) Section 4 Factor 3 Past Performance 3rd (Slightly less important than

Factor 2)

1.2.4. Intent for No Discussions: Offerors are hereby advised that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and select the most highly qualified firms to proceed to Phase II without discussions or any contact with Offerors concerning the proposals received for Phase I. The Government reserves the right to contact Offerors and/or conduct discussions in Phase I if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.2.5. Successful Offeror Incentive: No more than the three (3) most highly qualified offerors will be requested to submit proposals in accordance with the Phase II Request for Proposals. A stipend in the amount of $5,000.00 is anticipated to be awarded to Phase II Offerors not selected to offset direct costs associated with the preparation of a Phase II response.

PART 2 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE I, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

2.1. PHASE I REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

The technical proposal shall be submitted by email only no later than November 15, 2016, 2:00 PM CST to Jenny.Scroggins@ihs.gov. Each Section of the proposal shall be submitted as a separate PDF document.

Each Section submission shall indicate the following on a cover page:

NAME OF OFFEROR, SECTION # (1,2 etc.)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104)

PHASE I PROPOSAL FOR HHSI6117R00001

2.2. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATTING

Proposals shall be typewritten, with fonts no smaller than 11 points, 1/2" top, bottom and 1" side margins, single space, paginated, portrait mode on letter size paper; except charts and matrices may be displayed in landscape mode. No hyperlinks or electronic media will be allowed or considered.

Phase I proposals shall consist of four (4) Sections, detailed below.

Failure to address any of the requirements herein may result in rejection of the offeror’s Phase I proposal.

2.3 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SECTION 1 – COVER LETTER with the following information:

A. Identification of the business entity submitting the offer;

B. Name, Address, Telephone and Facsimile numbers of Offeror and email address;

C. DUNS Number;

D. Name, telephone number, title and signature (and electronic addresses if available) of person(s) authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

E. Joint ventures, SBA Mentor – Protégé, or other teaming proposals shall clearly identify the roles and level of participation of each firm in the proposed work and shall include the Small Business Administration approval of Small Business status of the offering business entity. Small Business Administration approval of Small Business status shall be included with Phase I proposal submission. Failure to include SBA certification of small business status for purposes of this solicitation with submission of the Phase I proposal shall result in rejection of the offer.

Joint Venture Agreement: (1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of the joint venture agreement 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 submission accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members. No page limit.

SBA Mentor – Protégé Agreement: If a business concern is contemplating an 8(a) Mentor-

Amendment 0002

Protégé Joint Venture on this project, evidence shall be provided from the Offeror that the Mentor-Protégé Agreement has been submitted and approved by the Small Business Administration (SBA) by the closing date of Phase I submission. All Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures must be in accordance with SBA requirements. Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures applications must be approved by the Mentor-Protégé’s cognizant SBA office on or before the date that Phase I proposals are due. Failure to demonstrate SBA approval of the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture with the Phase I proposal shall result in rejection of the offer. No page limit.

F. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent's authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

G. A table of contents that identifies each of the Sections submitted.

H. Proof of Bonding Capacity: Required to assure that Offeror’s selected for Phase II will have the bonding capacity for both performance and payment bonds as required under the terms and conditions of this solicitation and resultant contract pursuant to FAR 52.228-15.

Each Offeror shall submit evidence from an approved corporate surety or an individual surety indicating a single and aggregate bonding capacity of the Offeror and is not dependent on any teaming arrangement between prime and subcontractors. (For a listing of approved corporate sureties see website at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm).

FAR 28.202 (Acceptability of corporate sureties) and FAR 28.203 (Acceptability of individual sureties) provide additional information regarding corporate and individual sureties. Also, see FAR 52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bond - Construction (b) (1), (2) for penal amounts.

Each Offeror shall submit a Surety Letter from its surety company on company letterhead demonstrating the surety’s commitment to bond the Offeror at a minimum of $20 million. The Surety Letter shall Guarantee that the Offeror has the bonding capacity to perform the task based on the Offeror's own merit and that the capacity is not dependent on any teaming arrangement between prime and subcontractors. The Surety Letter shall also state the current credit rating of the Surety. No page limit.

I. Certifications and Representations: Offeror’s Certifications and Representations will be obtained from the United States federal government’s System for Award Management (SAM) database.

The Offeror shall ensure information is current in SAM prior to the Phase I response due date.

Anomalies and inconsistencies found in the Offeror’s Certifications and Representations may result in deeming the Offeror’s Phase I proposal non-responsive.

I.J. Acknowledgement of all amendments issued. Acknowledgement can be stated in the cover letter or the SF30 of all amendments signed and submitted with this Section of the Phase I proposal.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm

PART 3 – TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION EVALUATION – PHASE I

3.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SECTION 2 – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

3.1 Submission Requirements:

A. The offeror shall document recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using Construction – Specialized Experience form – (Attachment 2), and Designer – Specialized Experience Form – (Attachment 3). Offerors may identify both public and commercial projects that are similar to the instant requirement. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project. These attachments (2 and 3) are not required, but the same information must be presented. The information provided for Factor 1, Specialized Experience, shall not exceed twenty (20) pages; if more than twenty (20) pages are submitted, only the first twenty (20) will be evaluated.

B. Relevant experience examples may include both public and commercial work. All projects identified must be at least 75% complete, or have been completed within the last seven (7) years from the proposal due date. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the projects identified to those performed by the division or unit being proposed as part of the Design-Build team for this offer. It is preferred the design and construction firm have completed at least one (1) project together as the prime design-build team within the last five (5) years.

C. “Relevant” is defined as projects similar to the project in this solicitation in scope, magnitude and complexity and that have a logical connection with the requirements of this RFP.

D. The Offeror shall submit no more than six (6) projects for completed projects similar to the size, scope and complexity as described in Paragraph 1.1.2.

3.1.1 Reference Project Tables: Reference project tables shall be submitted for up to six (6) project examples demonstrating relevant construction and design experience. Each element identified in the tables shall be completed for each submitted project. The offeror shall annotate whether they were the design-builder, prime construction contractor, or designer of record for the project. Only projects where the offeror was the design builder, prime construction contractor, or designer of record shall be evaluated.

3.1.1.1 For Construction Experience: In addition to the requirements above, only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor shall be submitted. Offerors shall explain how the information provided is relevant to the proposed acquisition and the projects selected shall clearly demonstrate the design and construction capabilities of the Offeror.

For each project, provide project specific information using the Table 1 format (Attachment 0).

While this table format is not required, all information must be presented in the proposal that is listed in Table 1.

3.1.1.2 For Design Experience: In addition to the requirements above, only those projects for which the Designer was the Designer of Record shall be submitted. Offerors shall explain how the information provided is relevant to the proposed acquisition and the projects selected shall clearly demonstrate the design capabilities of the Offeror.

For each project, provide project specific information using the Table 1 format (Attachment 0).

While this table format is not required, all information must be presented in the proposal that is listed in Table 1.

3.1.2 Supplemental Narrative: The offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two (2) pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly related to the specific projects submitted is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit.

3.1.3 Teaming, LEED, & Design-Build Experience: The offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members if not described in the project list. Describe team members’ experience on LEED projects if not included on the project list. The firm(s) preparing the design must demonstrate qualifications and experience in sustainable design and development. Describe project experience on projects that have achieved US Green Building Council’s LEED certification or were certifiable at LEED Silver or better or project experience on completed design-build projects that were validated as having achieving LEED silver rating for an acceptable rating. The Prime contractor and the DOR shall demonstrate qualifications and experience on LEED. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway (at least 75%) or that have been completed within the past seven (7) years of the due date of Phase I proposals.

3.1.4 The offeror shall describe previous design experience using Building Information Modeling (BIM).

The design firm shall provide detailed description of the use and resulting benefits of integrating all disciplines into BIM documents and a design model. DOR shall demonstrate qualifications and experience using BIM.

3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the offeror (prime contractor and design firm) in design, construction or design-build, relative to their role on this project.

The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Relevant design build projects shall be weighted more heavily than relevant independent design or relevant independent construction projects for purposes of specialized experience. Federal Government project experience will not necessarily be rated more favorably than non-Federal Government project experience.

3.2.2 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of the offeror for any cited projects or any other recent projects for which the offeror was a participant. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

3.2.3 Offerors that demonstrate more recent and relevant experience shall be rated more favorably.

4.0 SECTION 3 – FACTOR 2 – ORGANIZATION & TECHNICAL APPROACH

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

4.1.1 Provide information that describes the offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to execute the design-build contract per paragraph 1.1.2. All six (6) areas below must be addressed in the Phase I proposal. The information provided for this Factor 2, Organization & Technical approach, shall not exceed twenty (20) pages; if more than twenty (20) pages are submitted, only the first twenty (20) will be evaluated. Clearly and concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution. The twenty (20) page limit does not include resumes submitted for key personnel identified, below.

4.1.1.1 Organization: Describe which firms, firms’ resources, the relative firms’ roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established to constitute the offeror’s design-build team. Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. The Offeror shall document teaming arrangements with its design firms(s) (see attachment 6 as a guide) if the design is not self-performed as a part of the prime. A copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) may be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation). The proposal shall:

1) Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Clearly distinguish contractor (Prime/Sub, etc) relationship/affiliations.

2) Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including design and construction activities for each major feature (i.e., site work, utilities and each building).

3) Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed.

4) Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing the how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team

5) Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, their job/position title within the organization. The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart, with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the D-B team firms, and with the list of key personnel to be provided under the Tab, “Key Personnel”. Clearly identify contractor (Prime/Sub, etc) relationship/affiliations.

6) Describe the design team management and quality control plan for the design process and completed design documents. Seamless coordination is essential during design phase.

7) Describe the construction team management and quality control plan for the construction of proposed facilities and sitework.

4.1.1.2 Collaborative Approach for Design-Build:

1) Describe the technical approach to design and construction of this facility.

2) Describe interactions within the team and with the Indian Health Service (IHS) during the design.

Specifically describe design plan to meet submittal requirements, changes, and quality control.

3) Describe the roles of all key team members during design.

4) Describe the type of Building Information Modeling (BIM) system to be used on the project, by which team members and how the team intends to incorporate BIM into the design to avoid constructability issues.

5) Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction. Include control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; Quality Control;

Commissioning; Testing; Special Inspections; and contract completion and closeout.

4.1.1.3 Planning and Scheduling:

1) Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan design and construction and how the schedule will be used to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth or “schedule creep”.

2) Describe the Conceptual Approach to the one-year Start-up/Commissioning/Training Period to run concurrently with the one-year Materials/Workmanship and Performance Warranty Period.

a. In Phase II, the offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase I, the Government is interested in the offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

4.1.12.4 Self-Performed Work: Generally describe the items the offeror will self-perform to comply with FAR Clause 52.219-14 -- Limitations on Subcontracting.

4.1.12.5 Quality Control:

1) Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction.

2) Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan.

3) Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government reviews.

4) Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-builts, and completion documentation.

5) In addition to the required designer-of-record roles specified within the RFP for maintaining integrity of the design, describe any other DOR involvement in the quality control process, if any.

a. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award.

b. In Phase I, the Government is interested in demonstrable capabilities to assure and control quality and how the offeror can achieve or exceed the contract’s quality control system requirements.

4.1.12.6 Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience: (Not included in the twenty (20) page count limit above.)

1) Provide a consolidated list of key personnel with name, position title and description of project responsibility for each.

2) Provide at least one (1) alternate for all Key Personnel.

3)2) Include key designers, whether employed by the prime or by a design subcontractor.

4)3) For each person provide a brief resume, using the Key Personnel Resume forms (attachment 4) as a guide.

5)4) The following Key Personnel are required:

a. (Prime) Project Manager. This individual shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in projects of similar size and complexity facility design and the construction industry. The Project Manager shall be responsible for the overall management and coordination of the contract and shall be the central point of contact with the Government for performance of all work under the contract including warranty requirements. They shall have an intimate working knowledge of the project requirements and design and construction issues. The Project Manager shall oversee delivery accomplishment, administer all instructions, and answer all questions from the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer Representative during the life of the contract. The Project Manager shall be responsible for ensuring that adequate internal controls and review procedures are followed in order to eliminate conflicts, errors and omissions and for ensuring that all technical requirements are met.

b. Architect of Record. This individual shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in projects of similar size and complexity facility design and the construction industry, and a minimum of ten (10) years in the general industry. They shall have performed in the capacity as “Architect of Record” for a minimum of five (5) years. They shall be an expert design professional, knowledgeable and experienced in project sequencing. This individual shall also have a demonstrated, relevant, understanding and experience in codes, criteria, guidelines, and standards related to their discipline. The individual shall have a complete understanding of their disciplines, specifically: Architectural systems design & installation, building envelope, doors, windows, acoustical properties, and their interface with other systems. The Architect of Record shall be a Registered Architect in the State of California.

c. Project Site Superintendent. This person shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of experience in government construction contracts that must include at least five (5) years’ experience in government construction projects and at least five (5) years’ experience in commercial construction projects. This person shall have at leastand five

(5) years’ overall construction experience as a Project Superintendent. The contractor will ensure that a competent superintendent is on site at all times. They should be directly overseeing all work to include subcontractors, safety, and quality control. They are responsible to ensure all labor and safety requirements are complied with and ensure the work site is cleaned each work day. All communications concerning day-to-day workmanship on the project is the responsibility of the superintendent who has the necessary authority to act for the Contractor. This position may be “dual hatted” with the SSHO position.

d. Safety Representative (Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO). This individual shall have a minimum of five (5) years’ experience directly responsible for the safety program and site safety and knowledgeable in all Federal and State safety requirements. Required training is the 40 Hour Construction Safety Hazard Awareness Training Course for Contractors, which proof of completion shall be included with the resume and proposal.

Site activities performed in conjunction with this program may pose safety hazards, which require specialized expertise to effectively address and eliminate. The Contractor shall be responsible for preparing and implementing an effective safety and health program that includes a generic site safety and health plan. This position may be “dual hatted” with the Superintendent position.

e. All designers of record shall be registered in California in accordance with contract clause: 52.236-25, Requirements for Registration of Designers.

6)5) Provide unequivocal letters of commitment from all proposed key personnel not currently employed by the team members. Use the form letter (attachment 5) as a guide.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of D-B and the capability to execute the project. All requirements for Factor 2 shall be met by the closing date of Phase I submission.

4.2.2 The Government will evaluate clarity and strength of the overall organization, the structure and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating and is preferred to have completed with that design firm (or currently be 75% complete) on a previous project submitted within the last five seven (75) years of the due date of Phase I proposals. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

5.0 SECTION 4 – FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

5.1.1 In accordance with FAR 42.1503(e), past performance will be evaluated using the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If no relevant past performance history is available for your DUNS number, you may choose to utilize the attached Customer Satisfaction Survey/ Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 1) which will be used for evaluation. Projects submitted under Factor 1 shall also include consideration under this Factor by either a PPQ submission or information obtained in PPIRS. The Government will only evaluate up to ten (10) Customer Satisfaction Surveys/ Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) combined for prime contractor, the design firm(s).

Government databases will be checked and previous customers and/or evaluators may be contacted as references or verification of performance. All performance ratings shall be considered for contracts ongoing or completed within the past five seven (75) years from the date proposals are due. The Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance information on proposals submitted in response to this Phase I solicitation from any available source.

(1) All projects submitted on a Customer Satisfaction Survey/Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) must be at least 75% construction progress complete or completed within five seven (75) years preceding the date Phase I proposals are due. The PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror, or its team members, to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Specialized Experience. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed Customer Satisfaction Surveys/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) should be submitted with your proposal, but are not required.

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jenny.Scroggins@ihs.gov, via email prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. This does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past

Amendment 0002 performance evaluation. While the Government may elect to consider data from any and all other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Past performance assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply the products and services that meet a user’s needs and the degree of success of the D-B team's recent (turned over within 75 years preceding the date of this solicitation or at least 75% complete), relevant experience. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall receive one of the following ratings: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Unknown Confidence (Neutral). This is based on a demonstrated record of performance.

5.2.2 If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such…