HHSI6117R00001_RFQ_Phase_I_Final.pdf

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.

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- 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.

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. 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.

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

4.1.2.5 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.

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

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

5) 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 and five (5) years 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) 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.

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 (5) years. 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. 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 (5) 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 (5) years preceding the date 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 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 5 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 things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see Attachment 1). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation. The Government also places a higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully.

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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

6.0 PHASE I EVALUATION PROCEDURES

6.1 PHASE I OVERALL RATING: In addition to individual factor ratings, the Government will assign an overall rating for the Phase I proposal.

6.2 PHASE I EVALUATION PROCEDURES

6.2.1 The evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any relevant information obtained from other sources, e.g.

past performance information, and shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in this solicitation. The IHS will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

6.2.2. EVALUATION

6.2.2.1 Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase I submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability.

The Government does not intend to develop a competitive range or conduct discussions with Phase I offerors. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to this Phase I solicitation.

6.2.2.2 The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections or clarifications, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified offerors.

6.2.2.3 The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select no more than three (3) of the most highly qualified offerors to short-list for Phase II.

6.3 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

6.3.1 General: Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria identified in this Phase I solicitation. After all proposals are evaluated and assigned ratings, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase I to short-list for participation in Phase II.

6.3.2 Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, IHS will assign an adjective rating of “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory” to each factor.

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE

************DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS SECTION BELOW***********

THIS SECTION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

PHASE II RFP WILL BE ISSUED TO THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED OFFERORS (NO MORE

THAN THREE) SELECTED AS A RESULT OF THIS PHASE I EVALUATION.

THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL FACTORS ARE GIVEN FOR INFORMATION ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH

FAR 36.303-1.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THESE PHASE II TECHNICAL FACTORS AS PART OF THE PHASE I PROPOSAL.

4.1. BASIS OF AWARD, PHASE II

A maximum of three (3) Offerors will advance to Phase II. Phase II evaluation shall be based on the Offeror’s technical proposal and price proposal in accordance with the Best Value Continuum tradeoff process (FAR 15.101-1). The Government will award to the Offeror where the expected outcome of the acquisition in the Government’s estimation provides the best value in response to the terms and conditions included in the Phase II solicitation. Contract award shall be made after review and evaluation of the Phase II proposals.

4.2. PHASE II TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Phase II Technical Evaluation factors are listed below and will be adjectively rated. These factors, when combined, will be evaluated as approximately equal to price.

Phase II Technical Evaluation factors will include:

Factor 1: Design Technical: Detailed Technical Approach for Design and Construction Subfactor 1: Design Quality Subfactor 2: Energy Efficiency Subfactor 3: Overall Aesthetics

Factor 2: Proposed Contract Duration, Summary Schedule, and Project Management Narrative

Subfactor 1: Duration and Summary Schedule Subfactor 2: Project Management Narrative

Factor 3: Phase I Rating.

PART 5 – PHASE I ATTACHMENTS

5.1. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 0 – Table 1, Construction and Design Experience Form

Attachment 1 – Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0)

Attachment 2 – Specialized Experience Form, Construction

Attachment 3 – Specialized Experience Form, Design Firm

Attachment 4 – Key Personnel Resume Form

Attachment 5 – Letter of Commitment (Key Personnel)

Attachment 6 – Teaming Arrangement Form

Attachment A. Table 1 – Construction and Design Experience Form

Name of Offeror ________________________ SECTION 2 – Factor 1 – Specialized Experience

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104)

Response to Phase I Solicitation HHSI1611700001

1. Project Title & Location (City or Installation, State [and Country if outside US])

2. Project Type (e.g., Youth Treatment or Medical facility)

3. Dollar Value/Size of Construction Contract for the Designed Project

4. Construction Start & Completion Dates (Month/Year)

5. Role of Design Firm (e.g., Design-Bid-Build or Design-Build; Study, RFP, or 100% design) (address type of work performed and percentage of design work performed, as applicable)

6. Brief Description of Project Designed (address how the project directly relates to solicited project)

7. Customer Point of Contact (i.e., name, relationship to project, agency/firm affiliation, city, state, current phone number, and email address if available

8. Awards or Recognition Received (if applicable)

Attachment 1. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form PPQ-0

SECTION 4 – Factor 3 – Past Performance

(Cover page not required in submission)

ATTACHMENT 1

COMPANY EXPERIENCE FORM (PAST PERFORMANCE)

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: IHS DES REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS

DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO IHS WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON IHS SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY

TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO IHS. PLEASE

CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR IHS POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/ Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s)? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s E VG S M U N timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section. Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

Attachment 2. Company Specialized Experience – Construction or Prime Contractor

ATTACHMENT 2

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE - CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last ten years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

(a) Type of Project Represented

(b) Your Firm’s Name

(c) Name of Project

(d) Location of Project

(e) Owner

(f) General Scope of Construction Project

(g) Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

(h) Construction Cost

(i) Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out

(j) Dates Construction: Began___________________ Completed______________ % Completed _______

(k) Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known

(l) Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages?

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

(m) Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company)

(n) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC

SECTION 2 – Factor 1 – Specialized Experience

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, SOURCE…