Revised_Section_M _Amendment_0001.docx

Solicitation No.: NIHOF2014002 Amendment 0001, Dated 14 Jan 2014 Architect & Engineering Services

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by References (Feb 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://www.acnet.gov/far

(End of provision)

FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (Jul 1990)

M.2 ADDITIONAL EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR 36.602-1, selection criteria is the governing guidance for the evaluation of A & E offer’s. The NIH shall evaluate each potential A & E contractor in terms of its—

(1) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services; higher ratings will be given to Professional Certifications beyond the legal/statutory requirements of licensing including but not limited to relevant Project Management, Laboratory Certifications and Mechanical/Electrical qualifications.

(2) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, where appropriate, experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials; higher relative ratings will be assigned to contractors that have completed projects more similar in overall character to the proposed work, particularly with active sites. Higher ratings will be given to firms who demonstrate experience and technical competency with similar active laboratory campus’s, specialized mechanical/electrical demands and security projects. In addition, higher ratings will be given for firms demonstrating customer satisfaction and demonstrating how they resolve conflicts with minimum disruptions to the needed functions.

(3) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time; higher ratings will be given to offerors that demonstrate the capacity to complete projects in a timely manner, incorporating the contractor’s concurrent workload, including all levels of the offering.

(4) Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules; higher ratings will be given to positive past performance characteristics. Offerors should provide examples of past performance in the following areas, particularly with government entities. Higher ratings will be given to firms that demonstrate they can effectively manage sub consultants, satisfy their clients, accomplish the projects in a timely manner including deliverables, RFIs, Submittals etc…, charge a fair and reasonable price, achieve high-quality workmanship, have effective communications between key design team members as well as the client, effectively resolve problems including defects and/or omissions in submitted documents and are cooperative and have a high enough customer satisfaction rate that the customer would hire them again

(5) Management plan; higher relative ratings will be assigned to contractors that have a clear concise plan for managing the Task Orders. Examples of demonstrating this include: addressing the management approach, team organization, quality control procedures, cost and schedule control, coordination of in-house disciplines and consultants, and prior relationships of the prime firm and any of their significant consultants on similar projects.

(5) Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project; provided, that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project; higher ratings will be given to offerors that are closer in distance which enhances response time for site visits and project meetings.

M.3 AWARD

Only one award will be made under this solicitation. The award of this contract will be made to the A & E contractor offering the best technical proposal at a fair and reasonable price in accordance with terms and conditions of this solicitation, Statement of Work and the evaluation factors set forth in Section M.