NSI RFQ15F06724R0000022 Phase I.pdf

Design Build Contract for FBI National Security and Intelligence Center of Excellence

(NS&I CoE)

The Solicitation, Phase 1

Request for Qualifications - 15F06724R0000022

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. The Project B. The Solicitation and Contract C. List of Phase 1 Solicitation Documents D. Authorized Representatives E. Estimated Price Range/Budget Amount F. Questions Regarding Phase 1 G. Receipt of Qualifications

II. Proposals

A. Contents B. Format C. Technical Proposal D. Evaluation Factors E. Other Information to Submit with Proposal F. Requirements for Joint Venture Offerors

III. General Provisions

A. Availability of Funds B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation C. Notice to Small Business Firms D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results E. Affirmative Procurement Program F. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals G. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirement) H. Contractor Performance Information I. Safeguarding Documents Designated as Sensitive But Unclassified J. Award Fee Plan

IV. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions

A. TBD

V. Phase 1 Evaluation Instructions

A. Evaluation Factors for Phase 1 Technical Proposals B. Definitions C. Evaluation Standards and Submission Requirements D. Evaluation of Joint Venture Offerors

VI. Evaluation Ratings

A. Evaluation Ratings Methodology for Factors Phase I Technical Proposals

B. Basis of Selection to Phase 2

RFQ 15F06724R0000022

I. General Information

A. The Project

Preliminary Scope of Work:

Architectural/Engineering (A/E) and Construction Services are required for the design and construction of a new National Security and Intelligence Center of Excellence (NS&I CoE) for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on the North Campus at Redstone Arsenal in

Huntsville, AL.

This project will provide a state-of-the-art training venue with classrooms, computer labs, meeting spaces and other essential student resources and shared campus amenities. It will provide spaces to facilitate inter-agency collaboration, collaboration with other federal agencies, and partnerships with academic institutions. NS&I CoE should be designed as an exciting, collaborative, and open working environment. It will help enhance the FBI’s training, and research and development and will be closely associated with other campus-wide training and operational facilities. The facility should be inviting and easily accessible as it houses shared campus amenities, including conference, classrooms, and other instruction areas to be used by the entire campus.

The FBI is to deliver new construction of 69,300 gross square foot (GSF) facility. The proposed facility will accommodate a limited number of full-time building support staff and a large population of transient visitors at maximum capacity. The overall building concept will be a series of conference spaces, classrooms, amenities, and support spaces that will be flexible and adaptable to future program and technology changes.

Hereafter, the “Offeror” (Design-Builder) shall be defined as the principals of the offering entity who will have primary management or supervisory responsibilities within the offering entity. If the Offeror is a newly formed business entity, established solely for this procurement, then the Government will evaluate those corporations, LLCs, Partnerships, etc., which contribute managerial expertise for the newly formed Offeror. The Offeror is the entity contractually responsible for all aspects of development and completion of the Project and must be legally established.

The Offeror (i.e., Design-Builder) shall be expected to deliver the project in partnership with key team member firms including, but not limited to the Lead Designer, Design Team and

General Contractor.

Goals and Objectives

a. Scope Overview: The FBI, in collaboration with its clients, stakeholders, and Design

Builder intends to build a new Federal Building on Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL.

The facility’s design will be appropriate to the context of the site and history while responding to organizational culture and values. The design will demonstrate economy, restraint, and dignity.

b. NS&I CoE will significantly enhance the FBI’s operational, support, technology, training, and research and development capabilities and capacities. Key planning attributes of the building reflect a strong desire to:

• Create a center for innovation that is the essence of a 21st century campus – a creative, collaborative, forward-leaning, technical working, and research environment.

• Create an environment similar to the North Campus with associated landscaping and pedestrian connections between buildings.

c. This project is to be accomplished using a collaborative Design Build (DB) delivery method. A successful project outcome will depend on the trust and collaboration between the project stakeholders; tenants, consultants and delivery team. The FBI’s commitment to design excellence places a high value on all aspects of the project, with strong emphasis placed on the design and functionality. The project team should follow the principles of The Design-Build Institute of America’s (DBIA’s) Design-Build Done

Right™ Best Practices. By utilizing performance-based requirements, the FBI allows the

Design-Builder greater flexibility in how they meet project requirements without dictating a specific design solution. By adopting the Design-Build Done Right™ approach, the FBI seeks a significant departure from traditional government-dictated design processes, practices and associated program controls. This trade-off requires the

Design-Builder to ensure that design solutions meet requirements while allowing government participation and feedback throughout the process.

d. This relationship between the FBI and the Design-Builder should yield the following outcomes:

• Confidence that the Design-Builder is meeting performance and other federal contract requirements, but also verification by the FBI’s team.

• Validation that the performance requirements are substantiated to produce the desired functionality.

• Meaningful engagement of FBI stakeholders in design decisions pertaining to efficiency of missions’ operations within the layout, appearance and other preferences.

• Clear and open communications throughout the DB process to avoid confusion, conflict, delays or costly errors.

• The Design-Builder’s successful management of scheduling, coordination, and installation of government-furnished property, early access requirements, and access for other government contractors.

• Mitigation of avoidable conflicts and impacts to building end users.

Utilizing this project delivery method should allow the Design-Builder the greatest degree of freedom using innovation and creativity to pursue optimum solutions that meet the FBI’s performance-based requirements.

e. The facility will meet all the requirements of the building tenants. The facility will provide a safe and productive workspace for the tenants and will be constructed in a manner that ensures the safety of the construction workforce. The facility systems shall be designed to address system durability, ease of maintenance, and lower operating costs.

f. Federal buildings must be high-performance green facilities that demonstrate the merit of true integrated design, harmonizing aesthetics, cost, constructability, and reliability, to enhance productivity and creativity. The facility will achieve a minimum standard of

Silver certification using the most recent version of the U.S. Green Building Council

(USGBC®) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Building

Design and Construction (BD+C) rating system. The design must conform to the all federal statutory and regulatory sustainable design and construction requirements including those identified by the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings

(Guiding Principles), Energy Act of 2020, Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 and 2005, Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Executive

Order (EO) 14057 and associated Implementing Instructions, the Federal Building

Performance Standard, and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

A design-build scope of work, Division One specification, and program of requirements

(POR) will serve as the technical basis for the D-B contract.

B. The Solicitation and Contract

This procurement is being conducted using the two-phase selection process found in FAR

36.3. Qualification proposals will be evaluated in Phase 1 to determine which Offerors will submit proposals for Phase 2. Ultimately, one contract will be awarded using competitive negotiations. In Phase 1, the FBI will select a short list of the most highly qualified Offerors and request that those Offerors submit Phase 2 proposals. All responsible sources may submit a Phase 1 proposal.

A maximum of three (3) firms will be selected to submit Phase 2 proposals. Only those selected Offerors are authorized to submit Phase 2 proposals. Those Offerors not selected for participation in Phase 2 will be notified in accordance with FAR 15.503(a).

In Phase 2, Offerors may submit a price proposal subject to the Project Labor Agreement

(PLA) requirements set forth in the Phase 2 solicitation (a PLA proposal), a price proposal not subject to the PLA requirements set forth in the Phase 2 solicitation, or both. Any price proposal submitted in Phase 2 shall clearly identify whether it is subject to such PLA requirements.

Table 1 - RFQ Phase 1 Evaluation Factors

Factor Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Security Pass/Fail

Factor 2 Proof of Bonding Capacity (minimum $80 million for single project)

Pass/Fail

Factor 3 Past Performance on Relevant Projects 1st (Most Important Factor)

Factor 4 Prior Experience on Relevant Projects 2nd (Less Important than

Factor 3)

Factor 5 Technical Approach (Team Leadership

Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel

& Organizational Structure

3rd (Slightly Less Important than Factor 4)

Factor 6 Lead Designer 4th (Slightly Less Important than Factor 5)

Table 2 - RFP Phase 2 DRAFT Evaluation Factors

Factor Description Relative Importance

Factor 1 Preliminary Design Concept 1st (Most Important Factor)

Factor 2 Technical Approach (Team Leadership

Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel

& Organizational Structure

2nd (Less Important than

Factor 1)

Factor 3 Logistics Management Plan 3rd (Slightly Less Important than Factor 2)

Factor 4 Project Schedule 4th (Slightly Less Important than Factor 3)

Factor 5 Small Business Participation Plan 5th (Slightly Less Important than Factor 4)

Factor 6 Price (including Project Labor Agreement)

This solicitation describes the methodology to be used in the evaluation of Phase 1 proposals and provides instructions for the submission of the Phase 1 proposals. Instructions for submission of Phase 2 proposals will be provided in the Phase 2 solicitation.

Those unsuccessful Offerors who provided a responsive proposal in Phase 2 will be paid a stipend of up to $75,000 to offset the costs associated with the preparation of required conceptual designs.

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

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

1. Attachment 1 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

2. Attachment 2 Resume Template

3. Attachment 3 Submission of Question Form (RFI)

4. Attachment 4 Key Management Personnel List (KMPL) and Acquisition Risk

Questionnaire (ARQ)

5. Attachment 5 POR Synopsis

6. Attachment 6 Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)

D. Authorized Representatives - The following individuals are designated as the authorized FBI representatives under this Solicitation:

1. Contracting Officer

Name/Title: Britt Sanford

E-mail: bmsanford@fbi.gov

E. Estimated Price Range or Budget Amount – In accordance with FAR 36.204 the estimated price range for this project is between $60 million and $80 million. In Phase 2 the FBI will disclose the design to budget for this DB construction project.

F. Questions Regarding Phase 1 – Questions regarding the Phase 1 submission may be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer Britt Sanford (bmsanford@fbi.gov) on or before January 15, 2024. Any responses provided by the FBI will be posted on

SAM.gov as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

G. Receipt of Qualifications

1. In order to be considered for Phase 2 and award, Phase 1 qualifications proposals conforming to the requirements of this Solicitation must be received by 3:00 pm

(CST) on February 15, 2024, via email to the Contracting Officer listed above.

2. All submittals must clearly indicate the solicitation number with the subject line

“Submission for NS&I RFQ #15F06724R0000022 – (company name)”

3. Email is the only acceptable means of submission. Offers sent by United States mail, commercial package delivery, hand delivery or facsimile will not be accepted.

mailto:bmsanford@fbi.gov mailto:bmsanford@fbi.gov

II. Phase 1 Proposals

A. Proposal Content

Phase 1 proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed, and executed in accordance with the instructions in this solicitation:

1. Technical Proposal

2. Other Documents as Required

B. Proposal Format

Offerors are encouraged to make their proposals only as voluminous as is necessary to respond to the preparation instructions set forth in the solicitation. In addition, notice should be taken of any size or page limitations specified in the instructions and factors below.

Offerors must submit the Phase 1 proposal as delineated below:

1. The submission must contain all the necessary information to address the evaluation factors as set forth in the solicitation including security requirements and evidence of bonding capacity.

2. It must be submitted typed on non-reduced 8-1/2” x 11” pages using Arial font size

10 with 1” margins on all four sides. Any forms and charts must be clearly labeled and referenced and are not subject to the font size limitation. The Phase 1 proposal should be submitted as a single volume via email to the Authorized Representative listed in Section D above.

C. Technical Proposal

Proposals must address the Phase 1 evaluation factors stated herein. Any proposal that does not meet all the following criteria will be rejected as unresponsive. Volume, Tabs, Factors, Title and page limits are depicted in the following table:

Table 3 – Technical Factor Page Limitations

Volume Tab Factor Title Page Limit

I A N/A Title Page 1

I B N/A Executive Summary 1

I C 1 Security 2

I D 2 Proof of Bonding Capacity (minimum

$80 million for single project)

I E 3 Past Performance on Relevant 15

Projects

I F 4 Prior Experience on Relevant Projects 15

I G 5 Technical Approach (Team

Leadership Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel & Organizational

Structure

I H 6 Lead Designer 3

II A N/A Required Proposal Documents

D. Evaluation Factors Defined

1. Security – This is a go/no-go factor to assess the Offeror’s ability to pass FBI security requirements. For this procurement, the Offeror must submit the completed forms KMPL and ARQ (Attachment 4) along with completing all questions below in

Section IV, C.1.

2. Proof of Bonding Capacity – Bonding Capacity (min. $80 million) – This is a go/no-go factor to assess the Offeror’s ability to provide an offer guarantee and performance and payment bonds sufficient to cover a project of this magnitude. For this procurement, the minimum amount to be covered by the offer guarantee and bonding is $80 million.

3. Past Performance on Relevant Projects – This factor will assess the past performance of the General Contractor, A/E Design Firm, Lead Designer and Key

Team Leadership Personnel.

It will measure the quality of the Offeror’s collective experience in performing projects similar in location (250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal), size, scope and complexity to the one described in the solicitation. The quality of both the design and construction efforts associated with past projects will be evaluated.

The Government will utilize the project information submitted under evaluation factors #4, 5 and 6 below, and other available sources to assess the relevance and quality of work performed on similar projects. Evidence of past performance as a DB team within a 250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal, AL will be considered more favorably.

4. Prior Experience on Relevant Projects – This factor will measure the number of opportunities the Offeror has had to learn by doing. The Government will examine the breadth, depth and relevance of the Offeror’s prior experience in performing projects similar in location (250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal), size, scope and complexity to the one described in the solicitation.

5. Technical Approach (Team Leadership Qualifications/Experience of Key

Personnel & Organizational Structure) – The Government will assess the qualifications of key project team members for successfully performing this project.

Experience, professional certifications, awards, and other pertinent information will be examined. In addition, the Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the project by examining its proposed management plan, organization chart and narrative description of its approach to delivering a project of this magnitude and complexity.

6. Lead Designer – This factor will measure the lead designer’s credentials and quality of project experience on projects of similar size and complexity. Additionally, this factor considers the lead designer’s flexibility and attitude toward design and application to meet the unique requirements for this project.

E. Other Information to Submit with Proposal

1. Proof of Registration in the System for Award Management (https://www.sam.gov)

F. Requirements for Joint Venture Offerors

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 of 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.

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

III. General Provisions

A. Availability of Funds

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

Contract award.

https://www.sam.gov/

B. Requests for Clarification or Interpretation

The Government will attempt to answer all requests for clarifications or interpretations of the Solicitation Documents prior to the date set for receipt of offers but will not warrant that all such requests will be answered within 14 calendar days. Therefore, prospective Offerors should make such requests not less than 14 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers.

C. Notice to Small Business Firms

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

D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results

This acquisition is being conducted under the provisions of FAR Part 15 as a negotiated procurement. In accordance with FAR 3.104 and FAR 15.207, after receipt of proposals, no information regarding the identity of those submitting offers, the number of offers received, or the information contained in such offers will made available until after award except as provided by FAR 15.503.

E. Affirmative Procurement Program

The FBI has implemented an Affirmative Procurement Program (APP) intended to maximize the use of recovered materials, environmentally preferable, and bio-based products.

Offerors should familiarize themselves with the requirements for using and reporting on the use of such materials in performance as set forth in the Agreement. Refer to clauses

FAR 52.204-4 requiring double sided printing on recycled paper for all reports and FAR

52.223-10 encouraging vendors to practice waste reduction.

F. Notice Concerning Preparation of Proposals

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

G. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirement)

If a bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer, any contract awarded will require a performance and payment bond as specified in the Agreement. Offerors who utilize individual sureties should note the requirement for a certified, audited, financial statement for each person acting as an individual surety under clause FAR 52.228-1 Bid

Guarantee and the requirements of clause FAR 52.228-11 Pledge of Assets.

H. Contractor Performance Information

1. Evaluating Contractor Performance: The FBI is using the Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) module as the secure, confidential, information management tool to facilitate the performance evaluation process.

CPARS enables a comprehensive evaluation by capturing comments from both

FBI and the contractor. The website for CPARS is http://www.cpars.gov

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

3. CPARS Registration: Each award requiring an evaluation must be registered in

CPARS. The contractor will receive several automated emails. Within thirty days of award, the contractor will receive an e-mail that contains user account information, as well as the applicable contract and order number(s) assigned.

Contractors will be granted one user account to access all evaluations.

4. Contractor Representative (CR) Role: All evaluations will be sent the Contractor

Representative (CR) named on your award. The CR will be able to access CPARS to review and comment on the evaluation. If your CR is not already in the CPARS system, the contracting officer will request the name and email address of the person that will be responsible for the CR role on your award.

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

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

http://www.cpars.gov/

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

I. Safeguarding Documents Designated as Sensitive but Unclassified

Certain information contained in the Solicitation Documents may have been designated as UNCLASSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE building information. With respect to such information, Offerors shall agree to the terms for receipt of such information.

J. Award Fee Plan

The Agency reserves the right to implement an Award Fee Plan at a later date.

IV. FAR/JAR Solicitation Provisions

To be issued with Phase 2 Solicitation.

V. Phase 1 Evaluation Instructions

A. Evaluation Factors for Phase 1 Technical Proposals

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Phase 1 technical proposal using the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. The evaluation factors for Phase 1, listed in descending order of importance, are outlined in Table 1 above.

B. Definitions

1. Definition of Project of Similar Scope, Size and Complexity

Projects of similar size, scope and complexity should be new construction with a minimum of 69,000 GSF and have reached substantial completion in the past 10 years. Similar Projects will be considered more relevant if they exhibit some or all of the following characteristics:

(Listed in no particular order of preference)

● Class A Office Space

● Site development

● DB delivery method

● Training facility to include: conference spaces, classrooms, amenities, and support spaces

● Federal Government tenant

● Interagency Security Criteria (ISC)

● LEED certification (higher certifications are more favorable)

● High performance and sustainable facility requirements

● Federal Facility Standards (i.e., PBS P100)

● Larger size (SF) or more complex scope projects

● Experience working within 250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal

1. Definition of a Project of Similar Design

The design of a project of similar size, scope and complexity is as described in

B.1 above.

2. Definition of a Project of DB Similarity

DB means combining integrated project design and construction services in a single contract. The prime contractor could be a single entity, including a Joint

Venture, consisting of a General Contractor and A/E.

C. Evaluation Standards and Submission Requirements

Following are descriptions of the evaluation factors with their associated standards for evaluation and submission requirements:

1. Factor 1 – Security (Pass/Fail)

The OFFEROR shall submit completed KMPL and ARQ (Attachment 4) along with completing all questions below. Security is a go/no-go factor under Phase 1.

Does your firm have any Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)? A firm is considered under FOCI whenever a foreign interest has the power (direct or indirect) by contractual arrangements or other means, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or operations of that company. Examples include:

• Ownership or beneficial ownership, direct or indirect, of 5 percent or more of the

Offeror’s company’s voting securities by a foreign person.

• Ownership or beneficial ownership, direct or indirect, of 25 percent or more of any class of the Offeror’s company’s non-voting securities by a foreign person.

• Management positions, such as directors, officers, or executive personnel of the

Offeror’s company held by non-U.S. citizens.

• Foreign person power, direct or indirect, to control the election, appointment, or tenure of directors, officers or executive personnel of the Offeror’s company or other decisions or activities of the Offeror’s company.

• Contracts, agreements, understandings, or arrangements between the Offeror’s company and a foreign person.

• Loan arrangements between the Offeror’s company and a foreign person if the

Offeror’s company’s (the borrower) overall debt to equity ratio is 40:60 or greater; or financial obligations that are subject to the ability of a foreign person to demand repayment.

• Annual total revenues or net income in excess of 5 percent from a single foreign person or in excess of 30 percent from foreign persons in the aggregate.

• 10 percent or more of any class of the Offeror’s voting securities held in

“nominee shares,” in “street names,” or in some other method that does not disclose the beneficial ownership of equitable title.

• Interlocking directors with foreign persons and any officer or management official of the Offeror’s company who is also employed by a foreign person.

• Any other factor that indicates or demonstrates a capability on the part of foreign persons to control or influence the operations or management of the Offeror’s company.

• Ownership of 10 percent or more of any foreign interest.

Please note that FOCI do not preclude a firm from competing. Risk assessments will be done on a case-by-case basis during the solicitation phase and will be used to determine whether the use of a FOCI source poses an unacceptable security risk.

2. FACTOR 2 – Proof of Bonding Capacity (Pass/Fail)

Bonding Capacity (minimum $80 million for single project). Bonding Capacity is a go/no-go factor under Phase 1.

Firms must submit a “Signed and Stamped” letter from their Bonding Company certifying capability of fulfilling the bonding capacity of at least $80 million.

3. FACTOR 3 – Past Performance on Relevant Projects

This factor will assess the quality of past performance of the Offeror, General

Contractor, A/E Design Firm, Lead Designer and Key Team Leadership Personnel.

It measures the quality of the Offeror’s collective team experience in performing projects similar in location (250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal), size, scope, and complexity to the one described in the solicitation.

Factor 3 Evaluation Standard

This standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates a history of successful past performance on relevant projects. Evidence of past performance as a DB team may be considered more favorably.

The evaluation will include: an assessment of the overall quality of past performance; record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the responsiveness of management; the history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; the business-like concern for the interest of the customer and; the firm’s overall performance on their contracts.

The Government will consider the information presented on the Past Performance

Questionnaire (Attachment 1) to be provided by the references required for this factor and may consider other available information relevant to the Offeror’s past performance.

The Government will consider the project information submitted under Factor #4 –

Prior Experience on Relevant Projects, Factor #5 – Key Team Leadership

Personnel and Factor #6 – Lead Designer in addition to other available sources to assess the quality of work performed on relevant projects.

In addition to the information in the Offeror’s proposal itself, the Government may consider information obtained through interviews with the Offeror’s customers and/or the building’s owner or a representative of the owner. The Government may consider the past performance of managers, key personnel or other affiliates playing a significant role in contract performance.

In addition to any information contained in or referred to in the Offeror’s proposal, the Government may consider the past performance of the Offeror or its team members on any other projects performed within the past ten (10) years of which the Government has knowledge. The Government has no obligation to ensure that an equal number of references are obtained for each Offeror.

The Offeror’s safety record will be a consideration under this factor and will be evaluated based upon responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire.

An Offeror who has no record of past performance will receive a neutral rating.

If the FBI receives negative past performance information, the Offeror may be given an opportunity to respond.

Submission Requirements

The following must be provided for evaluation under this factor:

Offerors shall provide a minimum of (3) and no more than five (5) recent and relevant facilities (within the last 10 years) where they have performed as a prime contractor for projects similar in size (approximately 69,000 GSF), scope (secure training facility to include: conference spaces, classrooms, amenities, and support spaces), and complexity (DB, cost and schedule management) as the Phase 2 – RFP effort will require. At least one of the past performance references must be for projects with which the proposed project DB team (Prime and Sub) were involved.

Projects for government offices, training facilities, classified facilities, as well as

Operation Centers and IT requirements will be considered more relevant.

Completed projects within a 250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal will be more relevant. Reference checks demonstrating good working relationships between

Designer and Builder as well as Builder and Sub-consultants on DB projects will increase the government’s confidence level. Past Performance demonstrating timely and satisfactory work performance, a record of outstanding performance and positive references; as well as strong working relationships with key trade partners will add to the government’s level of confidence. Failure to provide three (3) design- build projects will lower the Government’s confidence level. Offerors are advised that the Government may consider and evaluate any other past performance data obtained from other sources and use the obtained information in the evaluation and rating of the Offerors’ past performance.

Past performance shall demonstrate present/past performance on projects of similar size, scope, cost, and complexity through the submission of the Attachment 1-Past

Performance Questionnaire. The Offeror shall instruct the reference to complete the

Attachment 1 and send the completed Attachment via e-mail to Britt Sanford, Contracting Officer (bmsanford@fbi.gov). Attachment 1 is limited to three (3) pages per past performance project.

4. FACTOR 4 – Prior Experience on Relevant Projects

This factor will measure the number of opportunities the Offeror has had to learn by doing. The Government will examine the breadth, depth, and relevance of the

Offeror’s prior experience in performing projects similar in location (250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal), size, scope and complexity to the one described in the solicitation. This factor assesses the experience of the Offeror’s primary team firms in providing similar design and construction services necessary for successfully delivering this project.

Factor 4 Evaluation Standard

This factor evaluates the extent of the Offeror’s prior experience in delivering similar projects. The standard is met when the Offeror’s team demonstrates relevant prior experience on five (5) similar projects to this project that were substantially completed in the last ten (10) years.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

• Higher quantity of similar project experience

• Higher quality of project experience more relevant to this solicitation

• Evidence that the Offeror worked on prior projects together with one or more of its proposed team members firms.

• Locality of project within 250-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal

Submission Requirements:

The information submitted for each project should demonstrate that the project is relevant to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation.

The Offeror must provide relevant project experience for each of its team member firms:

• Offeror (Design-Builder) – One (1) Project

• Design Team – One (1) Project

• General Contractor – One (1) Project

Information submitted for each project is limited to two (2) pages. Additionally, images of completed projects may be provided.

For each project, submit the following data/information:

• Project title;

• Location of project;

• Services provided by the firm (design/build, design only, construction only);

• The Offeror’s level of authority on the project (prime contractor, joint venture partner, major subcontractor, etc.);

• Total dollar value of the project (awarded price and final contract price);

• Dollar value of the Offeror’s effort on the project;

• Type of contract (e.g. firm fixed price, cost reimbursable, incentive fee, award fee, time and materials, etc.);

• Dates of contract start and completion (planned vs actual);

• Project facts including type of facility, features, tenant mission and population, square footage, security level, LEED certification, etc.;

• A scope narrative explaining how the characteristics of the submitted project relate to the characteristics of the project described in this solicitation;

• Name, title, address, phone number and email address of the customer contact and building owner who can attest to the quality of the work provided. (It is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure the information submitted is current and accurate).

Additional Requirements:

Jointly submitted projects may be provided by firms with prior experience working together;

For Joint Ventures, projects may be submitted for the Joint Venture as an entity or for individual members of the joint venture. All firms in a Joint Venture arrangement must display prior experience under this factor either as an individual firm or Joint Venture;

The Offeror (Prime Contractor) may act as the DB team leader and another function, such as the General Contractor or the A/E Design Team. However, submission of project experience is still required (as listed above) to demonstrate the Offeror’s qualifications to lead the design-build team (one project), plus additional project experience in the other proposed team role (ie. GC, A/E).

Example: Offeror “A” may propose to act as the DB team leader and the general contractor. In that case, Offeror A would submit (2) two projects; Evidence is required to demonstrate prior experience performing in the role of DB team leader

(Offeror), and general contractor, or both if joint experience (see item A).

5. FACTOR 5 – Technical Approach (Team Leadership

Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel & Organizational Structure)

This factor will assess the qualifications of key project team members for successfully performing this project. Experience, professional certifications, awards, and other pertinent information will be examined. In addition, the

Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the project by examining its proposed management plan, organization chart and narrative description of its approach to delivering a project of this magnitude and complexity.

Factor 5 Evaluation Standard

(1) This factor considers the Offeror’s Key Personnel, Project Management

Approach and Team Organization. The Offeror’s proposed team members will be evaluated as to their qualifications and experience necessary to effectively perform the required work for successful delivery of this project.

(2) This standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates a project team that is staffed with key personnel experienced on projects of similar size, scope and complexity who are qualified to deliver this project. Experience, professional certifications, awards, and other pertinent information will be examined.

(3) In addition, this standard is met when the team organization and project management approach is structured to facilitate effective and efficient project integration of design and construction activities to provide a high-quality project that achieves all the Government’s technical and administrative requirements.

(4) Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

• Higher quantity of similar project experience

• Higher quality of project experience more relevant to this solicitation.

• Evidence of prior project experience common with one or more of the proposed key personnel and/or team member firms (joint experience).

• Integrated design-build approach for delivering the site, facility, and components.

The submission requirements for this factor are met when the Offeror provides the following:

Organization Chart – Provide a project Design-Build Team Chart(s) identifying how the Offeror will organize its team and staff the project leadership team from project award and inception of design through construction completion. The chart(s) should identify the title of key positions in the organization with the name of personnel proposed to fill those positions. At a minimum, the chart(s) should address key leadership personnel required for evaluation under this factor. The reporting relationships between these functions and the company’s senior management should also be defined.

Staffing Matrix – Provide a staffing matrix that identifies the role and responsibility for each of the key leadership personnel listed in the Organization

Chart. The matrix shall identify team personnel supporting major activities occurring from project award to close-out. The matrix shall identify whether the personnel are full time or part time in the respective activity and identify where the personnel are physically located. Additional team members may be included, but not limited to design management, project integration management, project superintendence, quality control (both design and construction), and project controls.

Note: Offerors selected to submit a proposal in response to the Phase 2 Solicitation will be required to submit specific key personnel for evaluation of its design and construction field leadership team personnel.

Project Management Approach – Provide a narrative explaining how the various team members will work together and the methodology and processes that will be used to manage the project. It should define the roles, responsibilities and authority delegated to the incumbent of each position and discuss how work flows through the organization to effectively integrate the team to successfully deliver this project.

(10 Page limit)

Qualifications of Minimum Key Personnel – Provide a resume with relevant project experience for each of the following minimum key personnel:

• DB Project Executive

• DB Project Manager

• Design Manager

• Construction Manager

Two (2) personal references should be provided for each of the Key Personnel. The

Government may contact the references to determine the relevance and quality of the key personnel’s project experience. Key personnel should have at least ten (10) years of relevant experience. Each resume should not exceed (3) pages. The resumes submitted should include all the information in Attachment 2, Resume

Template.

6. FACTOR 6 – Lead Designer

This factor considers the lead designer’s credentials and quality of project experience on projects of similar size and complexity.

Factor 6 Evaluation Standard – This standard is met when:

• Credentials are complete (education, work history), professional registration.

• Designer demonstrates a history of dedication to clients with complex building projects.

• Designs demonstrate an understanding and response to specific client requirements and criteria; and

• Designs demonstrate a consistently high level of exploration, rigor, and personal commitment to design excellence.

Provide a biographical sketch of the Lead Designer, including education, professional experience, and recognition for design efforts inclusive of the portfolio examples. Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project. Maximum of (3) three pages.

Submit a Lead Designer’s portfolio of no more than (3) three projects completed in the last (10) years, with particular focus on high performance green building and technical innovation. For each project, the narrative should address the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client’s program, image, mission, economic goals, schedule, and operational objectives were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. This section of the proposal should include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, peer recognition, etc. demonstrating design excellence, and provide a client reference contact for each project, including name, title, address email, phone and fax numbers. For each project, the proposal may include a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3-D model, a building section, other appropriate drawings, and photographs. Each project is allotted a maximum of (5) five pages.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for:

• The quantity of projects of similar scope and complexity

• Prior experience demonstrating aspects more similar to this solicitation

• Evidence of successful past working experience with proposed team member

D. Evaluation of Joint Venture Offerors

In the evaluation of responsibility and non-price factors, information submitted for a party to the joint venture will only be evaluated to the extent that the terms of the joint venture agreement do not limit such party’s performance or financial obligations as a party to the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation.

VI. Evaluation Ratings

Rating Methodology for Security (Factor 1)

Security will be evaluated on a “Pass/Fail” basis. Offerors shall submit the security requirement and receive a “Pass” rating to be eligible for further evaluation. If an

Offeror receives a “Fail” rating for the Factor, they will not be evaluated further. The ratings for Factor 1 are defined as follows:

Factor 1: Security (Pass/Fail)

Pass Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Fail Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Rating Methodology for Proof of Bonding Capacity (Factor 2)

Bonding Capacity will be evaluated on a “Pass/Fail” basis. Offerors shall submit the bonding requirement and receive a “Pass” rating to be eligible for further evaluation.

If an Offeror receives a “Fail” rating for the Factor, they will not be evaluated further.

The ratings for Factor 2 are defined as follows:

Factor 2: Proof of Bonding Capacity (Pass/Fail)

Pass The Offeror’s ability to provide an offer guarantee and performance and payment bonds sufficient to cover a project of this magnitude. For this procurement, the minimum amount to be covered by the offer guarantee and bonding is $80 million.

Fail Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Rating Methodology for Past Performance on Relevant Projects (Factor 3)

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor based on the below color-coded and adjectival rating system. The color code rating illustrates to what degree the

Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation criteria. Color code ratings will be assigned based on a consensus of the Evaluation Team. The Color ratings will be assigned as follows:

Rating Methodology for Prior Experience on Relevant Projects (Factor 4), Technical Approach (Team Leadership Qualifications/Experience of Key

Personnel & Organizational Structure) (Factor 5) and Lead Designer (Factor 6)

The Government will evaluate Factor 4, 5 and 6 based on the below color-coded and adjectival rating system. The color code rating illustrates to what degree the Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation criteria. Color code ratings will be assigned based on a consensus of the Evaluation Team. The Color ratings will be assigned as follows:

Past Performance Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Performance meets solicitation requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.

Green Acceptable Performance meets minimum solicitation requirements.

The performance of the areas being assessed contains minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Red Unacceptable Performance does not meet most solicitation requirements.

The performance of the areas being assessed includes serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the

Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

White Neutral No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide an assessment.

Past Performance Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Performance meets solicitation requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.

Green Acceptable Performance meets minimum solicitation requirements.

The performance of the areas being assessed contains minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Red Unacceptable Performance does not meet most solicitation requirements.

BASIS OF SELECTION TO PHASE 2

Offerors are encouraged to put forth their best effort for Phase 1 to allow the evaluation team to determine their potential performance capabilities. Offerors should not assume they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal. Based on the submitted proposals, the Contracting Officer exercising prudent business judgment, intends to select no more than three (3) of the most highly qualified

Offerors to short list for Phase 2.

This is a two phased Best Value Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 36.3 using FAR 15.3 Source Selection methodology. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Phase 1-

Security, Proof of Bonding Capacity, Past Performance on Relevant Projects, Prior

Experience on Relevant Projects, Technical Approach (Team Leadership

Qualifications/Experience of Key Personnel & Organizational Structure) and Lead

Designer- to move into the competitive range for Phase 2.

The performance of the areas being assessed includes serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the

Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.