S02 - Attachment 2 Rev Factors (8 Pages).pdf

AE FACTORS

Project 672‐23‐100

Renovate Second Floor Mental Health Waiting Area & Chapel

I. EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION PROCESS

A. The evaluation factors for the SF 330s are listed below in same order of importance and will be used to evaluate and select the AE firms:

B. SF 330s Evaluation ‐ Stage I (Pre‐selection):

C. The evaluation factors established to evaluate the AE firms SF 330s are as follow:

1. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services:

a. Specific qualifications needed include (i.e., education, training, registration, certifications, overall relevant experience, and longevity with the AE firm) of personnel proposed for assignment to the project.

i. All AE firms must be licensed & NCARB registered at Department of State to work in the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

ii. The Designer of Record must have at least ten (10) years of experience with physical plants.

b. The lead designer in each discipline must be registered but does not have to be licensed and registered in the particular state and/or USA territories where the project is located.

c. Submit record of working together as a team for the personnel proposed for assignment on this project. Also submit the types and number of projects the AE firms (or design team members) have worked together on over the past five (5) years.

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:

a. Specialized experience and technical competence will be evaluated based on the design team members’ knowledge, both individually and collectively as a team, in:

i. Construction Inspection Services.

ii. New Construction and Renovations.

b. AE Firms must submit at least five (5) but up to seven (7) similar designs for projects involving new construction and renovations inside medical facilities. Designs must be complete or substantially complete prior to the release date of the pre‐solicitation notice.

c. AE Firms (or design team members) will also be evaluated on their processes in relation to design quality management procedures, Computer‐Aided Design and Drafting/Building Information Modeling, Building Information Modeling, equipment resources and laboratory requirements for the AE firm and any proposed subcontractors.

d. AE Firms (or design team members) will also be evaluated on their experience at incorporating sustainability principles into designs and evaluations, descriptions of waste reduction techniques and energy efficiency in facilities designed by the team, as well as familiarity with the use of recovered materials on construction contracts.

3. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time:

a. Submit project lists for designs in progress or completed by the personnel proposed for assignment to the project; Indicate how the team accomplishes multiple, large, and small projects simultaneously, at different locations, within required timeframes over the last five (5) years.

b. The number of and types of employees (prime and subcontractor), including the availability of additional competent, regular employees for support of projects, and the depth and size of the organization.

c. Submit information on the volume of work awarded by VA during the previous 12 months to the prime and all subcontractors.

4. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules:

a. The Government will evaluate the AE firm’s past performance and any subcontractors to determine the degree to which it demonstrates the likelihood it can successfully perform the requirements of the work as described in the Statement of Work. To be considered recent past performance, the contract shall either be currently active or completed within the past five years of the closing date of this synopsis. In the case of a joint venture, LLC, or other team arrangement formed for the purpose of competing for this contract, the Government will evaluate relevant past performance of the entities that comprise the newly formed entity. Relevant past performance includes current or past contracts similar in size (dollar value), scope (type and nature of work), and complexity (duration, and/or risk) to the work described herein. The Government will use information either furnished by the Offeror and reference(s) and/or information obtained from other independent data sources in evaluating relevant past performance.

b. Submit performance ratings on completed projects, especially VA, as well as information about the reputation and standing of the AE firm and its principal officials with respect to professional performance, general management, and cooperativeness.

c. Submit any record of significant claims against the AE firm because of improper or incomplete architectural and engineering services.

d. For AE firms without a record of relevant past performance or for whom relevant past performance information is not available, the AE firm will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

5. Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project:

a. The geographic location of the main or branch office of the prime AE firm shall be within 100 miles of the VA Caribbean Healthcare System, 10 Calle Casia, San Juan, PR 00921‐3201.

b. Knowledge of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico regarding designs. AE firms must demonstrate knowledge of the locality which may include state licenses or projects completed for designs of projects within the state.

6. The extent to which potential contractors identify and commit to the use of service‐disabled Veteran‐owned small businesses, Veteran‐owned small businesses, and other types of small businesses as subcontractors:

a. AE Firms must affirmatively acknowledge that they will commit to the use of SDVOSBs to the maximum extent practicable.

7. Experience in construction period services to include professional field inspections during the construction period, review of construction submittals, support in answering requests for information during the construction period, and support of construction contract changes to include drafting statements of work, and cost estimates:

a. AE Firms must describe a minimum of five (5) projects that included construction period services.

Provide reference information including email and phone number of customers and any available completed performance evaluations for these projects.

D. SF 330s Evaluations ‐ Stage II – (Written Interviews): In accordance with FAR 36.602‐3(c), Evaluation Board Functions, the three highest‐ranking AE firms will be short listed, and CO will be sending the written interviews. The AE firms will be given the written interview evaluation criteria in advance so they can elaborate their responses for the SSEB. The evaluation factors and the consensus score key along with the adjectival rating will be used by the SSEB to rate the second stage of this process. Awardee will be chosen based on the written interview evaluation criteria. The evaluation factors and consensus score key is listed below in equal order of importance.

E. The Interview Written Questions established for the top three (3) AE firms are as follow:

1. Team Proposed for this Project: AE firm shall provide an organizational chart of the team and discuss the roles of the key personnel for this project.

2. Proposed Management Plan – Team Organization: Design phase quality control and plan, construction period services phase quality control and plan, and methods for dealing with RFI’s and submittals in a timely fashion during construction. AE firm shall create and describe a draft schedule for this design project.

3. Relative Utility of Alternative Methods: AE firm shall describe your design approach for this project and any alternative design methods/concepts that may be considered for this project.

4. Experience of Proposed Team: AE firm shall describe five of the teams most relevant projects to what is requested in the SOW, and how it relates to this project.

5. Proposed Approach for Unexpected Design Issues: AE firm shall describe design philosophy and anticipated problems with potential solutions.

6. Project Control: AE firm shall describe techniques planned to control the project management, schedule, quality, and costs, and the personnel responsible for the management, schedule, quality, and cost control.

7. Estimating Effectiveness: AE firm shall describe estimating methods, challenges with estimates, and change orders.

F. The procedures of the evaluation of SF 330s for this acquisition consist of two phases. Phase One SF 330s ‐ technical qualifications will be evaluated by the SSEB – Technical Member to determine which AE firms will be invited for Phase Two Written Interview Questions or Request for Information (RFI).

G. The SSEB will conduct both phases technical evaluations in strict compliance with sources sought public notice evaluation criteria/factors.

H. During SF 330s and technical qualification evaluations and written questions evaluations, the SSEB technical members shall be diligent documenting in writing all strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified for each Factor or Sub‐ factor. After the evaluations have independently rated the technical proposals, the SSEB will meet. At this time, the individual ratings will be identified, and discussions will follow with the intent of arriving at a consensus by the SSEB panel as to the overall technical rating of each factor using the adjectival rating(s) identified in the sources sought. All findings shall be documented in writing and the SSEB Chairman shall reference the specific page and paragraph number in the SF 330s, Technical qualifications or written responses from the AE firms that the identified finding was found on.

I. If clarifications are required, the SSEB Technical members will submit their questions to the SSA/CO for the AE firm response. Individual SSEB Technical members will be provided responses to the clarification and given an opportunity to complete their rating for that particular AE firm.

J. If no clarifications are required, the SSEB Technical members will complete and submit their evaluation worksheets including strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies for the proposal(s) evaluated. The SSEB Technical members will deliberate for consensus and compile a consensus report with team recommendation to the SSA/CO for final determination.

K. After evaluating the SF 330s, Technical Qualification Phase One proposals, the

VA may select up to a maximum of five (5) of the most highly qualified AE firms from Phase One to submit the responses for Interview Questions or RFIs ‐ Phase Two.

L. If discussions are required among the SSEB Technical members at the conclusion of both phases, revision will complete and submit non‐price factors (technical and past performance) evaluations, the Evaluation Team will deliberate for a consensus. The SSEB chairperson will then compile a consensus report with recommendations to the SSA/CO.

M. While the SSA/CO will use reports and analysis prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s/CO’s independent judgment.

N. This is applicable to final phase evaluation process, when SSA request offer to the most highly ranked AE firm, AE fee proposal. AE fee proposal evaluation will be conducted by the SSA/CO along with support from the SSEB

Chairman/COR/PM, to determine the proposed hours by AE discipline are reasonable per project discipline and AE fee proposal is fair and reasonable. For

AE fee proposal to be considered reasonable, it must represent the proposed price provides the best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals) technical and functional capabilities of the AE firm (offeror). The AE firms’ proposals unrealistically high or low in price, when compared to the

Government estimate, and market conditions evidenced by other competitive AE firm proposals received, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements.

II. BASIS FOR AWARD:

A. It is the Government’s intent to award one (1) firm‐fixed price contract resulting from a future solicitation to provide Architect and Engineering (AE) Services to develop detailed schematic, design and construction bidding documents, construction cost estimates, construction phasing schedule, as‐built drawings and all necessary construction period services for the project titled Renovate

Second Floor Mental Health Waiting Area and Chapel.

All submittals shall be in accordance with VA’s Program Guide PG‐18‐15, Volume C‐ AE Design Submission Instructions for Minor and NRM Construction Program Medical Center Projects. The responsible AE firm whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, non‐price, price, and other factors considered. The proposals must conform to the solicitation requirements and judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. All of the SF 330s submitted will be evaluated and scored based on the evaluation factors from FAR 36.602‐1 and VAAM M836.602‐1, Selection Criteria, which will be listed in the pre‐solicitation announcement. In accordance with FAR 36.602‐3(c), Evaluation Board Functions, the three highest‐ranking AE firms will be short listed, and CO will be sending the written interviews.

Renovate Second Floor Mental Health Waiting Area & Chapel

The AE firms will be given the written interview evaluation criteria in advance so they can elaborate their responses for the SSEB. The evaluation factors and the consensus score key along with the adjectival rating will be used by the SSEB to rate the second stage of this process. Awardee will be chosen based on the written interview evaluation criteria to evaluate proposals and award the AE contract.

III. ADJECTIVAL RATING PLAN

A. The purpose of the rating plan is to ensure that proposals are evaluated equitably and that the same criteria are applied to all proposals.

B. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

DEFINITION

OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

POOR

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is not awardable.

The adjectival ratings for PAST PERFORMANCE are listed and defined below:

Past Performance Rating Key

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Confidence

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

Limited Confidence

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.