Stokes_Sol_DB_2_Phase_Part_I.pdf

GSA Solicitation No. 47PF0024R0073

Design Build Contract for: Carl B Stokes US Courthouse Plaza Replacement

The Solicitation, Phase 1 – Request for Qualifications

Note: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), Pub. L. No. 117-169, enacted in August 2022, provided GSA with significant funding for (a) measures necessary to convert facilities to high-performance green buildings, (b) acquisition and installation of construction materials and products with substantially lower levels of embodied greenhouse gas emissions, and (c) emerging and sustainable technologies. The Contract resulting from this Solicitation will be funded in part by IRA appropriations, and it contains numerous IRA-specific requirements.

Requirements include, but are not limited to, requirements regarding pricing, invoicing, submittals, materials, and construction. In addition, please note that this Solicitation contains an evaluation factor favoring certain construction materials with the lowest possible levels of embodied carbon. Offerors shall carefully review this Solicitation, the Agreement, the Statement

Document: DB201-1/April 2024 (The Solicitation) of Work, the Specifications, and the Drawings. Offerors are responsible for accurately pricing and, if successful, fully performing all Contract requirements.

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. Pre-Proposal Conference F. Estimated Price Range G. Questions Regarding Phase 1 H. Receipt of Qualifications

II. Proposals A. Proposal Contents B. Proposal Format C. Technical Proposal D. Other Requirements E. Requirements of 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 Requirements) H. Contractor Performance Information I. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information

(CUI) Building Information

J. INFORM

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions To be issued in Phase 2 A. Project Labor Agreement

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions A. Additional Provisions

(i) GSAR 552.236-74, Evaluation of Options (Mar 2019)

(ii) GSAR Clause 552.236-77, Government’s Right to Exercise Options (Mar 2019)

VI. Method Of Award A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals C. Determination of Responsibility D. Price Reasonableness/Price Realism E. Unbalanced Price F. Total Evaluated Price G. Non Price Factors H. Evaluation of Joint Ventures

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

I. General Information

I.A. The Project

The Design Build (DB) scope of work includes all labor and materials required to provide design and construction services for the replacement of the failing waterproofing system, refinishing and reinforcement of structural steel that supports the plaza, repairs to fireproofing, and fulfillment of an unconstructed plaza area originally intended for the site. The surface parking lots and retaining wall will be upgraded. The new construction will provide vital pedestrian access from the primary gateway from west-side neighborhoods (Detroit-Superior bridge) and mixed-use warehouse district to the North.

The new construction will reconcile pedestrian accessibility with adjacent surface parking. Completing the plaza provides the opportunity to introduce renewable energy sources and a water reclamation system on the site. It will also harness wind-opportunities unique to the site and alleviate pressure on the city stormwater system by capturing rainwater in void space below the plaza.

I.B. The Solicitation and Contract

(1) This procurement is being conducted using the two phase selection process found in FAR 36.3. Qualification proposals will be evaluated in Phase One to determine which offerors will submit proposals for Phase Two. One contract will be awarded using competitive negotiation. In Phase 1, GSA 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 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). (2) This Solicitation sets forth requirements for Phase 1 qualifications proposals and the evaluation factors for Phase 2 proposals for a Contract to construct the Project. Proposals conforming to the Solicitation requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the Method of Award set forth herein. The Government will award the Contract to the selected Offeror, subject to the conditions set forth herein.

(3) 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.

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

(1) The Solicitation – Phase 1

(2) Offeror Representations and Certifications Form

(3) Standard Form (SF) 1442 – Solicitation Offer and Award

(4) Draft of the Agreement

(5) Past Performance Reference Questionnaire

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

I.D. Authorized Representatives

The following individuals are designated as the authorized GSA representatives under this Solicitation:

Authorized Representative Information:

Contracting Officer’s Information

Name: Jennifer Styzek - 5P2QEB

Address: 230 South Dearborn Street, Ste. 3500, Chicago, IL 60604

Telephone: 312-353-1214

Email: jennifer.styzek@gsa.gov

I.E. Pre-Proposal Conference

Interested parties must notify the Contracting Officer for further information about attendance and to confirm location, time, and date. Only those parties who have notified the Contracting Officer and provided necessary information in advance of the meeting will be allowed to attend. To request a reasonable accommodation due to a disability, contact the Contracting Officer

Date: September 30, 2024

Time: 11:30 CT

Location: Virtual

I.F. Estimated Price Range The estimated price range for the Project is between $35 Million and $45 Million.

I.G. Questions Regarding Phase 1

Submit all questions regarding the Phase 1 to the Contracting Officer on or before October 10, 2024. Any responses provided by GSA will be posted on the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) as an Amendment to the Solicitation.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

I.H. Receipt of Qualifications

(1) In order to be considered for Phase 2 and award, Phase 1 qualifications proposals conforming to the requirements of the Solicitation must be received at the following office no later than 4:00 pm local time on the following date and at the following address.

Date: October, 28 2024 Address: jennifer.styzek@gsa.gov

II. Proposals

II.A. Proposal Contents

Proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed and executed in accordance with this Solicitation:

1. Technical proposal,

2. Proprietary Information Agreement(s),

3. Acknowledgement of all amendments,

4. Proof of bonding,

5. Other Documents as Required

II.B. Proposal Format Firms having the capability to perform the services will be invited to respond to the RFP posted on the SAM.gov website.

Offerors who then wish to submit an offer will be required to submit one digital copy of their Phase I Proposal. The subject line of the email shall include “47PF0024R0085 - Stokes LPOE Phase I” followed by the firm(s) name. Emails, including message body, headers, and attachments are limited to 25MB. Zip files are acceptable, but the following attachment type/extensions are not permitted in any email incoming to GSA, including inside zip files: ade, adp, asx, bas, bat, BHx, cer, chm, cmd, com, cpl, crt, dbx, dll, exe, hta, htp, inf, ins, isp, js, jse, lnk, mda, mde, mdz, msc, msi, msp, mst, nch, pcd, pif, prf, reg, scf, scr, sct, shb, shs, url, vb, vbe, vbs, wms, wsc, wsf, wsh, htm, 7z.

The Phase I technical proposal shall not contain more than 35 numbered pages inclusive of the table of contents, page one of the PPQs, charts, exhibits, and any other materials the Offeror deems required for each evaluation factor listed herein for which the offeror is addressing.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

Excluded from the 35 page limit, offerors are requested to submit the PIAs, proof of bonding, SF1442, SAM registration verification, acknowledgement of any amendments, Offeror Reps and Certs, verification of the firms’ VETS-4212 compliance, and any Joint Venture documentation.

II.C. Technical Proposal

Proposals must address the technical approach, technical qualifications, and the other Phase 1 evaluation factors stated herein, see Section VI.G. for further details. Any proposal not meeting all of the following criteria may result in not being further considered for award.

II.D. Other Information to be Submitted with Proposals

(1) Representations and Certifications

Offerors are reminded their SAM registration status must be “Active”, at the time their offer is submitted, to be considered for award (see 52.204-7). Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this Solicitation shall complete electronic Annual Representations and Certifications in conjunction with required Entity registration in System for Award Management (SAM), accessed via System for Award Management.

Offerors shall also submit with their proposal, the Annual Representations and Certifications (FAR 52.204-8), using the attached Offeror’s Representations and Certifications (C301).

(2) Proof of Bonding to $45 Million.

(3) Proprietary Information Agreement(s)

Offerors are advised that employees of the firm(s) identified below may require access to your firm’s proprietary information in performing advisory and assistance services for the Government under separate contract. These individuals will be authorized access only to such information that is necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firm(s) are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition.

Todd P. Cooper Hill International Mobile: 330-968-8398 toddcooper@hillintl.com

Pursuant to FAR Part 9.505-4(b), these firms must execute an agreement with each offeror that states that they will (1) protect the offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

To expedite the evaluation process, each offeror must contact the above-listed firm(s) to effect execution of such an agreement prior to the submission of proposals. Each offeror must submit copies of any such agreement(s) with their proposal.

II.E. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

(1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of an executed joint venture agreement (with original signatures) 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 SF 1442 accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

(3) In the case of corporations that are joint venture members, the corporation secretary must certify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture, either by so certifying in the joint venture agreement, or by submitting a separate certification to the Government. The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

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

III. General Provisions

III.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.

III.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 do not warrant that all such requests will be answered within 15 calendar days. Prospective Offerors should make such requests not less than 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of offers.

III.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) (Small Business Administration). For information concerning SBA's surety bond guarantee assistance, contact your SBA District Office.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

III.D. Information Concerning the Disclosure of Solicitation Results

In accordance with FAR 3.104, 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 be made available until after award.

III.E. Affirmative Procurement Program

GSA 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 Clause FAR 52.223-10 encouraging vendors to practice waste reduction.

III.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.

III.G. Bond Requirements (Phase 2 Requirements)

If a bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer, any contract awarded will require a performance bond 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.

III.H. Contractor Performance Information

(1) Evaluating Contractor Performance: The General Services Administration 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 GSA and the contractor. The website for CPARS is Contractor Performance Assessment

Completed CPARS evaluations may then be used by the 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.

(2) 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

Document: DB201-1/April 2024 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.

(3) Contractor CPARS Training: Contractors may sign up for CPARS training. A schedule of classes will be posted to the CPARS training site (CPARS Training) and updated as needed.

(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.

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 has to respond to the evaluation; however, the CR may return the evaluation earlier than this date.

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

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

III.I. Safeguarding and Dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Building Information

Certain information contained in the Solicitation Documents may have been designated as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) building information. With respect to such information, Offerors shall agree to the terms for receipt of such information, as set forth in the provision “Administrative Matters” in Section III of the Agreement, as a condition of receipt of such information.

III.J. INFORM

A. Overview of the IN-depth Feedback through Open Reporting Methods (INFORM) Process

This solicitation is part of GSA’s post award communication process called INFORM. The process is designed to enhance the quality and usefulness of post-award communications by providing greater transparency and openness into the procurement process. INFORM seeks to increase GSA-industry communication by providing clearer and more complete information to explain the award decision.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

Through the INFORM process, GSA will seek to share additional information with offerors in writing and/or through an oral feedback meeting1 that is not required by statute or regulation. For Part 15 including mandatory debriefs and Part 16, and in addition to any information required by FAR 15.503 and 15.506, GSA is providing each offeror with the opportunity to participate in the INFORM process as further discussed below.

B. Detailed Description of the INFORM Process

B.1. Component 1 - Notification of Award

After award and in accordance with any post-award notification timeframes required by regulation (i.e., FAR Parts 15.503(b) and 16.505(b)(6)), the contracting officer will issue written notices to the successful and unsuccessful offerors (the Notification Letter and Evaluation Statement (NLES)). The notices will contain:

● All information required by statute or regulation;

● An unredacted copy of the complete technical evaluation for that particular offeror that includes a full description of the unsuccessful offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies;

● An overall technical evaluation summary for that particular offeror and the successful offeror that includes evaluated price; overall technical ranking, rating, or score.

B.2. Component 2 - Request for Oral Feedback Meeting or Written Questions

Within three business days after receipt of the NLES, an offeror may, but is not required to:

● submit a written request to the contracting officer for an oral feedback meeting;

● submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer; or

● take no further action.

If the offeror timely elects to request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions, GSA will consider any such request to constitute a required debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.506. If an offeror does not request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions within the three day time period, the receipt of the NLES concludes the INFORM process and satisfies the FAR requirement for debriefs pursuant to FAR 15.506.

If the offeror submits a list of written questions in lieu of the oral feedback meeting, the contracting officer will attempt to respond within five business days

1 The oral feedback meeting may be held in person or via an electronic means.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024 of receipt of the written questions. Unless otherwise stated, the contracting officer’s response to the written questions will conclude the INFORM process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506.

If the offeror requests an oral feedback meeting, the offeror should provide the following information:

● Primary point of contact;

● List of participants with titles (e.g., Senior Vice President);

● List of topics to assist GSA better prepare for the oral feedback meeting;

and

● Preference for in-person, telephone, or web-based conferencing (if available).

B.3. Component 3 - Oral Feedback Meeting

During the oral feedback meeting, GSA’s objectives are to provide:

● Reasonable responses to written questions submitted by the offeror;

● Explanations for the evaluation conclusions and contract award decisions;

● Any additional information about the fairness and impartiality of the evaluation and why the award decision was rational;

● Reasonable responses to additional questions raised during the meeting;

● Additional transparency into the underlying competition process; and,

● A greater understanding of the evaluation and award process.

GSA will not provide any information that is prohibited by law or regulation.

B.4. Component 4 - Post Oral Feedback Meeting Questions

Within two business days after the conclusion of the oral feedback meeting, the offeror may submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer. The contracting officer will provide a written response within five business days and, unless otherwise noted by the contracting officer, the INFORM process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506 will have concluded.

If the offeror elects not to submit a list of written questions within two days after the oral feedback meeting, the INFORM process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506 is concluded.

IV. FAR/GSAR Solicitation Provisions

To be issued with Phase 2 Solicitation.

IV.A. Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

FAR 52.222-33, Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement (January 2024)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision, the following terms are defined in clause 52.222–34, Project Labor Agreement, of this solicitation “construction,” “labor organization,” “large-scale construction project,” and “project labor agreement.”

(End of Provision)

FAR 52.222-33 Notice of Requirement for Project Labor Agreement (Jan 2024) Alternate II (Jan 2024) As prescribed in 22.505 (a)(3), substitute the following paragraph (b) in lieu of paragraphs (b) through (e) of the basic provision:

(b) If awarded the contract, the Offeror shall—

(1) Negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement with one or more labor organizations for the term of the resulting construction contract; and

(2) Require its subcontractors to become a party to the resulting project labor agreement.

V. Additional Solicitation Provisions and Instructions

V.A. Additional Provisions

(i) GSAR 552.236-74, Evaluation of Options (March 2019)

(ii) GSAR Clause 552.236-77, Government’s Right to Exercise Options (Mar 2019)

VI. Method of Award

VI.A. Evaluation of Phase 1 Proposals

The Government will evaluate Phase 1 proposals based on the following evaluation factors and shortlist a maximum of three offerors to submit Phase 2 proposals.

(1) Technical Qualifications

a. Subfactor 1.A:Experience of the General Contractor and A/E (40%)

b. Subfactor 1.B: Past Performance of the General Contractor and A/E (15%)

(2) Approach to Design Build (20%)

(3) Lead Designer (25%)

VI.B. Evaluation of Phase 2 Proposals

The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the Solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, Total Evaluated Price and other factors considered. In addition to Total

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

Evaluated Price, the following Phase 2 non-price factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Quality of Design Concept (40%)

(2) Qualifications, Experience and Past Performance of Key Personnel (20%)

(3) Management and Technical Approach (20%)

(4) Sustainability (15%)

(5) Small Business Utilization (5%)

VI.C. Determination of Responsibility In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer, and is independent of the evaluation of offers set forth herein.

VI.D. Price Analysis and Price Realism Analysis

(1) The Contracting Officer will use Price Analysis to analyze the Offeror’s proposal to ensure that the final agreed-to-price is fair and reasonable. In performing Price Analysis, the Contracting Officer may use, singly or in combination with others, the analytical techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer may request the advice and assistance of other experts to ensure that appropriate Price Analysis is performed.

(2) In addition, the Contracting Officer will use Price Realism Analysis in conjunction with the evaluation of the offeror’s (fill in the appropriate non-price factor) to measure an Offeror's understanding of the requirements and to assess the risk inherent in an Offeror's proposal. Accordingly, Offerors are advised that a business decision to submit significantly low pricing will be considered as reflecting on their understanding or the risk associated with their proposals. Price Realism Analysis will not be used for the purpose of determining the probable cost to the Government.

VI.E. Unbalanced Prices Offers must include balanced prices. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall: (i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and (ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

VI.F. Total Evaluated Price

Total Evaluated Price shall be calculated using the prices indicated in the Phase 2 Price Proposal using the formula in the Phase 2 Solicitation.

VI.G. Non-Price Factors

DESIGN-BUILD STAGE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS

(A)EXPERIENCE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A/E (40%)

(B)PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE

A/E (15%)

FACTOR 2: APPROACH TO DESIGN BUILD (20%)

FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGNER (25%)

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS

SUBFACTOR 1.A: EXPERIENCE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A/E (40%)

Description: This evaluation factor considers the extent of the past experience of the General Contractor and A/E members of the Offeror’s design-build (DB) team. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term A/E is defined as an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity permitted by law to practice the profession of architecture and engineering that will have responsibility for developing detailed design and construction documents.

Submittal Requirement: Each Offeror shall provide sufficient documentation in order to demonstrate the extent of the Offeror’s past experience for at least three (3) but no more than five (5) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity (as further defined in this evaluation factor). Of this group of similar projects, the General Contractor must have served as the prime contractor of at least one project and the A/E must have had responsibility for developing the detailed design and construction documents for at least one project.

ALL projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

● Construction was substantially completed within fifteen years of the submission deadline for Stage I proposals;

● Construction contract cost at award was greater than or equal to $25 million;

and

● The project was delivered by DB or Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods.

For purposes of this evaluation factor, IPD is defined as the execution of a multiparty agreement in which the owner or developer contracted with a single

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

Offeror to provide all, or substantially all, of the design and construction services for that project.

A project that possesses at least three of the following characteristics will be considered similar in size, scope, and complexity for purposes of this evaluation factor:

● Construction on a commercial or government property;

● Construction included the construction of a plaza, site utilities, storm drainage, grading, and/or security;

● Construction included multiple phases;

● Construction took place near a transportation corridor and included coordination with public transportation (i.e. train tracks/station, bus stops);

● Construction took place within an urban community that required community engagement.

Standard for Evaluation:

The standard is met when the Offeror submits at least three (3) projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for the following:

● The General Contractor and the A/E firm worked on the same project

● A project possesses more than three of the characteristics listed above

SUBFACTOR 1.B: PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND

A/E (15%).

Description: This factor considers the Offeror’s past performance in providing design and construction services on the projects submitted by the Offeror under Evaluation Factor 1A. Past performance will be evaluated to determine the probability that the Offeror will successfully perform the project identified in the RFQ based on demonstrated past performance. The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on the information provided on the past performance questionnaires and any other sources the Government uses to obtain such information, such as CPARs/FAPIIS and other institutional knowledge of past performance. In the case of the Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

Information Required:

Past Performance Questionnaires (“PPQ”):

Offerors shall be responsible for initiating a request for at least one questionnaire for each of the projects submitted as “similar” under Factor 1.The PPQ is included in the solicitation as Attachment “PBS_Past_Performance_Form. The Offeror shall follow the instructions for completing and submitting the PPQs, which are due no later than the

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

Phase I proposal due date and time. Past Performance can be described as how an Offeror performed on a job. The questionnaire information relates to ratings of the Offeror’s timeliness of performance, cost control, quality of product, business relationship, continuity of personnel, qualification of personnel, etc. Offerors are responsible for ensuring the references provided are willing and available to complete the questionnaires on time, and also willing to be contacted by the Government.

The Government intends for the contractor to contact their references directly, and that the references respond with a completed PPQ to be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer (CO), prior to the due date of the proposal. The CO also reserves the right to contact those individuals who provide references for the Offeror to verify that the services provided comply with the similarity requirements of this RFP and to assist with the assessment of the quality of those services provided through a Past Performance Questionnaire. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states, "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance." Therefore, failure of the Offeror to provide a minimum of one reference for each “similar” project, and/or the inability of the Government to complete a minimum of two reference checks after making a reasonable effort to do so, may result in the Offeror being rated as "neutral" on the past performance factor. The Government is not required to conduct or complete reference checks on more than the required references for each Offeror. In addition to the references provided by the Offeror, the Government may solicit other sources to find references for other relevant, similar work performed by the Offeror.

The Government also reserves the right to use other government data available in its assessment of the offeror. The quality of the reference information supplied will be considered. In accordance with FAR 15.306, if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g.,the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Past performance ratings of Very Good and Excellent will be evaluated more favorably than ratings of Satisfactory. Offerors able to maintain a good relationship with all of the project team members will be evaluated more favorably.

Submittal Requirements: The Offeror is responsible for ensuring submission of a PPQ for EACH project submitted under Evaluation Factor 1: Experience in Providing General Construction Services on Similar Projects. References must have thorough knowledge of the details of the Offeror’s performance (such as the Project Manager, Building Owner, or Contracting Official associated with the project) for the majority of the contract performance period, so that the reference may sufficiently respond to the questionnaire.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

Offerors should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ for each reference, which will provide contract and client information for the project in the event the PPQ is not received by the Contracting Officer at the time proposals are due.

Completed PPQs should be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submission of questionnaires. All completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted via email to jennifer.styzek@gsa.gov prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs.

Offeror may also include performance recognition documents received within the last 10 years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror's proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), previously submitted PPQ information, and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from a variety of sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. GSA will not maintain a database of PPQs submitted by Offerors.

If any problems were encountered on the identified contracts for which the Offeror has submitted references, the contractor may provide a brief narrative describing the nature of the problems and the corrective action taken.

Standard for Evaluation The standard is met when:

1. Responses are provided by at least one reference for each project outlined in Factor 1: Technical Qualifications of Firms, and provide favorable evaluations indicating that the projects have met or exceeded the customer's requirements as set forth in the construction contract documents (drawings and specifications) in a timely manner, and within established budgets.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: APPROACH TO DESIGN-BUILD (20%)

Description: This factor considers the Offeror’s approach to establishing a design-build team that will proactively and collaboratively work together to satisfy the Government’s objectives, including the realization of Design Excellence.The team should present their approach to developing and executing a design build solution for this project. The approach should be in the form of a written narrative that outlines a realistic approach

Document: DB201-1/April 2024 that demonstrates an understanding of the labor and material availability for the project area, holistically incorporates Design Excellence and integrates community and stakeholder interests in regard to incorporating design solutions that align and/or reflect their local cultural values. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” refers to GSA’s Design Excellence (DE) Program which seeks a holistic approach (incorporating expertise in many areas, including but not limited to architecture, engineering, urban design, interior design, sustainability, and construction) that delivers value by producing high quality, maintainable high performance facilities on budget and on time. More information on DE can be found on GSA's Design Excellence Website.

Submittal Requirement: Each Offeror must submit a written narrative (not to exceed 10 pages) presenting its approach to the DB process. An Offeror may allocate the 10 pages in any manner it chooses.

Standard for Evaluation: The narrative must discuss each of the four subjects set forth below. The Government will consider these elements when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

1- Community Approach : The Offeror’s philosophy for integrating the community’s values into an architectural expression. Meeting both the values of the community and the needs of the tenant agency. The Government expects clear, thoughtful phrases that demonstrate the ability of the team to communicate ideas. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s philosophy and design intent is suitable for this project.

2-Management Process: The Offeror shall describe their overall management approach to DB including such topics as the lines and methods of communication;

decision-making; interaction with consultants; the strategy to integrate client and community input; the physical location of major design and production work; work to be produced in remote offices; the role of specialty contractors; balancing quality and cost;

and addressing adversity as it relates to scope, schedule, and budget. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort.

3-Design Excellence: The Offeror’s approach to supporting and collaborating as a cohesive team in order to realize Design Excellence. The Government will evaluate the probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project.

4-Stipend: Explain how the stipend of $69,000 will be distributed among the team members. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror distributes the stipend in an equitable manner among the team members.

The standard is met when:

● The Offeror’s philosophy, design and community intent is suitable for this project;

● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror’s management process will result in a cohesive and collaborative team effort;

● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will realize Design Excellence on this project; and, Document: DB201-1/April 2024

● There is a satisfactory probability that the Offeror will share the stipend in an equitable manner among team members.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

● Clearly demonstrated and defined compatible corporate values and corporate philosophies;

● The proven, successful implementation of the Management Process on any of the projects listed under Evaluation Factor 1.A;

● Entities that have developed a patented process or unique product on which the design builder intends to rely in performing the project identified in the RFQ;

● Written, binding agreements between the team members on the equitable distribution of the stipend.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: LEAD DESIGNER (25%)

Description: This factor considers the Lead Designer’s portfolio in the context of Design Excellence and the design build process. For purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “Lead Designer” means an individual or team of designers who will have the primary responsibility to develop the concept and the project design. For purposes of this evaluation factor, “Design Excellence” has the same meaning as stated in Evaluation Factor 2.

Submittal Requirements:

Each Offeror must submit the information requested below. The Government will consider each of these elements when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal.

● Submit a portfolio representative of the Lead Designer’s ability to provide Design Excellence. Address his or her participation in each project.

● If the Lead Designer is an individual, submit a portfolio of up to three (3) projects completed in the last fifteen (15) years (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

● If the Lead Designer is a team, submit a portfolio of up to two (2) completed projects by the lead designer(s) on the team (maximum of 5 five pages per project).

● Each project must include a narrative that addresses the design approach with salient features and discuss how the client’s program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operational objects were satisfied by the overall design/planning solution. Include tangible evidence such as certificates, awards, or peer recognition demonstrating Design Excellence. The narrative should also address the relevancy of the submitted portfolio to the current project.

● In addition to the page limits above, each Offeror may include: 1) one of the following for each project: a representative floor plan, a site plan, a rendered 3-D model, a building section, or other appropriate drawing, and 2) two pages of photographs for each project. Please label all documents.

● Identify and describe areas of responsibility and commitment to each project.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024

STANDARD FOR EVALUATION

The standard is met when:

● The submission demonstrates an understanding of the design issues to be addressed in the project identified in the RFQ as evidenced by the projects that the Offeror chose to submit for this evaluation factor;

● The submission portrays creative and appropriate responses to client criteria and needs, demonstrates design leadership, and clearly exemplifies Design Excellence.

Additional favorable consideration may be given for any of the following:

● Lead Designer has a track record of delivering superior quality;

● Lead Designer demonstrates history of dedication to clients with complex building projects;

● Designs demonstrate a consistently high level of exploration, rigor, and personal commitment to Design Excellence;

● The portfolio includes a project that is of the same size, scope, and complexity as defined in Evaluation Factor 1.A.

VI.H. 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.

Document: DB201-1/April 2024