W91236-10-R-0005_ph2.pdf

Design-Build Request For Proposal

WT Complex, Dining facility

PN70180, FY2009

Ft Knox KY

W91236-10-RFP-0005

SECTION 00 01 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS (ID/IQ) – PHASE II

REV 1.10 – 31 JAN 2010

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Ft Knox WT Complex; Dining Facility

Fort Knox

DIVISION 00 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS AND CONDITIONS

Sections

00 22 20 Phase 2 Design-Build Selection Procedures and Basis of Award

00 72 00 Contract Clauses (Separately Provided) **

00 73 00 Special Contract Requirements (cont.)**

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Sections **

01 32 01.00 10 Project Schedule

01 33 00 Submittal Procedures

01 33 16 Design After Award

01 45 01.10 Quality Control System (QCS)

01 45 04.00 10 Contractor Quality Control

01 50 02 Temporary Construction Facilities

01 57 20.00 10 Environmental Protection

01 62 35 Recycled/Recovered Materials

01 78 02.00 10 Closeout Submittals

TASK ORDER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:

DIVISION 00 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS AND CONDITIONS

Sections

00 11 00 CLIN SCHEDULE (Separately provided)

00 73 10 Supplemental Contract Requirements

00 73 46 Wage Determination Schedule (Separately Provided)

DIVISION 01 - General Requirements

Sections (Task Order Specific Requirements)

01 10 00 Task Order Statement of Work

01 33 00 Submittal Procedures

01 33 16 Design After Award

01 45 04.00 10 Contractor Quality Control

01 50 02 Temporary Construction Facilities

01 57 23 Temporary Storm Water Pollution Control

APPENDICES (TASK ORDER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS):

Initial Task Order Appendices

Appendix A Geotechnical Information

Appendix B List of Drawings (See appendix J)

Appendix C Utility Connections

Appendix D Results of Fire Flow Tests

Appendix E Environmental Information

Appendix F Conceptual Aesthetic Considerations

Appendix G GIS Data

Appendix H Exterior Signage

Appendix I Acceptable Plants List

Appendix J Drawings

Appendix K Utility Cost Information

Appendix L LEED Project Credit Guidance

Appendix M LEED Owner’s Project Requirements

Appendix N LEED Requirements for Multiple Contractor Combined Projects

Appendix O LEED Multiple Contractor Responsibilities Table

Appendix P USGBC Registration of Army Projects

Appendix Q AREA Computation

Appendix R RMS Submittal Register Input Form

Appendix AA Appendix AA Architectural Theme

Appendix BB Appendix BB Demarcation Matrix

Appendix CC Appendix CC Phasing Plan

Appendix DD Appendix DD Dining Facility Food Service Equipment Specifications

Appendix EE Appendix EE Ft. Knox Policy Memo No. 15-09

End of Table of Contents

NOTE: ** Indicates the Sections which are included in the Base ID/IQ Contract. From time to time the Government may update these Sections by Administrative Modifications for application to task order orders issued subsequently. Other Sections, Appendices, etc. will be included in each Specific Task Order, as indicated in TASK ORDER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, above.

SECTION 00 22 20 (ID/IQ)

REV 2.9- 30 SEP 2009

PHASE 2 DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

3.0 NOT USED

4.0 PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

5.0 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – DESIGN TECHNICAL

5.1 GENERAL

5.2 VOLUME 1-TAB A – SUBFACTOR 1 – BUILDING FUNCTIONAL, AESTHETICS AND SPACE

5.3 VOLUME 1-TAB B – SUBFACTOR 2 – QUALITY OF BUILDING SYSTEMS AND MATERIALS

5.4 VOLUME 1- TAB C –SUBFACTOR 3 – SITE DESIGN

5.5 VOLUME 1- TAB D – SUBFACTOR 3 – SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS

6.0 VOLUME -2 FACTOR 2 –REMAINING PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY PROPOSAL

6.1 VOLUME 2 - TAB A– SUBFACTOR 1– PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.2 VOLUME 2 - TAB B– SUBFACTOR 2– KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

6.3 VOLUME 2 - TAB C– SUBFACTOR 3–UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

7.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1 GENERAL

7.2 TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE)

7.3 TAB B – BID GUARANTEE

7.4 TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.5 NOT USED

7.6 NOT USED

8.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

8.1 GENERAL

8.2 DISCUSSIONS (IF NECESSARY)

8.3 PHASE I PROPPOSAL

PHASE TWO – SECTION 00 22 20 ATTACHMENTS

8 – FORMAT FOR TABLE OF FACILITIES

9 – FORMAT FOR TABLE OF SPACES

10 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE KEY SUBCONTRACTOR (OR PRIME IF WORK NOT TO BE

SUBCONTRACTED)

11 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

1.0 OVERVIEW

Those Offerors short-listed in Phase 1 are invited to submit a Phase 2 proposal, as indicated below. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein, using the evaluation rating systems outlined in the Phase 1 Design-Build selection procedures. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. The Phase 2 evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD (SATOC)

2.1. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price IDIQ contract and initial task order to that responsible Phase 2 Offeror whose proposal for the initial task the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price.

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the contract cost limitation. After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will determine which proposal represents the best value. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001

2.2. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

3.0 NOT USED

4.0 PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

AND SUBFACTORS

(VOLUME 1 – DESIGN TECHNICAL)

Factor/Sub Factor

Location

Description

Relative Importance

FACTOR 1

Volume 1

DESIGN TECHNICAL

Most Important Factor

Subfactor 1

Vol. 1 TAB A

Building Functional, Aesthetics and Space

Equally important with Subfactor 2

Subfactor 2

Vol. 1 TAB B

Quality of Building Systems and Materials

Equally Important with Subfactor 1

Subfactor 3

Vol. 1 TAB C

Site Design

3rd Most Important Subfactor (less important than

Subfactors 1 and 2, which are equal in importance.)

Subfactor 4

Vol. 1 TAB D

Sustainability

4th Most Important Subfactor (less important than

Subfactor 3)

(VOLUME 2 – REMAINING PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY AND SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION)

FACTOR 2

Volume 2

REMAINING PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY

2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1,)

Subfactor 1

Vol. 2 TAB A

Proposed Contract Duration and Summary

Schedule

Most Important Subfactor

Subfactor 2 Vol. 2 TAB B Key Subcontractors 2nd Most Important Subfactor (less important than

Subfactor 1)

Subfactor 3

Vol. 2 TAB C

Utilization of Small Business Concerns

3rd Most Important Subfactor (less important than

Subfactor 2 )

(VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION)

FACTOR 3

Vol. 3 TAB A

Price (Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Bid

Schedules)

3rd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor

2 )

N/A

Vol. 3 TAB B

Bid Guarantee

Not Rated

Vol. 3 TAB C

Required Pre-Award Information

Not Rated

5.0 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – DESIGN- TECHNICAL

5.1. GENERAL: The design-technical Factor consists of conceptual level presentation drawings, technical approach narratives and information regarding material and system quality. It must clearly define the proposed scope and quality levels that the design-build team is offering to the Government in enough detail for the Government and the Offeror to mutually understand the whether or not the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum Solicitation requirements. Fully developed drawings, details, or specifications are not desired or required. The Offeror shall identify what it considers to be Betterments in its proposal for Subfactors 1-3 (See Section 00 73 00, SCR “Proposed Betterments“). Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

5.2. VOLUME 1 - TAB A –SUBFACTOR 1 - BUILDING FUNCTIONAL, AESTHETICS AND SPACE

5.2.1. Submission Requirements:

5.2.1.1. Presentation Drawings:

(a) Presentation Exterior Elevation(s) of the primary elevation(s) of each facility clearly noting proposed materials and colors.

(b) At least one (1) Exterior Perspective Rendering (may be CADD rendering) for each facility type included in the contract with enough detail to aid in the evaluation of the exterior building aesthetics, as described in paragraph 5.2.2.2 (a), below.

Rendering should be at least 11" x 17" in order to show a detailed perspective view of the building

(c) Typical building or wall section(s) with appropriate details for each building type to depict proposed story height.

(d) Schematic floor plans for each floor of each facility.

(e) A color board including primary interior and exterior finish materials.

5.2.1.2. Technical Approach Narratives

Provide technical approach narratives, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal. Preface the narratives with a design concepts narrative, providing the design rationale and basis of the proposal.

(a) Minimum Space and Facility Size. Describe the spaces provided for each facility, in accordance with Section 01 10 00, Statement of Work. As a minimum, include a tabulation of the net square footage for rooms, zones, or other areas, the total gross square footage for each floor of each facility, and the total gross square footage for each facility to clearly demonstrate compliance with the project requirements. See the sample spreadsheets at the end of this section attachments 8 and 9.

(b) Architectural Theme and Materials. This narrative shall be no longer than three (3) typewritten pages. Describe the architectural themes of the various facilities and spaces which demonstrate how the proposal achieves the results desired by the Statement of Work. Narrative should address how the selection of materials and colors enhances the exterior and interior aesthetics of the facilities and improves the living and/or working conditions for the soldier populations who will utilize the facilities. This narrative is not intended to be a material listing, but to explain/reflect how the selections were made and how they address the requirements.

5.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

The following three elements are equal in importance (not rated separately).

5.2.2.1. Building Functional Arrangement: This element considers the overall functional layout (Floor Plan) and interaction of the spaces in the facilities as well. This element considers the planning and design of the spaces with respect to soldier working conditions and the operations of the facility.

The following criteria will be considered in the evaluation of the functional arrangement of the various facilities:

(a) How well the floor plan responds to the Functional Relationship requirements described in the Statement of Work

(b) How well the floor plan and space arrangement facilitate work flow and access necessary to successfully operate this facility in accordance with its mission.

(c) Do the facilities provide acceptable life safety and fire safety measures?

(d) Do the proposed plans demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements for circulation, furnishings , equipment, and other specifically identified items in the Statement of Work?

5.2.2.2. Building Aesthetics: This element considers the overall “appeal” of the facility and the desire that both the interior and exterior of the facilities present a professional, attractive appearance. The following two areas will be considered under this element and are equal in consideration (not separately rated):

(a) Exterior Considerations:

To the extent possible within the government identified contract cost limitation (CCL), the proposal must comply with the look and feel of the Installation architectural theme identified in the Request for Proposals. The first priority in order of importance is how well the proposal provides comparable building mass, size, height, and configuration in comparison with the architectural theme expressed in the Solicitation. The second priority in order of importance is how well the proposal provides compatible exterior skin appearance based upon façade, architectural character (period or style), exterior detailing, matching the architectural theme expressed in the Solicitation.

• Proposals shall be evaluated on mass, size, height, and configuration in comparison with the architectural theme expressed in the Solicitation, design of facades, roof lines, delineation of entrances, proportions of fenestration in relation to elevations, shade and shadow effects, materials, textures, architectural character (period or style), exterior color schemes.

• How compatible is the proposed design with the installation architectural theme expressed in the RFP? If not an exact "copy" of the theme, how well does it harmonize or blend with the expressed theme?

• How well does the proposal provide comparable building mass, size, height, and configuration in comparison with the architectural theme expressed in the Solicitation?

• How well does the proposal provide compatible exterior skin appearance based upon façade, architectural character (period or style), exterior detailing, matching the architectural theme expressed in the Solicitation?

• Is the buildings scale and proportion complimentary of the adjacent structures?

• Is the building an attractive addition to the Installation?

• How well does the building harmonize with its environment, including surrounding facilities?

• Has the proposer addressed/coordinated the arrangement of stacks, louvers, vents, and roof mounted equipment, etc. to provide a visually attractive structure?

(b) Interior Considerations:

• Are the proposed colors and material finishes conducive to the working environment of the facility?

• For administrative areas, does the interior design provided establish a positive working environment?

• Has the proposal addressed/provided for natural and artificial light in the living and working spaces and is the arrangement of fenestration and lighting fixtures in the spaces conducive to furniture placement and space usage?

• Do the proposed ceiling material, elevation, and design enhance the environment?

• Has “support item” placement been considered and addressed in the proposal to enhance the environment? For example:

placement of supply/exhaust devices, placement of electrical panels, placement of exhaust fans, etc.

• Does the proposal provide for acoustic control of noise from service/support spaces to administrative areas?

• Does the proposal provide a pleasant, “themed” eating environment?

• Does the proposal include a pleasing professional environment in the cooking/serving areas?

5.2.2.3. Minimum Space and Facility Size

The proposal must include all the mandatory spaces in response to the requirements set forth in Section 01 10 00, Statement of Work. For this element, proposals will be evaluated on compliance with these requirements. Proposals shall identify any individual areas which are less than the required areas and describe how such deviation would enhance the building function.

Individual areas may slightly exceed the requirements, so long as building function is not compromised elsewhere and as long as the overall square footage is not greater than that as described in Section 01 10 00, as authorized by Congress

5.3. VOLUME 1- TAB B – SUBFACTOR 2 - QUALITY OF BUILDING SYSTEMS AND MATERIALS

5.3.1. The Government has identified certain items as desirable features or preferable items. Desirable features are identified below in the evaluation criteria. Preferable items are listed in order of priority. These items, along with any Offeror-identified betterment, will be given additional consideration during the evaluation process, provided that they are included within the contract cost limitation (CCL) identified in the Solicitation.

Preference #1 - Preference #1 is for the site to be designed in accordance with the site plan provided in Appendix J Drawings.

Preference #2 - Brick and Stone Building Façade.

Provide a full height masonry building facade with architectural features that are compatible with adjacent Bldgs 1109 and 1110 as indicated in Appendix F. Wall system shall consist of a stone lower water table base (height appropriate for building aesthetics) with clay or shale brick above. Provide a clay or shale brick and stone building façade meeting the requirements of Section 01 10 00, Paragraph 6.5.2 and Appendices F and AA. All brick masonry products shall conform to ASTM C 216, Grade SW. “Thin-brick/stone systems” are not acceptable.

Preference #3 - 30-Year Architectural Shingle Roof System.

Provide a fiberglass asphalt shingle roofing system meeting the visual compatibility requirements of Section 01 10 00, Paragraph 6.5.2 and Appendices F and AA. Prioroity shall be to maximize the ratio of high-sloped roof area to low-slope roof. Give aesthetic preference to the views of the facility from the other WT complex facilities. Shingle shall be a multi-layered (dimensional) architectural shingle for a more textured effect and attractive appearance. Shingles shall be provided with a minimum 30-year warranty (non-prorated material) installation labor coverage for the first five years) and conform to ASTM D 3462 requirements

5.3.1.1. Presentation Drawings

(a) There are no specific drawings requirements for this Subfactor. However, the Offeror has the option of providing concept level drawing information for specific materials and/or systems which the Offeror feels are necessary to describe the proposed systems or materials.

5.3.1.2. Technical Approach Narratives:

Provide technical approach narratives, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal. It is acceptable to include all the sub-items shown below into a single combined narrative for the entire facility. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that all aspects identified in the evaluation criteria below are addressed. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives shall be ten (10) typewritten pages.

(a) Architectural Finishes: Describe how the materials selected provide for a suitable environment for the expected population of the facility. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Narrative should focus on durability and maintenance of the finishes proposed.

(b) Furniture Systems: Not Used

(c) Mechanical Systems: Describe how the mechanical systems selected provide for a highly efficient environmental control system including information about provisions for indoor air quality maintenance. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations, limiting energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage.

(d) Plumbing Systems: Describe how the plumbing systems selected provide for a highly efficient domestic hot water system and an efficient piping system. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations, energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage.

(e) Electrical Systems: Describe how the electrical power and lighting systems, telephone, data, and cable television systems selected provide for a highly efficient electrical system. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they address the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations, energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage.

(f) ATFP Considerations: Describe how the proposed materials, systems, and designs address the mandatory building ATFP requirements included in the Statement of Work.

(g) Site Utilities and Site Systems: Not Used

(h) Interoperability: Describe how systems integrated into the new facilities which require connection and interface with existing installation-wide systems will be accommodated in the proposed project. Narrative should address the following systems as minimum: Fire Alarm, Telephone, Cable Television, UMCS, and privatized utility companies where applicable.

(i) Solar Hot Water Heating: Include provisions to provide at least 30% of the domestic hot water requirements through solar heating methodologies, unless the results of a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), developed utilizing the Building Life Cycle Cost Program (BLCC) demonstrates to the Government’s satisfaction that the solar hot water system is not life cycle cost effective in comparison with other hot water heating systems. Discuss and outline Offeror's strategy for this solar system including components, placement of collectors, and controls Include all applicable input data, assumptions, first cost, replacement cost, and maintenance and repair cost that were utilized in the calculations. If using the LCCA to justify non-selection of solar hot water heating, make all life cycle cost comparisons to a baseline system to provide domestic hot water without solar components. Analyze at least two different solar hot water methodologies to compare against the baseline system. Use a study period of 25 years and use the Utility cost information in Appendix K.

5.3.1.3. Proposed Material Identifications: In order to evaluate and rate the quality of the materials being proposed, including any material or equipment warranties exceeding the one year warranty in the contract clause “Warranty of Construction”, the Offeror shall include in the proposal material identification for major materials in each of the areas shown below. Provide this information tabular form supported, if necessary to clearly identify level of proposed quality, by catalog information (may provide on CD-ROM). . Table should include manufacturer’s name, model number, length of warranty, size/capacity (where available), efficiency (where applicable), and any other notes or information selected by the Offeror.

The Government will evaluate and consider materials and equipment proposed by brand name and model number as a quality standard. Unless substitution of a manufacturer, brand name or model is otherwise specifically prohibited in the contract, if the successful Offeror desires to substitute manufacturers, brand names or models after award, the substituted product must meet the contract requirements and be approved by the designer of record and the Government as equal in function, performance, quality and salient features to that initially proposed. Acceptance of the proposal is not a guaranty that the proposed products meet the contractual requirements.

(a) Architectural Finishes

• Interior Walls

• Floors

• Ceilings

• Exterior Walls

• Any Special Features

• Hardware systems (not individual hardware sets)

• Door systems/types (not individual doors)

• Window systems/types (not individual windows)

• Roofing Systems

(b) Furniture Systems: Not Used

(c) Mechanical Systems

• Central Heating/Cooling Equipment

• Pumps

• Air Handling Equipment

• HVAC System Control Equipment

• Energy Conservation Features

(d) Plumbing Systems

• Fixtures

• Domestic Hot Water Generator

(e) Electrical Systems

• Lighting Fixtures

• Main Switchgear and Panels

• Data, Telephone, Cable TV, Intercom, CCTV, or Other Special Systems as Identified in the SOW

5.3.1.4. Provide a list of quality improvements that are above the minimum stated with the performance specifications.

Develop the following table, or similar, to identify quality betterments.

Improved Quality

Concise description of improved quality

Feature is included within the C ontract

Cost Limitation – YES/NO

Arch. Finishes

Etc.

5.3.2. Evaluation Criteria:

5.3.2.1. General: It is the Army's objective that these buildings will have a 25-year useful design life before a possible reuse/repurpose or renovation requirement, to include normal sustainment, restoration, modernization activities and a 50-year building replacement life. Within that overriding theme the Government will evaluate the Offeror selected systems and components proposed in terms of warranties provided, maintenance considerations (frequency, estimated cost, access, equipment locations), operability (ease of use, placement of control features, simplicity), durability (withstand troop usage, ease of cleaning), sustainability, and energy consumption (HVAC, lighting, power). The minimum acceptable level of quality for finishes and materials for these buildings are those materials suitable for the expected population and usage. Residential or similar grade finishes and materials are not acceptable for inclusion in these buildings, unless otherwise specifically allowed in Section 01 10 00.

5.3.2.2. The Government encourages the Offeror to place emphasis on those design features which optimize and emphasize functional/operational requirements; interior/exterior finishes and systems; and life cycle/ energy efficiency. The Offeror may choose the lowest “Type of Construction” allowed by the Building Code for this occupancy/project and put the money into durable finishes and efficient systems. The features that the Government has identified below as desirable features will be given additional consideration in the evaluation. The items that the Government identified in paragraph 5.3.1 as preferable will be also be given additional consideration during the evaluation process, provided that they are included within the contract cost limitation identified in the Solicitation. Offeror-identified betterments may also be given additional consideration during the evaluation process, provided that they are included within the contract cost limitation identified in the solicitation. The order of importance for proposed betterments for rating purposes is as follows: desirable features, preferable items and other Offeror identified betterments. Unsubstantiated claims or narrative information will not be given evaluation credit during the evaluations. The following elements (not rated separately) will be considered in the evaluation of the building systems and materials of the various facilities:

(a) Architectural Finishes, Components and Systems:

Acceptable proposals include finishes, components and systems which provide usable spaces for the intended purposes and that provide the basic function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for materials, and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

Specific examples of desirable features: solid wood cabinetry; solid surface counter tops; ceramic tile; 25 year non-pro-rated, no-leak roof warranty; high efficiency windows and doors.

(b) Furniture Systems: Not Used

(c) Mechanical Components and Systems:

Acceptable proposals include components and systems that provide the basic environmental control function necessary.

Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, reduce energy consumption, sustainability, maintainability (cyclical maintenance, access, equipment placement), and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

Specific examples of desirable features: sheet metal ductwork systems; high efficiency central equipment (i.e. 0.5 kW/ton chillers, variable speed pumping and air handlers, etc.)

(d) Plumbing Components and Systems:

Acceptable proposals include components and systems that provide the basic function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

Specific examples of desirable features: lifetime domestic hot water storage tank warranty; high efficiency equipment;

easy/local availability of replacement/repair parts; zoned/valved sub-systems to allow repair without building shutdown;

shower heads on hoses.

(e) Electrical Components and Systems:

Satisfactory proposals include components and systems that provide the basic function necessary. Proposals will receive additional consideration for components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to troop usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

Specific examples of desirable features: all copper conductors; additional telephone/data/cable TV outlets .

(f) ATFP Considerations: This consideration verifies the inclusion/compliance with the building related (laminate windows, design for progressive collapse, etc.) ATFP minimum standard constraints included in the Statement of Work. All proposals must be compliant with the ATFP requirements of the Statement of Work to be considered for award. Acceptable proposals are compliant with all ATFP requirements.

(g) Site Utilities Components and Site Systems:

See 5.4

(h) Interoperability: Fire Alarm, Telephone, Cable Television, UMCS, and privatized utility systems (where applicable) must be integrated into the new facilities which require connection and interface with existing installation-wide systems must be accommodated in the proposed project.

(i) Solar Hot Water Heating: The Government will evaluate the systems and materials proposed for use in the solar domestic hot water system. Proposals that demonstrate solar hot water provisions above 30% will receive additional consideration during the evaluation, provided that it does not increase first cost beyond the contract cost limitation (CCL). No additional consideration will be given for proposals providing for more than 30% solar hot water if the proposed price exceeds the CCL. If the Offeror has provided life cycle cost analyses documenting the non-feasibility of the solar system provision, the Government will verify as reasonable and complete. Errors or inconsistencies in the calculations will be considered deficiencies during evaluations.

5.4. TAB C – SUBFACTOR 3 - SITE DESIGN

5.4.1 Submission Requirements:

5.4.1.1. Presentation Drawings:

Provide a simplified conceptual site plan that demonstrates integration of the DFAC into the provided site design. The provided Site design drawings already provide for improvements for grading, drainage, power, utilities, buildings, paving, walks, site lighting, site AT/FP features, and landscaping outside the 5 foot line. The conceptual site plan must show the proposed DFAC footprint location, and all other site features (requirements and betterments) that may be necessary to provide a complete and useable dining facility; including retaining walls, stairs, accessible ramps, equipment locations, grease interceptor, etc, required to successfully integrate into the provided site design. Offeror is discouraged from deviating substantively from the location and orientation of the dining facility indicated in the Site design provided in appendix J.

Offeror is encouraged to propose “betterments” such as more durable high quality site materials (within the DFAC demarcation limits). Such betterments must be indicated.

5.4.1.2. Technical Approach Narrative:

Provide a technical narrative that briefly describes the integration of the DFAC into the site. The Technical Approach Narrative shall be both qualitative and quantitative, defining the elements of the proposal. Preface the narrative with a design concepts narrative, providing the design rationale and basis of the proposal. The intent of the narrative is to gauge the Offeror’s understanding of the provided Site design, constraints, and other RFP requirements and how he well Offeror integrates the DFAC. For example, there are some DFAC specific requirements found in the statement of work that may not necessarily be indicated on the drawings. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that all aspects identified in the evaluation criteria below are addressed. The maximum total length for the narratives shall be two (2) typewritten pages.

(a) Loading/Unloading service area

• Truck Maneuvering considerations.

• Considerations of grease interceptor, dumpster pad, and other items requiring vehicular, DPW, and/or employee access.

(b) Orientation

• Considerations for access to loading area

• Consideration of views (service area is preferred to face 9th Cavalry Reg ave as indicated in the site plan)

(c) Earthwork considerations

• Considerations for grade transition elements such as retaining walls

(d) Pedestrian Circulation (only if deviating from provided site design)

• Development of Circulation Patterns

• Way Finding Between Facilities

• Separation from Vehicular Circulation

(e) Vehicle Circulation (only if deviating from provided site design))

• Development of Circulation Patterns

• Interface with Existing Street/Roadway Systems

(f) Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection

• Compliance with the Statement of Work Requirements.

5.4.2 Evaluation Criteria:

5.4.2.1. This Subfactor considers the integration of the DFAC with the site to provide a pleasing environment for the soldiers. The conceptual site plan must incorporate all the specific requirements from the Statement of Work and comply with the provided site design, and with all statutory and regulatory requirements outlined therein. All site related Anti- Terrorism/Force Protection (ATFP) considerations must be included and/or addressed in the proposal. Proposals that provide additional amenities or improved features (ie more durable pavement sections, improved pedestrian circulation, etc) may receive additional consideration.

The following items will be considered. These are not sub-factors.

• Does the facility service area provide adequate maneuvering space?

• Does the facility provide best views from within the complex?

• Does the service drive entrance facilitate efficient and safe delivery, and unloading?

• Are grade change and other grade transition elements effective, safe, and efficient, and are they conducive to a pedestrian environment?

• Is safe employee access to dumpsters provided?

• How well are mechanical/electrical and other exterior pad mounted equipment screened from view?

• How well are AT/FP features and elements integrated? This element verifies the inclusion/compliance with the site related (setbacks, access, etc.) ATFP constraints included in the Statement of Work. All proposals must be compliant with the ATFP requirements of the Statement of Work to be considered for award. Satisfactory proposals are compliant with all ATFP requirements. This is a mandatory requirement.

5.5. VOLUME 1 - TAB D – SUBFACTOR 4 – SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS

5.5.1. Submission Requirements:

The Offeror shall acknowledge that it understands the contract requirements for sustainable design and construction and that the final project will achieve a LEED Silver rating. The Offeror shall submit LEED NC v 2.2 Project Checklist for each non-exempt facility demonstrating how it will achieve the Silver LEED rating. One checklist may be provided for multiple identical facilities. If the Offeror proposes a higher LEED rating than silver, the proposal shall describe whether or not it involves additional costs and clearly indicate if such costs would detract from higher rated factors herein, such as functionality, quality of materials and systems, site work, etc.

5.5.2. Evaluation Criteria:

All requirements identified as mandatory in Section 01 10 00 or elsewhere in the Solicitation must be included and the proposal must meet the requirements of the LEED NC v 2.2 requirements for a Silver rating. The Government will provide additional evaluation consideration for proposals which include LEED points identified as preferred. The Government does not desire to pay more to obtain a higher LEED rating, such as Gold, if the additional cost would detract from the higher rated factors, herein.

6.0 VOLUMNE 2 - FACTOR 2 – REMAINING PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY PROPOSAL

6.1. VOLUME 2 - TAB A – SUBFACTOR 1 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

6.1.1. Submission Requirements:

6.1.1.1. Proposed Contract Duration: The Offeror shall propose the contract duration in the appropriate Contract Line Item Number in the CLIN Schedule, not to exceed the maximum contract duration specified in the CLIN.

6.1.1.2. Summary Schedule: Submit a summary level schedule for integrated design and construction. Schedules or diagrams may be provided separately in a size that is easily read, but shall be bound and clearly labeled as Tab B. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule as required by Section 01 32 01.00 10:

Project Schedule. The summary schedule shall be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved. Offeror may use a critical path or other method of his choice; however, schedules shall be graphically represented. The proposed project schedule shall reflect the proposed contract duration Give attention to the following features:

(a) Provide a narrative, describing the design packaging plan for separate design packages, based on the Offeror’s plan for fast tracking. Describe all design and construction to be “fast-tracked” (See section 01 33 16: Design After Award). If long lead item equipment must be ordered prior to completion of a design phase, describe the requirement in the narrative and show the required ordering date in the schedule.

(b) Show the design phase, including events associated with coordinating the interim and final design submittals for each package and the proper handling of the review comments for each design package (See section 01 33 16).

(c) Show the overall construction phase for each facility, for the site work, and for utilities. Show fast track starts for design packages but it isn’t necessary to show the detailed breakdown construction (e.g., by trades) of each facility, site work and utilities.

(d) Show turnover of each facility. Identify any proposed phased turnovers. The time to complete the facility and turnover to the Government must consider the requirement for the Contractor’s CQC completion inspection and the subsequent joint Contractor-Government turnover inspection.

(e) Show as-built submissions (See section 01 78 02.00 10).

(f) Constraints: Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the proposed contract completion period. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.). Indicate the anticipated overall critical path on the schedule.

6.1.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.1.2.1. Proposed Contract Duration: This duration will become the contractually binding completion period. The Government will evaluate the contract duration, as proposed by the Offeror in the Contract Line Item Schedule, not to exceed the maximum allowed duration of 540 days. In assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the

Government may take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, as well as use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations. The Government will rate a proposed contract duration matching the maximum allowed contract duration as “acceptable ” A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum allowed duration will receive additional rating consideration, provided it is realistic and deemed to be achievable. The Government will consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the Government or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a significant weakness or a deficiency, depending upon the evaluators' judgment. During the subsequent comparison between proposals, differences between proposed contract durations of at least three weeks (differences of 21 calendar days between proposals) will be considered an advantage to the Government, with greater differences also considered, accordingly. No advantage will be considered between proposals for differences less than 21 calendar days.

6.1.2.2. Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for integrated design and construction.

The length of the schedule must match the Offeror’s proposed contract duration. If it is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, only representing a preliminary planned schedule. A Schedule shorter than the proposed contract duration may indicate the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required contract completion period. Both parties shall assume field overhead costs are included in the contract price for the full proposed contract duration. Therefore, the Government believes that there is no valid need to shorten the schedule less than the full proposed contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g., permitting (see section 01 10 00), long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating design submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule. The Government will evaluate the design packaging plan for logic, reasonableness, how it facilitates meeting the proposed contract duration and how it facilitates the Government’s ability to timely perform its design reviews. The packaging plan should minimize risk to the Contractor and to the Government for tear-out and coordination for reviews. For example, is the footing and foundation plan based on adequate design for building loads; etc.? A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration.

6.2. VOLUME 2 - TAB B– SUBFACTOR 2– KEY SUBCONTRACTORS

6.2.1. Submission Requirements:

Identify the Key Subcontractors chosen for mechanical and electrical installation for the initial task order, describing, the extent of their involvement in the project. If the project includes multiple facility types or multiple facilities, also identify any subcontractor(s) that will act as a general contractor on one or more of the facilities or facility types and describe their involvement in the project. Submit no more than five (5) Specialized Experience forms (attachment 10) for each Key Subcontractor, using the same requirements as described in the Phase 1 Specialized Experience submission requirements, including past performance ratings. The ratings may be from either the owner or the prime contractor, if the firms were subcontractors on the cited projects. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its key subcontractors. Use the Letter of Commitment (attachment 11) at the end of this section.

6.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.2.2.1. This Subfactor is composed of two equal elements (not separately rated):Specialized Experience and Past

Performance.

6.2.2.2. The Government will evaluate the specialized experience and past performance of the Key Subcontractors for electrical and mechanical installation, using the same criteria as in the Phase 1 evaluation, as applicable to their role on this project. After award, the section 00 73 00 Special Contract Requirement Key Personnel, Subcontractors and Outside Consultants will apply to the selection, which establishes the minimum quality standard. No substitution will be allowed without adequate reason and possible consideration to the Government.

6.3. VOLUME 2 - TAB C– SUBFACTOR 3–UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

6.3.1. Submission Requirements:

6.3.1.1. All Offerors shall identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), Historically Black Colleges/Universities or Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs) would be utilized in the performance of this proposed contract. For small businesses, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code applicable to this solicitation, the Offeror’s shall identify their own participation as a SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB, SDB, WOSB, or HBCU/MI, and it will be considered in evaluating the Utilization of Small Business factor. See section 00 21 00 Instructions to Offerors for the applicable goals for participation in this contract.

6.3.1.2. Provide the names of SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB, SDB, WOSB, or HBCU/MIs who would participate in the proposed contract, identifying specific components to be produced or services to be performed by them, and the estimated total dollars of such work.

6.3.2. Evaluation Criteria:

6.3.2.1. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition.

6.3.2.2. A small business Offeror also receives credit for their small business participation as a Prime Contractor and can apply their dollar value and calculate percentages in all the applicable small business categories.

6.3.2.3. The following shall evidence small business participation:

(a) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

(c) The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

(d) The realism of the proposal;

(e) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition;

(f) The extent to which the Offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof.

7.0 VOLUME 3 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

7.1. GENERAL

Submit the Pro Forma information in a separate envelope labeled: “Phase 2, Volume 3 – Pro Forma Requirements.”

7.2. TAB A – FACTOR 3 – PRICE (STANDARD FORM 1442 AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE).

7.2.1. Submission Requirements:

7.2.1.1. Submit the properly filled out and executed SF 1442, along with the CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration. See instructions in section 00 21 00, “Instructions to Offerors”.

7.2.1.2. Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government’s will request a Phase 2 price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Phase 2 Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial Phase 2 proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an Offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

7.2.2. Evaluation Criteria:

7.2.2.1. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluators will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

7.2.2.2. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

7.2.2.3. Award cannot be made for project cost for design and construction exceeding the cost limitation described herein.

7.3. TAB B –BID GUARANTEE

7.3.1. Submission Requirements

Submit the Bid Bond in accordance with the Instructions in Section 00 21 00, Provision 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee.

7.3.2. Evaluation requirements:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Bond for legal sufficiency. The Bond must be legally sufficient.

7.4. TAB C – REQUIRED PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

7.4.1. Submission Requirements:

7.4.1.1. Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, and name of the organization under which the work is being performed.