am_1.pdf

$0(1'0(17�2)�62/,&,7$7,21�02',),&$7,21�2)�&2175$&7 ���&2175$&7�,'�&2'(

���$0(1'0(17�02',),&$7,21�12� ���())(&7,9(�'$7( ���5(48,6,7,21�385&+$6(�5(4��12� ���352-(&7�12���,I�DSSOLFDEOH�

���$'0,1,67(5('�%<��,I�RWKHU�WKDQ�,WHP��� &2'(

67$1'$5'�)250�����5(9��������

3UHVFULEHG�E\�*6$�)$5�����&)5��������

)$&,/,7<�&2'(

�$��$0(1'0(17�2)�62/,&,$7,21�12�

�%��'$7('��6((�,7(0����

��$��02',),&$7,21�2)�&2175$&7�25'(5�12�

��%��'$7('��6((�,7(0����

����7+,6�,7(0�21/<�$33/,(6�72�$0(1'0(176�2)�62/,&,7$7,216

7KH�DERYH�QXPEHUHG�VROLFLWDWLRQ�LV�DPHQGHG�DV�VHW�IRUWK�LQ�,WHP������7KH�KRXU�DQG�GDWH�VSHFLILHG�IRU�UHFHLSW�RI�2IIHUV LV�H[WHQGHG� LV�QRW�H[WHQGHG�

2IIHUV�PXVW�DFNQRZOHGJH�UHFHLSW�RI�WKLV�DPHQGPHQW�SULRU�WR�WKH�KRXU�DQG�GDWH�VSHFLILHG�LQ�WKH�VROLFLWDWLRQ�RU�DV�DPHQGHG��E\�RQH�RI�WKH�IROORZLQJ�PHWKRGV�

�D�%\�FRPSOHWLQJ�LWHPV���DQG�����DQG�UHWXUQLQJ FRSLHV�RI�WKH�DPHQGPHQW���E��%\�DFNQRZOHGJLQJ�UHFHLSW�RI�WKLV�DPHQGPHQW�RQ�HDFK�FRS\�RI�WKH�RIIHU�VXEPLWWHG�

RU��F��%\�VHSDUDWH�OHWWHU�RU�WHOHJUDP�ZKLFK�LQFOXGHV�D�UHIHUHQFH�WR�WKH�VROLFLWDWLRQ�DQG�DPHQGPHQW�QXPEHUV���)$,/85(�2)�<285�$&.12:/('*0(17�72�%(�5(&(,9('�$7 7+(�3/$&(�'(6,*1$7('�)25�7+(�5(&(,37�2)�2))(56�35,25�72�7+(�+285�$1'�'$7(�63(&,),('�0$<�5(68/7�,1�5(-(&7,21�2)�<285�2))(5���,I�E\�YLUWXH�RI�WKLV DPHQGPHQW�\RXU�GHVLUH�WR�FKDQJH�DQ�RIIHU�DOUHDG\�VXEPLWWHG��VXFK�FKDQJH�PD\�EH�PDGH�E\�WHOHJUDP�RU�OHWWHU��SURYLGHG�HDFK�WHOHJUDP�RU�OHWWHU�PDNHV�UHIHUHQFH�WR�WKH VROLFLWDWLRQ�DQG�WKLV�DPHQGPHQW��DQG�LV�UHFHLYHG�SULRU�WR�WKH�RSHQLQJ�KRXU�DQG�GDWH�VSHFLILHG�

����$&&2817,1*�$1'�$335235,$7,21�'$7$��,I�UHTXLUHG�

����7+,6�,7(0�21/<�$33/,(6�72�02',),&$7,21�2)�&2175$&76�25'(56�

,7�02',),(6�7+(�&2175$&7�25'(5�12��$6�'(6&5,%('�,1�,7(0����

&+(&.�21( $� 7+,6�&+$1*(�25'(5�,6�,668('�38568$17�72���6SHFLI\�DXWKRULW\��7+(�&+$1*(6�6(7�)257+�,1�,7(0����$5(�0$'(�,1�7+(�&2175$&7�25'(5

12��,1�,7(0���$�

%� 7+(�$%29(�180%(5('�&2175$&7�25'(5�,6�02',),('�72�5()/(&7�7+(�$'0,1,675$7,9(�&+$1*(6��VXFK�DV�FKDQJHV�LQ�SD\LQJ�RIILFH��

DSSURSULDWLRQ�GDWH��HWF���6(7�)257+�,1�,7(0�����38568$17�72�7+(�$87+25,7<�2)�)$5��������E��

&� 7+,6�6833/(0(17$/�$*5((0(17�,6�(17(5('�,172�38568$17�72�$87+25,7<�2)�

'� 27+(5��6SHFLI\�W\SH�RI�PRGLILFDWLRQ�DQG�DXWKRULW\�

(��,03257$17���&RQWUDFWRU LV�QRW� LV�UHTXLUHG�WR�VLJQ�WKLV�GRFXPHQW�DQG�UHWXUQ FRSLHV�WR�WKH�LVVXLQJ�RIILFH�

([FHSW�DV�SURYLGHG�KHUHLQ��DOO�WHUPV�DQG�FRQGLWLRQV�RI�WKH�GRFXPHQW�UHIHUHQFHG�LQ�,WHP��$�RU���$��DV�KHUHWRIRUH�FKDQJHG��UHPDLQV�XQFKDQJHG�DQG�LQ�IXOO�IRUFH�DQG�HIIHFW�

��&��'$7(�6,*1('

��$��1$0(�$1'�7,7/(�2)�6,*1(5��7\SH�RU�SULQW�

��&��'$7(�6,*1('

��$��1$0(�$1'�7,7/(�2)�&2175$&7,1*�2)),&(5��7\SH�RU�SULQW�

����'(6&5,37,21�2)�$0(1'0(17�02',),&$7,21��2UJDQL]HG�E\�8&)�VHFWLRQ�KHDGLQJV��LQFOXGLQJ�VROLFLWDWLRQ�FRQWUDFW�VXEMHFW�PDWWHU�ZKHUH�IHDVLEOH��

3$*(������2)����3$*(6

���,668('�%< &2'(

���1$0(�$1'�$''5(66�2)�&2175$&725��1R���VWUHHW��FRXQW\��6WDWH�DQG�=,3�&RGH� �;�

&2'(

��%��&2175$&725�2))(525

�6LJQDWXUH�RI�SHUVRQ�DXWKRUL]HG�WR�VLJQ�

��%��81,7('�67$7(6�2)�$0(5,&$

�6LJQDWXUH�RI�&RQWUDFWLQJ�2IILFHU�

161�����������������

3UHYLRXV�HGLWLRQ�XQXVDEOH

W9126G-08-R-0136 Am #0001

CHANGES TO PROPOSAL RECEIPT DUE DATE

1. Standard Form 1442, First Page, Item No. 13.A.- Change the proposal receipt due date from "6 March 2008, 2 p.m. local time" to "5 May 2008, 2 p.m. local time".

CHANGES TO DOCUMENTS 00 - INTRODUCTORY, BIDDING, AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

2. Section 00 22 10 – PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES.- Replace section 00 22 10 with the accompanying new section 00 22 10, each page bearing the notation

"ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0001 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-08-R-0136."

END OF AMENDMENT

ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT NO. 0001 TO SOLICITATION NO. W9126G-08-R-0136

Consolidated Family Care – Troop Medical Clinic Fort Bliss, Texas

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 10

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

(Am #0001)

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 TAB A – STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.0 [Amendment 1] TAB B – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

7.0 [Amendment 1] TAB C – FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

8.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.2 EVALUATION

9.3 DEFINITIONS

9.4 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.5 PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 2

PHASE ONE – SECTION 00 22 10 ATTACHMENTS

1 – PROPOSAL DATA SHEETS

2 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR

3 – COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

4 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

5 – LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR DESIGN FIRM

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1. In Phase 1 of the 2 phase design-build selection procedure, interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as ”offerors”) submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the design-build construction contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will short-list no more than 3 of the Phase 1 offerors to compete for the design-build contract in Phase 2.

1.2. In Phase 2, the short-listed offerors will submit proposals in accordance with Section 00 22 20.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for phase 2, the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor has to have or will have to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines and the requirements specified in Section 00 73 00, ”Requirements for Registration of Designers”, must be met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

2.2. Submit the Phase 1 proposal in a tabbed, three-ring binder. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below. PHASE 1

DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 3

3.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

Location Factor/Element Number Description Relative

Importance

TAB A SF1442

Proposal Data Sheet

TAB B Factor 1

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Specialized Experience

Prime/construction contractor

Design firm(s) and subcontractor design consultants with designers of record.

Contractor’s Commissioning Representative

Independent 3rd Party Commissioning Agent

Equal

[Amendment 1]

TAB B

Factor 2

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Past Performance

Prime/construction contractor

Design firm(s) and subcontractor design consultants with designers of record

Contractor’s Commissioning Representative

Independent 3rd Party Commissioning Agent

Equal

[Amendment 1]

TAB C

Factor 3 Organization and Technical

Approach Equal

4.0 TAB A - STANDARD FORM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

4.1. Submit the SF 1442, completed and signed by a person authorized by the Offeror. Include the completed proposal data sheet (See attachment 1, provided at the end of this Section).

5.0 TAB B – FACTOR 1 - SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

5.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1. [Amendment 1] The prime contractor, design firm(s) (or prime contract if design is to be self-performed), commissioning representative, and commissioning agent shall each demonstrate recent, relevant experience on similar projects, using attachments 2 and 3 at the end of the section. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contractors that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project.

Submit projects selected from those discussed in the experience narrative that are currently well underway (designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or completed and turned over no longer that five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 4 division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for or government, private or commercial customers. The offeror shall select the design firm(s). If projects were design-build, so identify them.

[Amendment 1] The prime contractor, design firm(s), commissioning representative and commissioning agent shall each submit no more that five (5) projects for each of the facility types or their equivalent or similar commercial or institutional type. Relevant experience is defined as experience with Medical Offices, Medical Clinics, Medical Facilities, Hospitals and Laboratories. Recent experience is defined as experience with projects your company constructed within the last five years.

5.1.2. The offeror may provide a supplemental narrative (not project lists), not to exceed two pages, explaining how any corporate experience that is not directly related to the specific projects above is applicable to this project and how the Government will benefit. The following information may be considered.

5.1.2.1. The offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. Design Firms should describe their experience on LEED or SPiRiT projects within the past 5 years, if not included on the project list. Offeror may describe design-build experience on other type projects. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past five years preceding the date of this solicitation.

5.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1. The following extent of experience elements are equal in relative importance:

(1) Prime/construction contractor

(2) Design firm(s) and subcontractor design consultants with designers of record

(3) Contractor’s Commissioning Representative

(4) Independent 3rd Party Commissioning Agent

5.2.2. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build, as relevant to their role on this project. If the design will be accomplished in-house, rather than by subcontract, then the design element of specialized experience will still be evaluated, realizing that the work is being done in-house. Experience on the similar projects identified in the project lists will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government may place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor, depending upon overall role and relevancy considerations. Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non- Federal Government project experience.

5.2.3. The Offeror must submit the requested information to demonstrate a record of recent, related experience in both design and construction, for the facility types (which may include similar state or local government or private counterparts) included in this contract, as described in Section 00 22 10. Recent experience includes projects well underway (see above criteria) or those completed and turned over within five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP for design or construction experience. Joint Venture partners should each demonstrate experience commensurate with their role on this project or explain in the supplemental narrative how their experience qualifies them for their role on this project.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 5

5.2.4. The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor (or Architect- Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

5.2.5. To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror and its proposed design firm(s) shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project.

5.2.6. The Government will consider extent of recent experience, degree of relationship of such experience to this project, demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes and local conditions. Some examples of relevancy to this project may include, but not be limited to:

(1) Number, size, type work, complexity, location

(2) Dates (well under way or completed no more than 5 years preceding date of Solicitation)

(3) Firm's role and extent of work self-performed (brokering out all work and simply “pouring the sidewalks” on a cited project are examples of less relevant experience)

5.2.7. Previous design-build experience is not necessary for a satisfactory rating. The Government may consider previous D-B experience a strength, even if the experience is on different type projects than this project. Similarly, the Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given.

5.2.8. Design firms must demonstrate qualifications and experience in sustainable development and design, based on the US Green Building Council’s LEED Green Build Reference Guide for a satisfactory rating.

6.0 [Amendment 1] TAB B – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

6.1.1. Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. [Amendment 1] The Offeror and its design firm(s), commissioning representative and commissioning agent shall provide customer reference name(s), company affiliation and current phone numbers on the specific project experience sheets in TAB B . [Amendment 1] The Government will use the specific project experience sheets submitted in Tab B as part of its past performance evaluation. Include the performance rating by the owner on the form, if the Offeror was rated. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed reference, if the listed reference is not available. See the Interview form at the end of this Section (attachment 4). The team members may also briefly provide information on problems encountered on identified contracts and the team member’s corrective action.

6.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1. Elements to be considered under Past Performance are equal in relative importance:

(1) Prime/Construction Contractor

(2) Design Firm(s) and subcontractor design consultants with designers of record

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 6

(3) Contractor’s Commissioning Representative

(4) Independent 3rd Party Commissioning Agent

6.2.2. The Government will perform a risk assessment, considering the degree of success of the D- B team's recent (well under way or turned over no longer than 5 years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under the Factor “Specialized Experience”. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. (see the interview form at attachment 4). The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CCASS/ACASS or other agency performance databases, offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The Government’s evaluation is not limited to past performance information on the cited example projects.

6.2.3. Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance or that of its predecessor, if relevant.

An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance risk will be considered “unknown”. The Government may be unable to obtain much, if any, qualitative information on past performance from references for efforts as subcontractors on submitted projects due to the Government’s or other owner’s lack of privity with subcontractors.

7.0 [Amendment 1] TAB C – FACTOR 3- ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.1. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

7.1.1. This information considers the offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the design-build contract. Limit the plan to ten pages or less clearly but concisely describing the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

7.1.2. Organization: Describe what firms, their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that have been established.

Clearly describe any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including a clear description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. The Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its design firms(s) (see attachment 5). A copy of the teaming or

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 7 joint venture agreement(s) may be appended to the plan (not included in the page limitation).

Include a simple organizational chart, illustrating the organization, including the proposed quality control group(s). Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including design and construction activities for each major feature (i.e., site work, utilities and each building). Identify the design firm(s) chosen for the project, if not to be self-performed Phase 2 offerors will be required to identify the specific firms chosen for mechanical and electrical installation. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, describing how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team.

7.1.3. Technical Approach for Design and Construction: Describe the technical approach to design and construction of these facilities. Include any considerations of fast-tracking design and construction, panelized construction, pre-engineered components or buildings, factory built modules or assemblies, tilt-up, pre-cast parts, standard designs stick-built framing, etc. The Government is looking for ways to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and achieve an aggressive schedule. In Phase 2, the offeror will describe its design packaging plan for fast-tracking in how it lays out the proposed schedule and contract duration. That level of detail is not necessary in Phase 1.

7.1.4. Processes During Design and Construction: Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Discuss how the configuration management system will track and control design evolution and changes during design for quality control and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the type of Computer- Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) system to be used on the project. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

7.1.5. Planning and Scheduling: Describe the time control capabilities and systems to be used to plan design and construction and how the schedule will be used to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize time growth. In Phase 2, the offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in the offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

7.1.6. Self-Performed Work: Generally describe the items the offeror will self-perform to comply with the requirements in Section 00 73 00 for self-performed work.

7.1.7. Quality Control: Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Describe the proposed quality control organization, including the proposed staffing plan. There is no need to submit a quality control plan as the successful offeror will provide that after award. In phase 1, the Government is interested in demonstrable capabilities to assure and control quality and how the offeror can achieve or exceed the contract’s minimum quality control system requirements.

7.1.8. Sustainability: Generally describe the team’s approach to evaluating and tracking the project’s sustainability requirements. Describe if the prime contractor, design firm and/or subcontractor design consultant is responsible for ensuring achievement of the sustainability requirements through design and construction. In Phase 2, the offeror will provide a narrative description of the preliminary strategies to achieve the minimum Silver rating as determined by the LEED standard. That level of detail is not necessary in Phase 1.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 8

7.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

7.2.1. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the plan.

The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of D-B (and the requirements described in the Division 01 requirements of the Solicitation) and the capability to execute the project. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below. This list is not all-inclusive.

7.2.2. Organization: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. If the Offeror has not selected and committed to use its design firm(s), this factor will be rated as unsatisfactory. Joint venture participant’s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.

7.2.3. Technical Approach for Design and Construction: The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule, including such things as fast-tracking, using factory built modules or assemblies, panelization, pre-cast, tilt-up, standard designs, etc. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site craft labor and susceptibility to inclement weather delays.

7.2.4. Processes during Design and Construction: The use of 3-dimensional (3D) Building Information Model (BIM) technology in the design process is considered a strength. The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer (see Special Contract Requirement (SCR:

“Constructor’s role during Design”). The offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction.

7.2.5. Planning and Scheduling: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s scheduling capabilities to manage an integrated fast track design-build schedule.

7.2.6. Self-Performed Work: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s resources to determine if it has the capability to self-perform the required amount of the project, in accordance with public policy to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work. These requirements are outlined in Section 00 73 00.

7.2.7. Quality Control: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The Government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities.

7.2.8. Sustainability: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and use of resources to assure achievement of the minimum Silver rating as determined by the LEED standards.

8.0 PHASE 1 OVERALL RATING

8.1. In addition to individual factor ratings, the Government will assign an overall rating for the Phase 1 proposal.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 9

9.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

9.1. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

9.1.1. The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any proposal incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

9.2. EVALUATION

9.2.1. The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

9.2.2. The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary to determine the most highly qualified offerors to shortlist for Phase 2.

9.2.3. The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select up to 3 of the most highly qualified offerors to short-list for Phase 2.

9.3. DEFINITIONS

9.3.1. Deficiency

-A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

9.3.2. Weakness

- A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

9.3.3. Significant Weakness

-A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

9.3.4. Strength

-Means an aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.

9.3.5. Uncertainty

- Any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 10

9.4. EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

9.4.1. General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other in order to determine which Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase 1 to short-list for participation in Phase 2.

9.4.2. Review Write-up: The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all strengths or advantages, weaknesses or disadvantages, deficiencies, and required clarifications.

9.4.3. Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Unsatisfactory”, “Marginal”, “Satisfactory”, “Good” or “ Excellent” to each factor ,which reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP. The adjectival ratings shall be assigned, using the following criteria:

(i) Excellent: Proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of the requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.

(ii) Good: Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government.

(iii) Satisfactory: Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of the requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Acceptable solution.

(iv) Marginal: Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable contract performance.

(v) Unsatisfactory: Proposal fails to meet performance or capability standards.

Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal.

9.5. PAST PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

9.5.1. Risk ratings shall be done for each Past Performance factor. Past Performance Risk Ratings assess the risks associated with each offeror's likelihood of success in performing the requirements stated in the RFP based on the offeror's demonstrated performance on recent contracts. SSEB members and the SSA may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the RFP. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating for these factors:

(i) Unknown Risk: No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror or key team members/subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

(ii) Low Risk: Based on the Offeror's past performance record essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(iii) Moderate Risk: Based on the Offeror's past performance record some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 11

(iv) High Risk: Based on the Offeror's past performance record extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 12

PHASE ONE - TAB A

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 1

1. Name of Solicitation:

2. Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

DUNS # (used for accessing the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or A-E Contractor Administration Support System (ACASS) Database) Also provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture (J-V) it must also be submitted.

Provide a DUNS number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide DUNS for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS. FAR 52.215-11

The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this Request for Proposals (RFP).

[List names, titles, and telephone number of the authorized negotiator.] Name of Person Authorized to Negotiate:

Negotiator's Address:

Negotiator's Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 13

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

[Amendment 1] CONSTRUCTION OR PRIME CONTRACTOR AND COMMISSIONING

REPRESENTATIVE OR AGENT

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 2

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last five years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

(a) Type of Facility _____________________________________________________

(b) Your Firm’s Name _________________________________________________________________

(c) Name of Project___________________________________________________________________

(d) Location of Project_________________________________________________________________

(e) Owner __________________________________________________________________________

(f) General Scope of Construction Project ___________________________________________________

(g) Your Role (Prime, Joint Venture, or Subcontractor, etc.) and Work Your Company Self-Performed :

(h) Construction Cost _________________________________________________________________

(i) Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted Out __________________________________________

(j) Dates Construction: Began___________________ Completed______________

(k) Your Performance Evaluation by Owner, if known ________________________________________

(l) Were You Terminated or Assessed Liquidated Damages? ___________________________________

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

(m) Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company) ______________________________

(n) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC___________________________________________

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 14

COMPANY SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

DESIGN FIRM OR IN-HOUSE DESIGN CAPABILITY

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 3

Provide the following information to show examples of projects your company constructed within the last five years indicating experience with projects of similar type and scope. Use one form per project.

(a) Type of Facility ____________________________________________________

(b) Your Firm’s Name _________________________________________________________________

(c) Name of Project___________________________________________________________________

(d) Location of Project_________________________________________________________________

(e) Owner __________________________________________________________________________

(f) General Scope of Construction Project ___________________________________________________

(g) Summary of Your Role in Design of this Project, including implementing LEED or SPiRiT and citing certification achieved.

(h) Identify Estimated (“E”) or Actual (“A”) Construction Cost _______________________

(i) Extent and Type of Work You Subcontracted __________________________________________

(j) Dates Design: Began___________________ Completed______________

(k) Dates Construction: Began___________________ Completed______________

(l) Your Performance Evaluation, if known __________________________________________________

(If either is “Yes”, attach an Explanation)

(m) Owner’s Point of Contact for Reference (Name and Company) ______________________________

(n) Current Telephone Number of Reference POC___________________________________________

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 15

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 00 22 10 - ATTACHMENT 4

1. Contractor/Name & Address (City and State):

2. Type of Contract: Fixed Price ________ Cost Reimbursement ________ Other (Specify) ________________________________

3. Title of Project/Contract Number:

4. Description of Work:

5. Complexity of Work: High ________ Mid _________ Routine __________

6. Location of Work:______________________________________________

7. Date of Award: ________________________

8. Status: Active _________ (Please provide percent complete) Complete __________ (Please provide completion date)

9. Name and telephone number of Owner’s Technical Representative:

QUALITY OF PRODUCT/SERVICE:

10. Please evaluate the contractor's performance in complying with contract requirements, quality achieved and overall technical expertise demonstrated.

Excellent Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Remarks:

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 16

11. To what extent were the contractor’s reports and documentation accurate, complete and submitted in a timely manner?

Excellent Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Remarks:

12. To what extent was the contractor able to solve contract performance problems without extensive guidance from Owner counterparts?

Excellent Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Remarks:

13. How well did the contractor manage and coordinate subcontractors, suppliers, and the labor force?

Excellent Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Remarks:

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

14. To what extent were the end users satisfied with:

Quality? Cost? Schedule?

Exceptionally Satisfied Highly Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied

Remarks:

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 17

TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

15. To what extent did the contractor meet the required schedules?

Completed Substantially Ahead of Schedule Completed on Schedule with no Time Delays Completed on Schedule with Minor Delays Under Extenuating Circumstances

Experienced Significant Delays without Justification

Remarks:

16. If given the opportunity, would you work with this contractor again?

Yes ___________ No ____________ Not Sure ____________

OTHER REMARKS:

17. Please use the space below to provide other information related to the contractor's performance.

This may include the contractor's selection and management of subcontractors, flexibility in dealing with contract challenges, their overall concern for the Owner’s interest, project awards received, etc.

END OF TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE

W9126G-08-R-0136 Section 00 22 10 Page 18

LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR DESIGN FIRM

(USE COMPANY LETTERHEAD)

[Amendment 1] SECTION 00 22 10 – ATTACHMENT 5

TO: Contracting Officer SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed Contract For:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event of an award of a contract to (Fill in name of Proposer), that (Insert name of design firm) will fulfill the duties of (state role on a project.)

Sincerely, (Authorized Official)

Date:

Request for proposal for DESIGN-BUILD CONSOLIDATED FAMILY CARE / TROOP MEDICAL CLINIC, PN 64138, FORT BLISS, TEXAS, is amended as follows:

See Continuation Sheet(s).

NOTE: Proposal receipt due date has changed from "6 March 2008, 2:00 p.m. local time" to "5 May 2008, 2:00 p.m. local time." See page 2.

ISSUED BY:

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, FORT WORTH

ATTN: CESWF-CT (RM 2A19)

PO BOX 17300

FORT WORTH, TX 76102-0300