Synopsis_(Amendment_1)_-_VAPORHCS_A-E_Technical_Services_final.pdf

INDEFINITE DELIVERY SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT FOR

A-E TECHNICAL SERVICES

VETERANS AFFAIRS PORTLAND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND DISTRICT

13 May 2019

Solicitation No: W9127N19R0010

Agency: Department of Army

Office: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

Location: Portland, OR

I. CONTRACT INFORMATION

A. General

The objective of this contract is to provide architectural and engineering (A-E) services in support of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) projects managed by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (NWP). Services will include architectural and engineering work necessary to provide review of deliverables produced through the VAPORHCS A-E Design SATOC and other subsequent contracts awarded in support of DVA projects managed by NWP. Services may include: Quality Assurance (QA) review for Statements of Work for design task orders; QA review of design documentation, which may include design reports and calculations; QA review of construction bid documents; value engineering/management services; general QA review assistance; Government Commissioning Agent (CxA) services; Engineering During Construction (EDC) services, including commissioning. Under this contract, the Contractor will provide technical review and scoping of other contractor’s services. All of these requirements will be in support of medical facility design and construction.

B. Potential for Organizational Conflict of Interest and Mitigation Required

The Contracting Officer has determined a significant potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists between the contract that will result from this synopsis, and a separate requirement for A-E services, Solicitation No. W9127N19R0009, entitled, “A-E Design Services in support of VA Medical Facility Requirements.” The Contracting Officer has also determined a significant potential OCI exists between the contract that will result from this synopsis and the DVA awarded “Project Book” contract, Contract No. 36C10F18R0471.

As result of the above, the following provisions and clauses are included in this synopsis, and will be included in the formal solicitation and resulting contract award.

Provisions:

(1) OCI Between Project Book, Contract No. 36C10F18R0471, and Technical Services

SATOC, Solicitation No. W9127N19R0010:

In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, the Contracting Officer has determined that a significant potential for an organizational conflict of interest exists for firms currently performing under contract number 36C10F18R0471 (“Project Book contract”), awarded by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the development of the Project Book for the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System project.

Contained within the Project Book contract scope are requirements for the contractor to make recommendations to the Government, which the contractor awarded this Technical Services SATOC will be required to review and validate.

This presents an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest for the current Project Book contractor and associated subcontractors. As such, the Project Book contractor and Project Book subcontractors are precluded from receiving the Technical Services SATOC award as the prime contractor. In addition, although not entirely precluded from performing as a subcontractor under the Technical Services SATOC, the Project Book contractor and Project Book subcontractors are precluded from performing any work on the Technical Services SATOC that involves the review or validation of recommendations arising out of the Project Book contract. Any firm that submits an SF330 and includes a subcontractor or team member associated with the Project Book contract will be required to submit an acceptable mitigation plan to the Government if the Government selects the firm for discussions required by FAR 36.602-3(c). The firm’s mitigation plan must address how the firm will prevent any organizational conflict of interest. The firm will be ineligible for award if it cannot produce an acceptable mitigation plan.

(2) OCI Between Design SATOC, Solicitation No. W9127N19R0009, and Technical Services SATOC, Solicitation No. W9127N19R0010:

In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, the Contracting Officer has determined that a significant potential for an organizational conflict of interest exists between the contractor awarded the Technical Services SATOC (Solicitation No. W9127N19R0010) from this synopsis and the contractor awarded the Design SATOC (Solicitation No. W9127N19R0009). A considerable portion of the work under the Technical Services SATOC will be to review deliverables, recommendations, and alternatives produced by the Design SATOC contractor. The Technical Services SATOC contractor will also be assisting with drafting the task order scopes of work for the Design SATOC. The Contracting Officer has determined this to be an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest.

As a result of the organizational conflict of interest, the contractor awarded the Design SATOC will be precluded from receiving an award under the Technical Services SATOC.

This restraint applies to the prime and subcontractors associated with either contract.

Clauses (Note: Per FAR 9.507-2(a), the final terms of each clause may be changed subject to negotiations with the successful offeror):

(1) OCI Between Project Book, Contract No. 36C10F18R0471, and Technical Services

SATOC:

In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational Conflict of Interest, the Contracting Officer has determined that the potential for impaired objectivity will exist in the performance of anticipated task orders by firms currently performing under contract number 36C10F18R0471, awarded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, for the development of a Project Book. The mitigation plan approved by the Contracting Officer during the pre-award phase of this action will be continuously reviewed to ensure applicability and suitability for mitigation of conflicts at the task order level. Should the Contracting Officer identify a task order scope during the performance of the contract that could have additional potential for conflict, the offeror will be required to submit a supplemental mitigation plan.

(2) OCI Between Design SATOC and Technical Services SATOC, Solicitation No.

W9127N19R0010:

In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest, the Contracting Officer has determined that a significant potential for an organizational conflict of interest exists between this contract and the A-E Design SATOC issued under Solicitation No. W9127N19R0009. A considerable portion of the Technical Services SATOC work will be reviewing deliverables, recommendations, and alternatives produced under the A-E Design SATOC. The Technical Services SATOC contractor will also be assisting with drafting the task order scopes of work for task orders issued under the Design SATOC. The Contracting Officer has determined that this creates an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest.

As a result of the organizational conflict of interest, the Design SATOC contractor, to include its subcontractors, is precluded from receiving the Technical Services SATOC.

C. Type and Number of Contracts

The USACE Portland District (NWP) intends to award one (1) indefinite delivery, firm-fixed-price, single award task order contract (SATOC). The awarded SATOC will consist of one

(1) five-year base period (commencing upon the date of award of this base contract) and one (1) five-year option period for a total contract term not to exceed ten (10) years. The total capacity is $25 million. The minimum guaranteed amount for the SATOC is $10,000.

Task orders issued under this SATOC will have a minimum ordering amount of $2,500.00.

Multiple task orders are anticipated to be awarded between $25k and $1M.

Contract award is anticipated in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2020.

D. Competition

The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541330 Engineering Services, which has a size standard of $15 million.

E. System for Award Management

Per FAR 4.1102, the firm selected as the most highly qualified firm will be required to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time the firm submits its offer in response to the Government's request for proposal. See also FAR 52.204-7. Register via the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov or by contacting the Service Desk at 1-866-606-8220.

F. Service Contract Act

Firms are advised that the resulting SATOC will require that the wages and benefits of listed services employees (see FAR 22.10) be at least equal to those determined by the Department of Labor under the Service Contract Act, as determined relative to the employee’s office location, not the location of the work. See http://www.wdol.gov for additional information.

II. SELECTION PROCESS

Selection for SATOC Negotiation

In accordance with 40 U.S.C. Chapter 11 (Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute), the applicable provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. § 2304) and the applicable provisions of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat.

3243), NWP will select a single firm for SATOC negotiation using the procedures set forth in FAR Subpart 36.6 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 236.6:

a. In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(a), the Government will review the Standard Form (SF) 330s submitted in response to this synopsis.

b. In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(b) and DFARS 236.602-1(a), NWP will evaluate those SF 330s in accordance with the criteria in FAR 36.602-1 and DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 236.602-1, as set forth in greater detail in this synopsis.

c. In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(c), the Government will hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services described in this synopsis.

d. On the basis of the above, in accordance with FAR 36.602-3(d), a board will recommend, in order of preference, at least three firms most highly qualified to perform the required services described in this synopsis.

e. In accordance with FAR 36.602-4(b), the Selection Authority will review the board’s recommendations and make the final selection of the most highly qualified firm. This final selection shall be a listing, in order of preference, of the firms considered most highly qualified to perform the work.

f. In accordance with FAR 36.606(a), negotiations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, beginning with the most preferred firm in the final selection.

III. PROJECT INFORMATION FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS PORTLAND HEALTHCARE

SYSTEM

This SATOC is intended to provide technical services support for planned design and construction projects for Veterans Affairs program work managed by NWP. The first project will be at the Veterans Affairs Portland Healthcare System (VAPORHCS) located on Marquam Hill in Portland, OR. Preliminary planning is currently being performed to collect requisite information and better identify the requirements and details of this project. The following information is tentative and meant to provide the A-E with an idea of the general nature of the anticipated work. The Government reserves the right to update this information as project planning documentation is published and updated. The information below represents the most current project scope information available and will be superseded upon the publication of the preliminary planning information (Project Book, see section 4.1 below) which will be provided to the selected A-E as Government-furnished information (GFI) post award:

3.1. Estimated Construction Cost (ECC). The current ECC for the VAPORHCS project is $650,000,000.

3.3. Acquisition/Delivery Methodology. It is expected that there may be a variety of delivery methods employed for each facility involved in the VAPORHCS project (Ex. Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, etc.). The anticipated SATOC capacity includes pre-design services, design review services and construction phase services; however, the full capacity may not be required to complete the project.

3.4. Construction Scope. The following information represents the various construction objectives as they are currently known:

3.4.1. Seismic upgrade of Buildings 100 (9 stories above ground and 2 stories below, 638,843 Departmental Gross Square Feet (DGSF)), 101 (130,850 DGSF), 102 (108,000 Building Gross Square Feet (BGSF)) and two pedestrian Sky Bridges (up to 600' length). This includes structural improvements to building frame members and may include the repair/replacement of the exterior facade of Buildings 100 & 101, which have had poor seismic performance to date.

The seismic upgrade will address Portland Medical Center’s remaining Extremely High Risk (EHR) Building structure / seismic condition gaps through a complete seismic retrofit to Building 100 (Portland Medical Center’s main hospital building), Building 101 (Research / Admin) and Building 102 (underground parking garage that supports the roadway in front of Buildings 100 and 101). Two Sky Bridges that connect Portland Medical Center buildings and those of the neighboring Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) will also be seismically upgraded, as necessary.

3.4.2. Renovation of up to 769,927 DGSF in Portland Medical Center’s main hospital buildings, Buildings 100 and 101, as necessary, to support the seismic retrofit and to correct deficiencies in the building, as listed below:

a. Correct (repair or replacement) the failing facade of Buildings 100 and 101.

b. Convert shared inpatient rooms to private rooms.

c. Upgrade substandard operating rooms.

d. Correct Sterile Processing Service deficiencies

3.4.3. Construction of a new Specialty Care Building, currently anticipated to be 248,000

DGSF/335,000 BGSF.

The new building will be constructed on the Portland Medical Center campus, and may provide essential swing space during the seismic retrofit and renovation work to the other buildings discussed above. This new structure will house most of Portland's ambulatory care functions, and will free up space in the main hospital building for acute inpatient functions and ancillary support departments.

3.4.4. Construction of a new 600-space parking garage.

3.4.5. Upgrade of utility/energy plant as necessary to support new construction.

3.4.6. Demolition of Building 41, Building T-51 and Trailer 1 (Total of 30,955 BGSF).

3.5. Anticipated Project Schedule.

a. July 2019 – Award VAPORHCS A-E Design SATOC

b. Nov 2019 – Award VAPORHCS A-E Technical Services SATOC and first Task Order

c. Nov 2019 – 10% Design Charrette

d. Dec 2019 – 10% Concept Design and Alternatives Analysis Complete

e. Dec 2019 – Initiate 35% Design

f. Apr 2020 – 35% Design Complete

g. Jun 2020 – Congressional Budget Request

h. Jan 2021 – Award 100% Design Task Order

i. FY22 to FY29 – Phased Construction (pending Congressional approval)

IV. ELEMENTS OF ANTICIPATED TASK ORDERS.

The following is a tentative listing of task order elements that may be issued via task orders under the awarded Technical Services SATOC, which will provide the architectural and engineering QA support to the project described in section III above. It generally describes the kind of support that may be required. The role of this Technical Services SATOC is to provide architectural and engineering work necessary for review of deliverables produced through the VAPORHCS A-E Design SATOC and other subsequent contracts awarded in support of DVA projects managed by NWP. Under this contract, the Contractor will provide technical review and scoping of other contractor’s services. All of these requirements will be in support of medical facility design and construction.

4.1. Project Planning Phase (i.e. Pre-Design)

The Project Book, which is being developed through a DVA contract, will be a requirements document that will include the applicable planning information, codes and standards, existing site specific conditions, and other requirements and performance goals. The Government will provide the Project Book to the awardee of this SATOC as Government Furnished Information (GFI), which the Design SATOC and Technical Services SATOC contractors will be expected to use as a reference throughout their design and review processes, respectively. While the main focus of this Technical Services SATOC is to review design deliverables, review of planning-level deliverables, developed by the Design SATOC to bridge the planning and design phases of the project, may be required as noted below:

a. Site master planning

b. Medical facility planning

c. Planning charrettes

d. Development of Concepts of Operations

e. Defining existing site conditions/tabulations of facility deficiencies

f. Collection of facility data from archives

g. Development of notional budgetary ‘fit test’ concept designs

h. Collecting healthcare workload projection data

i. Performing safety risk assessments

j. Development of project room contents lists

k. Development of block layouts

l. Conceptual site development

m. Programs for Design (for GSF and NSF allocation)

n. Site selection analysis

o. Economic analyses

p. Medical equipment planning

q. Initial outfitting and transition planning and other low-voltage equipment needs

r. Budgetary construction cost estimates (parametric)

s. Development of Owner’s Performance Requirements (OPR) for commissioning planning

t. Hazardous materials surveys and abatement specifications

u. Environmental Assessments

v. Preliminary Subsurface Investigation (e.g. soil borings, analyses, etc.)

w. Federal, State, and Local Permitting

x. Consolidated planning reporting and development of other data related to facility decision support

y. Site visits

z. Attendance and participation in coordination meetings, status meetings, and design review conferences.

4.2. Facility Design Phase and Construction Bid Documents (i.e. Design)

This work will consist of the QA review for Statements of Work for design task orders; QA of construction bid documents; value engineering/management services; general QA review assistance. The Government anticipates that the first task order will include familiarization of the Project Book and QA review of the design SATOC deliverables leading to the 10% design (SD-1: Schematic Design Level 1). The Government anticipates that the second task order will be for the QA review of the design SATOC deliverables leading to the 35% design (SD-2). This work may be awarded as individual task orders or as a single task order with options for follow-on work. Task orders may include review of design level deliverables as noted below:

a. Architectural and engineering designs, drawings, plans, and specifications (all applicable disciplines)

b. Design charrettes

c. Engineering analyses and narratives (e.g. seismic, geotechnical, foundation, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, etc.) to meet project requirements

d. Computer Aided Design (CAD)

e. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

f. Building Information Modeling (BIM)

g. Sustainability certification documentation preparation (LEED)

h. Interior design

i. Architectural renderings & color boards

j. Construction cost estimates (budget, parametric, and detailed)

k. Construction schedule

l. Engineering studies (to include testing of components / concepts for the seismic retrofit)

m. Topographic and/or geotechnical surveys

n. Subsurface investigation and foundation design

o. Environmental documentation (NEPA, etc.)

p. Permits, licenses, and approvals

q. Work categorization

r. Submittal registers

s. Review of As-Built drawings for informational/reference for construction bid documents

t. Interim life safety measures (ILSM)

u. Infection control risk mitigation design

v. Construction phasing plans

w. Review of plans & specifications for Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build methodology, or other as appropriate

x. Draft completion of Government forms related to real property

y. Attendance and participation in coordination meetings, status meetings, and design review conferences

z. Facilitation of, and documentation preparation for, Value Engineering activities

aa. Knowledge management

bb. Support of Cost Schedule Risk Analysis (CSRA) and Project Definition Rating Index

(PDRI) activities

cc. Government Commissioning Agent (CxA) services

4.3. Engineering During Construction Phase (EDC).

This work will consist of all work necessary to provide Engineering During Construction (EDC) services, including commissioning for this project. Support of these elements will vary by each feature of work and the selected construction acquisition strategy (e.g. design-build or design-bid-build). Task orders may include review of construction level deliverables as noted below:

a. Answering bidder inquiries

b. Construction proposal evaluation (technical and/or cost)

c. Construction submittal review (documents, materials, fixtures, equipment, samples, plant materials, color samples, etc.)

d. Request for Information (RFI) support

e. Shop drawing review

f. Engineering change proposal review

g. Construction site visits

h. Commissioning support services

i. Construction progress documentation

j. Engineering forensics

k. Engineering/design during construction

l. Periodic field visits

m. In-person meetings and teleconference attendance

n. Coordination with other stakeholders (i.e. Government, commissioning firm, etc.)

o. Attendance and participation in coordination meetings and status meetings (in-person and/or telecon)

p. Post occupancy validation of systems

q. Activation support.

V. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. General Instructions

Submit an SF 330, following the instructions set forth in the SF 330 form and as supplemented below. Do not submit any additional information that is not required by the SF 330 unless it is required in order to provide the additional information requested below. If the firm disregards these instructions and submits additional information not requested, the Government will not consider the additional information as part of its evaluation.

Except as otherwise permitted below, firms must use the fillable version of the SF 330 available on the U.S. General Services Administration website at https://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116486, using the space available and font settings embedded in that document. Firms may use “print to .pdf” functions to assemble its SF 330 package, number pages, etc. however, the fillable blocks shall be used for all data input.

Submit via email, the SF 330 package (SF 330 and required attachments) to the POCs listed below, no later than 1:00 PM on June 11, 2019. Should the SF 330 package exceed email attachment file size restrictions, firms shall email the POCs below a SF 330 cover sheet, notifying them the complete SF 330 package.

NOTE: This is not a request for price proposal.

B. Supplemental Instructions

1. SF 330 Package Cover Page

Submit one (8.5” x 11”) cover page to the SF 330 package that includes only the following information:

a. Point of Contact

b. Address

c. Phone Number

d. Email Address

e. CAGE Code (if Joint Venture (including Mentor-Protégé), provide the CAGE Code intended to be used should the firm receive an award)

f. Socioeconomic Category for NAICS 541330 (e.g., Large, Small, SDVOSB, etc.)

2. SF 330 Part I, Section C

If additional room is needed to complete Part I, Section C, because the proposed team consists of more than six firms, attach as many additional Part I, Section Cs as necessary to complete Part I, Section C. If submitting additional Part I, Section Cs, alter the identifiers in the first column (i.e., a. – f.) using the same convention so that each member of the team has a unique identifier. For example, the first six firms would be identified as

a. – f., the second six firms would be identified as g. – l., and so on.

3. SF 330 Part I, Section D

a. Organization Chart

Submit an organization chart illustrating all team members (i.e., firms listed in Part I, Section C) and disciplines, identifying the applicable experience levels as listed on Attachment A. The submitted org chart when printed shall be no larger than one page (11” x 17”) and provided in PDF format. See Attachment B example provided.

The intent of the example is to demonstrate the level of detail expected by the Government, not to dictate an organizational structure for the team or format for the organization chart. See Attachment A for a list of all currently anticipated disciplines required to support this SATOC.

4. SF 330 Part I, Section E

a. For each of the key disciplines below, submit one resume using Part I, Section E, for the person proposed to perform the work in the identified key discipline. The number of resumes submitted must match the number indicated below. NOTE: The Government will not review or consider resumes submitted that exceed the quantity listed below. The Government also will not consider any resumes for disciplines that differ from those listed below.

Discipline Quantity Architect 1 Structural Engineer 1 Geotechnical Engineer 1 Civil Engineer 1 Mechanical Engineer 1 Electrical Engineer 1 Fire Protection Engineer 1 Medical Facility Planner 1 Commissioning Specialist (CxA) 1 Communications Systems Professional 1

b. Do not submit the same person for more than one discipline.

c. Fill out each field in the resume form (or otherwise indicate that the field is not applicable).

5. SF 330 Part I, Section F

a. Submit up to three (3) healthcare projects that demonstrate your team’s experience performing design or review work similar to that described in this synopsis. To be considered, each design or design review project must have been completed within ten (10) years of the date that SF 330s are due. The Government will not review or consider more than three (3) projects. If more than three (3) projects are submitted, the Government will only review the first three (3) projects. For each project submitted include the following:

1. Title of Project

2. Customer / Facility Owner (e.g. DVA, DoD, Private Healthcare)

3. Project location

4. Indicate role on project – i.e. Whether Design or Design Review

5. Description of features of work including facility type and specific scope of work

6. Project size (in square-feet)

7. A-E fee and Cost of Construction

8. Project type, (New Construction or Renovation)

9. Construction Methodology (e.g. Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build)

10. Information pertaining to the evaluation criteria listed in section VI of this synopsis

11. Include aerial image of project site identifying features of work

b. If additional room is needed to describe a project in Block 24, the firm may submit an additional Part I, Section F page (i.e., using the Part I, Section F form) for that project. However, the total quantity of Part I, Section F pages must not exceed seven (7) pages for all projects submitted. The Government will not review or consider more than seven (7) Part I, Section F pages (see exception in paragraph c).

c. If additional room is needed to complete Block 25 because more than six firms from

Part I, Section C were involved in the project, attach a continuation Part I, Section F page providing only the necessary additional Block 25 information. Alter the firm identifiers in the first column as needed for consistency with Part I, Section C.

Additional pages needed only for Block 25 will not count toward the seven (7) page limit for Part I, Section F.

d. Please note: For purposes of this evaluation, an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) base contract (or other similar ordering vehicle) itself is not considered a “project.” At least one executed task order under the ordering vehicle or stand-alone contract must have been completed in order to constitute a “project.”

Additionally, two or more contract actions that supported only one effort, will constitute only one “project.”

6. SF 330 Part I, Section G

Submit up to two Part I, Section G pages (so all personnel with a Part I, Section F may be identified through a Part I, Section G, Block 28 “Example Projects Key”) per the SF 330 instructions.

7. SF 330 Part I, Section H

Submit one Part I, Section H for each of the requirements below.

a. Volume of DoD or DVA Contracts

Provide information regarding all DoD or DVA A-E contracts awarded to all firms listed in Part I, Section C within the past twelve (12) months from issue date of this synopsis. List all contract numbers, task orders, and modifications, and include their award dates and total negotiated fees. Submit additional pages only if necessary to provide complete information.

b. Small Business Participation

In the space allotted, provide a brief narrative explaining the roles proposed for small businesses on the team. Additionally, estimate the proposed extent of participation of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, and

Veteran Owned Small Business team members. Identify each firm's name, small business category, and proposed level of participation measured as a percentage of the overall estimated effort. NOTE: Should a large business be selected for award, it will be required to submit a Subcontracting Plan for approval by the Contracting Officer prior to award, which must match the representations made in this section.

8. Past Performance

Submit information regarding past performance as an attachment to the SF 330.

For each project submitted in Part I, Section F, submit one of the following:

A completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, if available.

If a completed CPARS evaluation is not available, submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. The standard PPQ for USACE is Form PPQ-0 (9/30/11) (Attachment C), and is provided as an attachment to this synopsis. Firms are advised to ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS evaluation is available.

o If the firm is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the submission closing date, the firm should complete and submit the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

o Firms should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's points of contact, Jordan M. Quantock and Carolyn J. Randolph, via email, at jordan.m.quantock@usace.army.mil and carolyn.j.randolph@usace.army.mil prior to the submission closing date.

Firms shall instruct the clients to refer to the synopsis number in the subject line.

o PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the firm does not receive the confirmation, it is the firm’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the Government has received the information.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the firm’s SF 330, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), or other databases; telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the firm’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the firm’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the firm.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the firm. In reviewing past performance information, the Government will take into account the relevancy of the past performed work in addition to how well the firm performed.

9. SF 330, Part II

Submit one SF 330, Part II for each firm listed in Part I, Section C.

VI. SELECTION CRITERIA

The Government will evaluate firms’ qualifications under the selection criteria set forth below.

The selection criteria are listed in descending order of importance. Criteria A through E are primary factors and will be evaluated for all firms. The remaining criteria are secondary factors and will be used only to distinguish between technically equal firms. The firms that demonstrate the highest aggregate qualifications relevant to the primary selection criteria will be considered the most highly qualified to perform the required services described in this synopsis.

A. Professional Qualifications Necessary for Satisfactory Performance

NWP will evaluate firms’ professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the required services with consideration of the following:

a. Professional Registrations. At a minimum, each key engineer must be a registered

Professional Engineer (PE) in their respective discipline in at least one U.S. state or territory. In addition, the Structural Engineer must be registered as a Structural Engineer (SE), Fire Protection (FP) Engineer must have the FP registration, and Geotechnical Engineer must have either a Geotechnical Engineer (GE) or Civil Engineer (CE) registration. The key architect must be a Registered Architect in at least one U.S. state or territory. The Communications Systems Professional must have attained the Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) credential. The Cost Estimator and Construction Manager shall have registrations/certifications as appropriate for industry standards. Professional registrations for the Medical Facility Planner and Medical Equipment Planner will be considered.

b. Other Professional Qualifications. The Government will consider each individual’s relevant credentials, publications, awards, certifications, etc., as provided on Block 18.

c. Experience. The Government will evaluate each individual’s relevant project experience (as described in the Specialized Experience and Technical Competence criterion) submitted for each key discipline, to include the individual’s longevity of relevant experience.

B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

The Government will evaluate firms’ demonstrated specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required based on the size, scope and complexity of project examples submitted in comparison to the size, scope and complexity of the VAPORHCS project.

The following types of design or design review experience is listed in descending order of importance: Full Design, Design side of Design-Build, Design-Build Request for Proposals (RFP) preparation.

The following types of project experience is listed in descending order of importance:

DVA medical facilities, Department of Defense (DoD) medical facilities, private sector or municipal medical facilities.

In determining the most highly qualified firm, the Government will assess the breadth and depth of firms’ demonstrated specialized experience and technical competence in Design and/or Design Review in support of the following (in descending order of importance):

a. Medical facility renovations, with particular emphasis on the following:

1. Renovations for facilities with inpatient care that will require departmental relocation

2. Renovations of primary departments (e.g. operating and inpatient rooms)

3. Renovations involving construction phasing

4. Renovations utilizing swing space

b. New medical facility construction, with particular emphasis on the following:

1. Hospital facilities and specialty care (ambulatory care) clinics

2. Scopes of work with architectural, structural in accordance with DVA H-18-8, HVAC, medical plumbing, fire protection, low voltage and communications systems and design for medical equipment and supporting systems

3. Medical campuses with challenging space constraints within dense urbanized environments

4. New construction involving construction phasing

c. Seismic retrofits, with particular emphasis on the following:

1. Structures with challenging subsurface geological conditions

2. Use of non-linear building analysis

3. Designs in accordance with DVA H-18-8 Seismic Design Requirements or similar equivalent

4. Medical facilities

5. Diverse application of seismic retrofit methods and technologies

Evaluation of Key Project Teaming Experience: The Government will evaluate the Section G matrix to assess the extent to which the proposed key personnel have worked together in the past on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the VAPORHCS project. The Government values a team that has successfully worked together in the past on similar projects.

C. Past Performance

The Government will evaluate firms’ past performance in terms of quality of work, adherence to performance schedule, cost control, management, small business subcontracting, and regulatory compliance.

Past performance measures how well the firm has performed on past projects. The Government seeks a firm that maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the firm’s probability of meeting the synopsis requirements. In performing this assessment, the Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment for each firm.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the firm’s past performance. For this action, recent projects are those that have been completed or substantially complete within ten (10) years of the date the SF330 is due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the firm is to the work required by this synopsis. In assessing the relevancy of the firm’s past performance projects, the Government will compare the projects to the size, scope, and complexity of the VAPORHCS project, taking into consideration the same aspects included under Specialized Experience and Technical Competence.

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the firm performed on its past performance projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type, and severity of the problems, and effectiveness of corrective actions taken. If an issue did arise in the performance of work, the Government will consider the ability of the firm to successfully adapt to the changes, problems, and setbacks.

D. Knowledge of the Locality

The Government will evaluate firms’ demonstrated knowledge of local conditions. The Government will take into consideration a firm that demonstrates that it and its proposed key personnel have experience performing medical facility design or design review of medical facility design in similar conditions as those contained in this project. Examples of local conditions include geology, seismology, climate, site constraints and environmental conditions.

E. Capacity to Accomplish the Work in the Required Time

The Government will evaluate firms’ ability to meet workload requirements (including multiple concurrent task orders) primarily through a review of Part II of firms’ SF 330s, but may consider any other relevant information bearing on capacity.

F. Small Business Participation (Secondary Criteria)

The Government will evaluate small business participation as proposed in Part I, Section H.

SF 330s demonstrating a greater commitment to small business participation will be evaluated more favorably under this criterion.

Small Businesses submitting as the prime A-E will automatically be given the highest level of consideration for this criteria. Among firms proposing as large (unrestricted) businesses, greater consideration will be given to those firms which demonstrate a greater intended use of small businesses as a percentage of their overall estimated effort.

G. Geographic Proximity (Secondary Criteria)

The Government will evaluate firms’ geographic proximity to the work to be performed.

Firms demonstrating a majority of performance closer to the Portland Metro area will be considered more favorably.

H. Volume of DoD or DVA Contracts (Secondary Criteria)

The Government will evaluate firms’ total volume of DoD or DVA contracts awarded in the twelve (12) months prior to the issue date of this synopsis as set forth in Part I, Section H.

VII. QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS SYNOPSIS

Submit all inquiries regarding this synopsis via ProjNet-Bid. Telephone and email inquiries will not be accepted. ProjNet-Bid is a web-based program that allows submitters to post questions regarding the synopsis and to view all questions by other submitters and answers by NWP.

ProjNet-Bid can be accessed through ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org/projnet/. To access the ProjNet-Bid website the first time:

(1) Click the Bid tab

(2) Click Bidder Inquiry. (The Agency is USACE.)

(3) Enter the following information for access:

a. The Bidder Inquiry Key: Z67F8N - 6YJBA6

b. Valid business contact information (e.g., company name, contact person, business address, phone number and email address) (required on first project only)

c. Establish secret question and answer which will be used as a password. (Required on first project only.)

(4) For subsequent access use your email address, the Bid Inquiry Key and response to the secret question to access the ProjNet-Bid Module.

(5) Submit questions or review questions and answers. (A firm that submits a question will receive an automated email notification that its question has been received. When an answer is posted to a question, the question and answer are then available for all other firms to review.

(6) For a specific step-by-step for POSTING YOUR INQUIRIES, is available in the Reference link on the Contract Viewer.

(7) For questions about the ProjNet-Bid, please contact the Call Center help desk toll free at 1-800-428-HELP, which operates from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Pacific US time zone).

ProjNet-Bid questions can also be emailed to the helpdesk at staff@rcesupport.com.

The cutoff for questions and inquires is May 27, 2019, 1:00 PM (Pacific). All firms submitting an SF 330 in response to this synopsis will be held to have reviewed the questions and responses in ProjNet-Bid prior to their submission.

Administrative questions should be directed to Jordan M. Quantock at jordan.m.quantock@usace.army.mil. The secondary point of contact is Carolyn J. Randolph at carolyn.j.randolph@usace.army.mil.

The point of contact for small business questions or assistance is the Portland District Deputy for Small Business, Carol McIntyre at (503) 808-4602 or carol.a.mcintyre@usace.army.mil.

List of attachments:

1) Attachment A - Tech Svcs Discipline List

2) Attachment B - Tech Svcs Example Org Chart

3) Attachment C - NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire