Draft Appendix A - Instructions to Offerors.pdf

APPENDIX A - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

PHASE 1

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. OVERVIEW

This RFP solicits for the design and construction of life and health safety upgrades and facilities improvements to SORCC, located in White City, Oregon. The construction contract for the acquisition of Buildings B300 and B301 will utilize a D-B delivery method. The selected D-B contractor must have the demonstrated capability to manage a complex design effort; plan and execute large scale projects; and meet construction deadlines on an active medical campus.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. Authorized Offerors. Firms formally organized as D-B entities, construction firms and design firms that 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. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

b. Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which 1) two (2) or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or 2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one (1) or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements provided the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement.

The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement.

c. Joint Venture (JV). Any Offeror submitting an offer in the name of a JV, shall include a fully executed copy of the JV agreement with the offer. JV agreements that require Small Business Administration (SBA) approval may be submitted absent the requisite SBA Servicing Agency approving authorities’ signature; however, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed JV for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel. All companies submitting as a JV shall register in the System for Award

Management (SAM) at SAM.gov as a JV with a Unique Entity ID (UEI) - formally DUNS number - prior to Phase I proposal submission.

d. Prime and Subcontractor Teaming. Any Offeror submitting a proposal as a prime contractor subcontractor shall include a signed letter of commitment with the proposal. If the subcontractor is a JV, the Letter of Commitment (LOC) shall be signed by each entity of the JV. Prospective offerors that submit proposals may not change their firm, including LOC and proposed subcontractors, or their JV firms, if selected to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

3. PHASE I SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSAL CONTENTS

a. Submittal Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein.

However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, major subcontractor, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant for performance of this contract. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about major subcontractors will not be considered unless the proposal contains some evidence that this subcontractor is committed to perform the work.

i. Proposal Files: Proposals files shall be in searchable, hyperlinked, and bookmarked PDF format. Use no smaller than Arial or Times New Roman 10-point font on pages sized 8 ½ x 11 with a minimum 0.5” margin, unless otherwise stated. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in-excess-of the maximums listed will not be used in evaluation of the selection criteria.

The file name shall be: W9127N25RA034-Vol#-COMPANY.pdf. Each volume shall be submitted electronically

ii. Submission of Proposals: Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442, or SF 30 if applicable. There will not be a public proposal opening. Proposals received after the date and time in block 13A of the solicitation will be considered late and will not be considered for award.

The Offeror shall submit its proposal (both volumes) electronically via email to:

Nicole Adams at Nicole.a.adams@usace.army.mil and Mitch Johnson at Mitchell.J.Johnson@usace.army.mil

Offerors should enter a description for every file submitted. For files over 20 megabytes (MB) the offeror shall break the file into smaller files sent via separate emails, each marked to identify which number the email is relative to the total number of emails submitted (i.e., “one of four”).

Once all the emails submitted have been received, the Government will confirm receipt via return email. If an offeror submits multiple proposals, the Government will only consider the last proposal submitted prior to the due date and time.

Do not assume submission will be instantaneous. File size and number of files submitted shall be considered. Offeror/Teammate/Subcontractors should allow adequate time for submission completion because the entire proposal (i.e., offerors submission and all teammate/subcontractor(s) independent submissions) must be received by the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442, or SF 30 if applicable.

To avoid rejection of an offer, the offeror must make every effort to ensure its electronic submission is virus-free. Proposals, or portions thereof, submitted with the presence of a virus or which are otherwise unreadable will be treated as unreadable pursuant to FAR 15.207(c). The requirement that an original and copy(ies) be submitted as found in block 13A of the SF1442 is satisfied through the electronic submission.

iii. Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Proposal Data Sheets

Attachment 2 – Past Performance Worksheet – Construction or Prime Contractor

Attachment 3 – Past Performance Worksheet – Design Firm or In-House Design

Attachment 4 – Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment 5 – Design-Build Team Participation Matrix

b. Proposal Contents

i. Phase I - Volume 1 – Technical Proposal: The complete Volume I shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the Proposal Submission Instructions specified above and include the following information:

Phase I Proposal

Factor Location Description Relative Order of Importance

Max Page Count

N/A Vol. 1 TAB i

Title Page / Cover Letter / Table of Contents

N/A N/A

N/A Vol. 1

TAB A

A.1 - SF1442

A.2 - Proposal Data Sheet A.3 - Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable) A.4 - Evidence of Ability to Obtain Bonding and Proof of Financial Ability

N/A N/A

Factor I Vol. 1

TAB B

Designer of Record/Design Approach Equal in Importance to Factor II

Organizational Chart – 20

Technical/Design Approach Narrative - 15

Factor II Vol. 1

TAB C

Past Performance Equal in importance to Factor I

2 pages per project - *12 pages total

*CPARS/PPQ not included in total page count

NOTE: Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government

VOLUME 1 TAB i – Title Page, Cover Letter and Table of Contents

Include a Title Page with the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, volume, offeror name, and date of the proposal.

Include a Cover Letter that, at a minimum, specifies: 1) the name, address, email, and telephone number of the offeror; 2) names, titles, emails, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP; 3) the name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal; 4) a statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP.

Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed hyperlinked table of contents.

VOLUME 1 TAB A – STANDARD FROM 1442 AND PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

A.1 - STANDARD FORM 1442

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). Offers submitted in the name of a JV must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the JV agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

All members of the JV shall sign the SF 1442 unless a written agreement by the JV is furnished with the proposal designating one (1) firm with the authority to bind the other member(s) of the JV. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements may eliminate the proposal from further consideration. The Standard Form 1442 will not be rated.

The form will be reviewed to determine if required information is provided, amendments are acknowledged, and the offer signed. Note: Pricing information is not requested or evaluated during Phase I of the source selection.

A.2 - PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of the Phase I section.

Offerors shall ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, Tax ID number, UEI from the SAM website at SAM.gov, and CAGE code are all included. UEI SAM number will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data and Representations and Certifications from SAM.gov. Offerors shall also provide any other assigned number that identifies them in the CPARS databases.

All companies submitting as a joint venture shall register in SAM.gov as a joint venture with a unique UEI number prior to Phase I proposal submission. Include the JV Agreement addressed below. If design is not to be self-performed, provide a signed LOC with the design firm. A UEI SAM number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre- Award Survey and will not be rated.

A.3 - JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT

If more than one (1) contractor is listed in Block 14, or the offeror listed in Block 14 is a JV then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the offeror shall be registered in the SAM as a legal entity separate from the individual JV members. However, each member of the JV must submit its own UEI with the proposal.

SB offerors (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB) submitting a proposal as a JV or Mentor- Protégé shall submit evidence from the offeror's SBA Servicing Agency that the offeror has notified and discussed the proposed JV for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist. JV agreements and approved 8(a) Mentor-Protégé agreements must be submitted with the proposal. This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated.

JV Agreements and Mentor-Protégé agreements must comply with the relevant regulations in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations in order for an offeror to be eligible for any SB-related price preference.

A.4 - EVIDENCE OF ABILITY TO OBTAIN BONDING AND FINANCIAL ABILITY

A. Financial Capability. Submit Proof of Financial Ability (Most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities). Include the name, address, and telephone number of offeror's banking institution. If the offeror is a JV, submit this information for all JV members.

B. Bonding Capability. Submit a letter of commitment from a surety, signed by an officer or agent authorized to bond, that identifies the Offeror’s available bonding capacity and limits that the surety will bond the Offeror, as the successful awardee for this project, taking into consideration the contract cost limitation described in this Solicitation. The surety must be acceptable to the Government and must appear on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies.” If the Offeror submits evidence from an individual surety, the individual surety must include documentation meeting the requirements of FAR 28.203 and contract clause 52.228-11.

If the JV involves a construction and design entity, provide an explanation with confirmation from the surety for the entity that intends to provide the bond. This information will be used for the purpose of completing the Pre-Award Survey and will not be rated. See FAR Part 28 for information related to bonds. If the offeror is a JV, submit this information for all JV members.

VOLUME 1 TAB B– FACTOR I – DESIGNER OF RECORD / DESIGN APPROACH

A. Organizational Approach to Project Design and Construction Management.

Provide an organization chart/matrix and supporting narrative, not to exceed 20 pages, to clearly describe the organizational approach to project design and construction. At a minimum, address the following:

1. Provide an organizational chart of the proposed D-B team which must fit to paper size 11”x17”. Each 11”x17” page will count as a single page. Include a matrix of the proposed D-B team and participation in example projects submitted for the Factor II

- Past Performance. At a minimum, the matrix shall include the information on Attachment 5 – D-B Team Participation Matrix. Do not submit resumes as they will not be evaluated or considered.

2. Provide a narrative that clearly describes the organizational approach to project design and construction. At a minimum, the narrative shall address the following:

a. Describe the D-B contractual relationship between the constructor and the DOR. For the design firm to be considered, a signed LOC shall be provided in TAB A.2, Proposal Data Sheet.

b. Describe the DOR role during construction and the communication methodologies proposed for use by the D-B team and the Government.

c. Describe previous teaming experience between current team members not reflected in the matrix required, above.

B. Technical Approach to Project Management and Execution.

Provide a narrative, not to exceed 15 pages, to clearly describe the technical approach to project management and execution. The narrative must clearly demonstrate an understanding of the fundamental D-B process, i.e., a design and construction proposal that complies with the RFP requirements including the funding constraints of the contract cost limitation (CCL) and demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with D-B process. At a minimum, address the

1. Describe the technical approach to the design and construction of this facility type. Describe how the DVA Technical Information Library (TIL) and applicable codes will be considered and incorporated into the design approach.

2. Provide a general description of the work the offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of FAR clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor in Section 00 72 00.

3. Describe interactions between the design and construction team (D-B team) and the USACE team that will occur during the design and construction phases of the project. Including, but not limited to:

a. Which D-B team members will be responsible for USACE communication, including the communication methods, frequency of contact, and applicable project phases,

b. How will collaboration and coordination be managed between the D-B team members, and USACE,

c. How the D-B team will manage Government comments, and

d. Identify anticipated meetings, including their purpose and required attendees.

4. 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.

5. Describe the role and interactions the design team and the construction team will have with one-another. Including, but not limited to:

a. Which design and construction team members will be responsible for ensuring communication is occurring between the D-B teams, under what cadence, and during which phase of the project.

b. How will sub-contractors be integrated and involved with the design during design development and informed about design changes during construction.

c. How will internal comments, changes, or mark-ups be documented and communicated to the team members that need the information, including sub-contractors.

d. Identify anticipated meetings, including their purpose and required attendees.

6. Provide information on your team’s project scheduling capabilities for design and construction to include:

a. Fast tracking,

b. Identification of the system you will utilize, and

c. How your team will implement the schedule to manage design and construction.

Note: In Phase II, the offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase I, the Government is interested in the offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

7. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize “schedule creep”. The Government is looking for ways the D-B team will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and provide an achievable and flexible schedule.

8. Provide information on your team’s capabilities to assure quality control.

Describe your:

a. Quality control (QC) approach,

b. Corporate systems,

c. Capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction,

d. Ability to track submittal packages,

e. Ability to ensure that submittal packages are complete, and

f. Ability to ensure that submittal packages reflect system interdependencies.

VOLUME 1 TAB C– FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

A. The offeror’s construction and design entities (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall each demonstrate past performance through the submission of recent projects which are similar in scope, size and magnitude. This project includes design and construction of a Primary and Specialty Care Building (B301) with 100,000

BGSF.

The construction entity (prime offeror) shall submit up to three (3) recent projects similar in scope, size and magnitude to B301. The design entity shall submit up to three

(3) recent projects similar in scope, size and magnitude to the B301. The total combined submission, from both entities, shall be no more than six (6) projects.

Offerors may identify federal, state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for on federal, state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer.

An Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project, as defined in this section.

Task orders may not be combined in order for past performance to be considered similar.

1. Primary and Specialty Care Building (B301) – Definitions of Scope, Size, and

Magnitude:

a. Projects considered similar in scope to the Primary and Specialty Care Facility include; health care facilities, medical clinics, community based outpatient clinics and hospitals. Projects similar in scope shall include features of work with similar architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, communication systems, and/or civil and site work as B301 scope.

b. Projects considered similar in size would be new construction projects or building / structural renovation that include a minimum of 50,000 square feet.

c. Projects considered similar in magnitude shall have a dollar value exceeding $40 million.

2. For the construction entity, submit up to three (3) projects demonstrating recent construction past performance that were completed within ten (10) years fromthe date of this initial solicitation. One (1) of the three (3) projects submitted for construction past performance may be a current construction project with completed designs and substantially completed construction. “Substantially complete” is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete,” the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project, with the result that it would not receive a relevancy rating or be considered when reaching the offeror’s Confidence rating.

3. For the design entity, submit up to three (3) projects demonstrating recent design past performance that were fully designed within ten (10) years from the date of this solicitation. Projects demonstrating design past performance may be D-B projects if the design portion of the project is complete, regardless of the construction progress.

B. For each project, submit the following:

1. Information using Attachment 2 or Attachment 3 (as applicable) at the end of this section. If not using Attachment 2 or 3, the information contained in the applicable attachment must be included in the submission. Each project submission shall not exceed two (2) pages. Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

2. A completed CPARS evaluation, if a completed CPARS evaluation is available. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project (see Attachment 4). Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

a. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). It should be noted that without a completed PPQ, the government may not be able to establish a confidence rating for the submitted project, potentially resulting in a “neutral confidence” rating. The government will make an effort to obtain past performance evaluation information, but the government does not assume the responsibility to obtain this information on behalf of the offeror.

b. Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. All questionnaires shall be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Nicole Adams, via email at nicole.a.adams@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

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

C. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or

CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation. In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance and may review all information for any members of a JV. 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 Code/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers of team members (partnership, JV, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant quality information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. Past performance information retrieved through PPIRS, CPARS, or other sources are not subject to the same evaluation criteria but will instead be reviewed for recent negative performance, trends of negative performance, and any other performance information that may negatively impact the offeror’s Confidence rating.

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 offeror.

D. For purposes of evaluating past performance, the Prime Contractor is defined as the contractor identified in Block 14 of the Standard Form 1442. Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, including, but not limited to, teaming partners, subcontractors, sister or parent companies, and affiliates will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If more than one (1) contractor is listed in Block 14, then a signed JV agreement must be submitted with the proposal and the JV shall be registered as such in SAM. However, each party of the JV must submit their own UEI with the JV proposal. Projects performed by other contractors than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated for past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a JV offeror as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the offeror represents the combining of two or more companies as a JV for the purpose of this RFP, each company in the JV may submit project examples demonstrating performance information relevant to each of the proposed roles on this project, but the total submitted by the JV will not exceed the total project limitations specified in the Proposal Submission Section II - A.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR DOWN SELECTION – PHASE 1

This is a two (2) phase D-B procurement, as described in FAR Sub Part 36.3, and the basis of award is the BVTO Process. Phase I of this process requires potential contractors to submit their qualifications proposal for review and consideration by the Government. Offerors must submit a complete Phase I proposal to be considered for Phase II. Phase I does not request or require pricing information. The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described herein.

Following the review, evaluation and rating of these proposals, the Government shall select up to three (3) highest rated Offerors to receive the technical requirements package for advancement to Phase II. Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the NWP Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase II of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase II proposal. The selected Phase II Offerors as well as the unsuccessful offerors will be notified directly by letter from the Contracting Officer.

The selected Offerors shall provide a technical and price proposal for consideration by the Government at Phase II. The selected Offerors must submit a complete Phase II proposal to be considered for award. Failure to submit a complete Phase I and Phase II proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected. The technical information contained in the Phase II proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the Government in accordance with the submission and evaluation criteria set out below.

Following completion of the Phase II evaluation, the Contracting Officer will award a FFP contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

C. FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Phase I – Proposal Volume 1: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. For Phase 1, Factor I - DOR / Design Approach and Factor II - Past Performance are equal in importance.

Factor I - DOR / Design Approach

Factor II - Past Performance

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The SSEB will evaluate and rate the Volume I proposals against the RFP requirements and evaluation criteria. 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.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is a BVTO, as stated above. The members of the SSEB will independently evaluate the information provided in the Phase I proposal. Once these individual evaluations are completed, the SSEB will deliberate and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. No overall rating will be assigned.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

2. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

3. Definitions.

o Best Value: Means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

o Clarifications: Limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

o Deficiency: Is 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. See FAR 15.001.

o Quality: Is the composite of materiel attributes including performance features and characteristics of a production or service to satisfy a customer's given need.

o Recency: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

o Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

o Risk: As it pertains to this source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

o Significant Strength: Is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

o Significant Weakness: In the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

o Strength: Is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

o Uncertainty: Is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

o Weakness: Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Phase I – Proposal Volume 1

Phase I – FACTOR I - DOR / DESIGN APPROACH

Each offeror’s design approach will be reviewed to determine a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work.

The Government will evaluate the D-B contractual relationship (Prime Contractor and DOR), the DOR role during construction, and communication methodologies proposed for use by the D-B team and the Government as well as the process for timely evaluation and resolution of technical challenges encountered during construction.

Evaluation Criteria for FACTOR I – DOR / DESIGN APPROACH

The DOR / Design Approach Factor will evaluate the offerors overall technical approach of this D-B construction project and its capability to execute an awarded contract with a cohesive and collaborative team effort and design excellence. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings in the DOR / Design Approach. These are combined to establish one (1) technical/risk rating for each offeror, “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.” A separate technical/risk rating will not be assigned; rather, the technical/risk rating is based on an assessment of technical risk. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Phase I – FACTOR II PAST PERFORMANCE:

Each offeror’s (Prime Contractor and DOR) past performance will be reviewed to determine the recency and relevancy of experience, plus the quality of performance for an overall confidence assessment.

Evaluation Criteria for FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

A. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will first evaluate the relevancy of recent past performance identified in the proposal in response to the submission requirements. By using the criteria identified above, the SSEB will determine how relevant a past project is when compared to the recency, scope, size, and magnitude of effort and complexities of the solicited project. A relevancy rating will be assigned to each submitted project using the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings in Table 2, below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

B. In determining relevancy, additional consideration may be given to projects that involved one or more of the following:

1. D-B projects for the Federal Government

2. Projects on active/operational medical facilities, medical sites, or medical campuses

3. Projects which demonstrate previous working relationships between the prime contractor and DOR

4. Projects involving experience on VA Medical Facilities

C. For both the Prime and DOR, the SSEB will next review how well the offeror performed on those projects. The Past Performance of both the Prime and A/E DOR will be weighted equally in the establishment of the overall Performance Confidence rating. The SSEB will determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate this information into the performance confidence assessment. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

D. The SSEB will assign a final, overall Performance Confidence rating, using the ratings in the Performance Confidence Assessments table below, based on the SSEB’s assessment of 1.) the degree of the offeror’s recent, relevant experience, and 2.) how well the offeror performed that experience. The confidence rating assesses 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. Confidence rating descriptions are provided in Table 3, below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. 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.

F. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).); it is considered “Neutral.” The SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

A. DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held.

The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications, communications, or discussions. The Government reserves the right to make the down selection without establishing a Competitive Range and entering discussions.

The ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the SSA. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors will participate in Phase II of the solicitation. In no case will more than three (3) offerors be included in the Phase II process.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase I 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 the proposal after submitting it in response to Phase I.

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

PHASE 2

Preliminary for Information Only – Final Version to be Provided in Phase II

This section is being provided at Phase I for information only and is subject to change for Phase II.

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. OVERVIEW

Those Offerors selected in Phase I are invited to submit a Phase II proposal, as indicated below. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria described herein. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and for material unbalancing, as described herein. The Phase II evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.

2. UTILIZATION AND PAYMENT OF A STIPEND

This solicitation provides for payment of a stipend to the unsuccessful Phase II Offerors who were not selected for award of the resulting D-B contract. Each unawarded Phase II offeror will receive a stipend provided that the unawarded Phase II offeror’s full proposal is evaluated as at least ‘Acceptable’ in Factors III, IV, V, and VI. Payment of the stipend will be initiated ten (10) calendar days after contract award, provided the award has not been protested. The stipend amount is $400,000 per unawarded offeror.

3. EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS USING FAR 15.201 - INTERIM INTERVIEWS

a. Interim Interviews. Phase II will utilize interim interviews to provide each D-B team with feedback, early in the proposal development process and prior to submission of the Phase II proposal. The process will utilize pre-recorded, MP4 file or approved alternate, presentations from the offeror’s followed by written responses (a.k.a. an "Azimuth" check) from the Government. Additional details for the process will be provided through an amendment during Phase II. The Government currently anticipates the structure of these Interim Interviews to utilize the following format:

i. The schedule for interviews will be provided to the offerors in the

Amendment to be issued during Phase II.

ii. Each Offeror shall have the opportunity to provide the government with a one-hour, pre-recorded, narrative presentation highlighting the major areas of their proposal in relation to the Phase II Evaluation Factor III - Concept Design and Design Narrative. Offerors are to submit flattened PDF copies of the drawings and information that is discussed during their pre-recorded narrative presentation.

iii. The Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) shall then review the recorded presentation and submitted PDF documents, and develop a written response (a.k.a. an "Azimuth" check) of the submitted information which will include feedback of those items that presents an area of increased Government risk or lack of clarity in the RFP. This information will be tailored specifically to each offeror 's conceptual design but will be given fairly and equally across all offerors. The Offeror's team may also provide any suggestions or improvements to the RFP process and/or documents. However, offerors must still utilize the bidder inquiry process through ProjNet for any questions.

iv. The Government will maintain confidentiality of the proprietary information for each offeror 's team to protect the offeror's confidential strategy in accordance with FAR 15.201. The designs will not be discussed outside the presentation room. The Contracting Officer will lead the engagement and control the information including providing the written feedback to the offeror. The technical individuals involved will have access to offeror’s presentations after receiving the appropriate legal in-brief and meeting all non-disclosure requirements. They will also be sequestered during the process and shall be viewing the information as a recording rather than a live presentation.

v. During the entire Phase II process, the Offeror's team is forbidden from contacting the Government representatives other than the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist. Contact with a Government representative other than the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist will result in removal from the D-B competition and forfeiture of the stipend (if any is otherwise provided in this solicitation.)

vi. The Interim Interview process shall not include cost and/or pricing

b. Interim interviews are for information exchange only in order to improve both the RFP documents and final proposals. The interviews will not be evaluated or influence the evaluation of Phase II proposals.

4. PHASE II SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSAL CONTENTS

a. Submittal Requirements. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein.

However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's capability for successfully completing the solicited project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP.

Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award.

Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, major subcontractor, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant for performance of this contract. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about major subcontractors will not be considered unless the proposal contains some evidence that this subcontractor is committed to perform the work.

i. Proposal Files: Proposals shall be in searchable, hyperlinked and bookmarked PDF format. Use no smaller than Arial or Times New Roman 10-point font on pages sized 8 ½ x 11 with a minimum 0.5” margin, unless otherwise stated. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of the maximums listed will not be used in evaluation of the selection criteria.

The file name shall be: W9127N-Vol#-COMPANY.pdf

ii. Submission of Proposals: Proposals are due no later than the time and…