A.07.23_Final_Solicitation_20R6002.pdf

PROJECT: Design and construction services for a student dining facility for the Law Enforcement Training Center (LETC) at the Eugene J Tow bin VA Healthcare Center in North Little Rock, AR, in accordance w ith the Statement of Work and all attachments.

This is a total Small Business set-aside. NAICS code is 236220, size standard is $39,500,000.

Magnitude of Construction is $6,000,000 to $8,000,000

All offerors shall refer to section 4 of the instructions to offerors for the number of copies or each volume that are required for submission.

MARCUS D MITCHELL 501-340-1253

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

22-Jan-2020

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________573 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is mandatory, X negotiable. (See _________________________

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________1 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________26 Feb 2020 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time of fers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______90 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, LITTLE ROCK (W9127S)

700 W. CAPITOL AVE, RM 7315

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-3225

W9127S

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

(501) 324-5196FAX:TEL: (501) 340-5720 TEL: FAX:

W9127S20R6002 71

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

Section 00 11 00 - SF1442 and CLIN Schedule

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job Design of Dining Facility

FFP

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

0002 1 Job Construction of Dining Facility

0003 1 Job Kitchen Equipment

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Offerors

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 N/A N/A N/A Government 0002 N/A N/A N/A Government 0003 N/A N/A N/A Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 573 dys. ADC 1 PROGRAMS MANAGEMENT BRANCH

700 WEST CAPITOL

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201

96722A

0002 573 dys. ADC 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

0003 573 dys. ADC 1 (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.211-6 Brand Name or Equal AUG 1999 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition JAN 2017 52.222-33 Notice of Requirement for Project labor Agreement MAY 2010 52.236-27 Site Visit (Construction) FEB 1995 52.236-28 Preparation of Proposals--Construction OCT 1997 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated By Reference FEB 1998 252.236-7008 Contract Prices-Bidding Schedules DEC 1991

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a firm-fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

52.222-5 CONSTRUCTION WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS--SECONDARY SITE OF THE WORK (MAY

2014)

(a)(1) The offeror shall notify the Government if the offeror intends to perform work at any secondary site of the work, as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of the FAR clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements,of this solicitation.

(2) If the offeror is unsure if a planned work site satisfies the criteria for a secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a determination from the Contracting Officer.

(b)(1) If the wage determination provided by the Government for work at the primary site of the work is not applicable to the secondary site of the work, the offeror shall request a wage determination from the Contracting Officer.

(2) The due date for receipt of offers will not be extended as a result of an offeror's request for a wage determination for a secondary site of the work.

52.225-10 NOTICE OF BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT--CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (MAY 2014)

(a) Definitions. “Commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) item,” “construction material,” “domestic construction material,” and “foreign construction material,” as used in this provision, are defined in the clause of this solicitation entitled “Buy American --Construction Materials” (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.225-9).

(b) Requests for determinations of inapplicability. An offeror requesting a determination regarding the inapplicability of the Buy American statute should submit the request to the Contracting Officer in time to allow a determination before submission of offers. The offeror shall include the information and applicable supporting data required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of the clause at FAR 52.225-9 in the request. If an offeror has not requested a determination regarding the inapplicability of the Buy American statute before submitting its offer, or has not received a response to a previous request, the offeror shall include the information and supporting data in the offer.

(c) Evaluation of offers. (1) The Government will evaluate an offer requesting exception to the requirements of the Buy American statute, based on claimed unreasonable cost of domestic construction material, by adding to the offered price the appropriate percentage of the cost of such foreign construction material, as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of the clause at FAR 52.225-9.

(2) If evaluation results in a tie between an offeror that requested the substitution of foreign construction material based on unreasonable cost and an offeror that did not request an exception, the Contracting Officer will award to the offeror that did not request an exception based on unreasonable cost.

(d) Alternate offers.

(1) When an offer includes foreign construction material not listed by the Government in this solicitation in paragraph (b)(2) of the clause at FAR 52.225-9, the offeror also may submit an alternate offer based on use of equivalent domestic construction material.

(2) If an alternate offer is submitted, the offeror shall submit a separate Standard Form 1442 for the alternate offer, and a separate price comparison table prepared in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of the clause at FAR 52.225-9 for the offer that is based on the use of any foreign construction material for which the Government has not yet determined an exception applies.

(3) If the Government determines that a particular exception requested in accordance with paragraph (c) of the clause at FAR 52.225-9 does not apply, the Government will evaluate only those offers based on use of the equivalent domestic construction material, and the offeror shall be required to furnish such domestic construction material. An offer based on use of the foreign construction material for which an exception was requested--

(i) Will be rejected as nonresponsive if this acquisition is conducted by sealed bidding; or

(ii) May be accepted if revised during negotiations.

52.225-12 NOTICE OF BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT-- CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS UNDER

TRADE AGREEMENTS (MAY 2014)

(a) Definitions. “Commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) item,” “construction material,” “designated country construction material,” “domestic construction material,” and “foreign construction material,” as used in this provision, are defined in the clause of this solicitation entitled “Buy American -- Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements” (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.225-11).

(b) Requests for determination of inapplicability. An offeror requesting a determination regarding the inapplicability of the Buy American statute should submit the request to the Contracting Officer in time to allow a determination before submission of offers. The offeror shall include the information and applicable supporting data required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of FAR clause 52.225-11 in the request. If an offeror has not requested a determination regarding the inapplicability of the Buy American statute before submitting its offer, or has not received a response to a previous request, the offeror shall include the information and supporting data in the offer.

(c) Evaluation of offers. (1) The Government will evaluate an offer requesting exception to the requirements of the Buy American statute, based on claimed unreasonable cost of domestic construction materials, by adding to the offered price the appropriate percentage of the cost of such foreign construction material, as specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of FAR clause 52.225-11.

(2) If evaluation results in a tie between an offeror that requested the substitution of foreign construction material based on unreasonable cost and an offeror that did not request an exception, the Contracting Officer will award to the offeror that did not request an exception based on unreasonable cost.

(d) Alternate offers. (1) When an offer includes foreign construction material, other than designated country construction material, that is not listed by the Government in this solicitation in paragraph (b)(3) of FAR clause 52.225-11, the offeror also may submit an alternate offer based on use of equivalent domestic or designated country construction material.

(2) If an alternate offer is submitted, the offeror shall submit a separate Standard Form 1442 for the alternate offer, and a separate price comparison table prepared in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of FAR clause 52.225-11 for the offer that is based on the use of any foreign construction material for which the Government has not yet determined an exception applies.

(3) If the Government determines that a particular exception requested in accordance with paragraph (c) of FAR clause 52.225-11 does not apply, the Government will evaluate only those offers based on use of the equivalent domestic or designated country construction material, and the offeror shall be required to furnish such domestic or designated country construction material. An offer based on use of the foreign construction material for which an exception was requested-- (i) Will be rejected as nonresponsive if this acquisition is conducted by sealed bidding; or

(ii) May be accepted if revised during negotiations.

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from

US Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District Contracting Division Attn: Marcus D. Mitchell, Contracting Officer 700 W. Capitol Avenue Room 7315 Little Rock, AR 72201

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

252.215-7012 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS VIA ELECTRONIC MEDIA (JAN 2018)

The Offeror shall submit the cost portion of the proposal via the following electronic media:

Timothy.A.Pighee@usace.army.mil.

Section 00 22 11 - Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, Basis of Award One-Step-Best Value, Design-Build (Single Award)

SECTION

Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award for the VA / LETC Dining Facility at the Eugene J Towbin VA Healthcare Center, North Little

Rock, AR.

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

This project consists of a “two-phase” Design-Build competitive negotiation procurement process in order to obtain design and construction services for a student dining facility for the Law Enforcement Training Center (LETC) at the Eugene J Towbin VA Healthcare Center in North Little Rock, AR.

This overall project is for the Design-Build construction of the LETC student dining facility. The size of the dining facility will be approximately +/-12,000 SF and serve approximately 250 to 275 students (at one time) for three (3) meals per day, seven (7) days a week. Capacity to serve up to 500 students on a “phased” basis at any one meal may also be considered. The facility will generally consist of the departments and square footages as referenced in the accompanying Appendicies in 01 11 00.10 (Design Requirements), Program For Design (PFD) dated 02 DEC 19.

The project will utilize economical design and construction methods in accordance with the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and will comply with the referenced VA design standards including the Veterans Canteen Service (Chapter 206), VA Physical Security Design Manual (classified as “Life Safety Protected”) dated July 2007, VA Interior Finishes as Specified VA Program Guide PG-18-14, and CAVHS Technology Design Guide dated 2016-06 (which will be made available in Step 2). The VA Design Guides with noted exceptions can be located at (https://www.cfm.va.gov/til/).

It is currently anticipated the project/new dining facility will be located east of Building 7, north of Hill Road and adjacent to Parking Lot 5. Please see the attachment sections of the solicitation.

Anticipated Construction Components: Potential special foundations due to topographic conditions, slab on grade or elevated slabs based on design-build concept, masonry exterior walls, architectural shingle roof, fire suppression/detection/alarm systems, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), WI-FI system capability, loading dock(s) and kitchen equipment which is integral to the construction process, i.e. walk-in coolers/freezers, hoods, sinks etc. are anticipated. A full list of kitchen equipment will be included in the phase 2 selection process.

Supporting facilities include site work, existing driveway and potential parking reconfiguration for semi-truck/food delivery access, adjacent/relocation of parking spaces, and all necessary utility support and relocations associated with the completion of this project.

2.0 GENERAL PROCEDURES/REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Preliminary Review:

This is a Two-Phase acquisition process resulting in a firm-fixed price (FFP) Design- Build contract.

2.2 Requirements:

Proposals shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the requirements of the Solicitation. Proposals should be specific and complete in every detail; and should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the requirements. Proposals should be practical, legible, clear, and coherent.

In order to effectively and equitably evaluate all proposals, the Contracting Officer must receive information containing sufficient detail to allow review and evaluation by the Government. The price proposals will be separated from the technical proposals. Technical proposals will be provided to the designated Technical Evaluation Team and Price Proposals will be provided to the designated Price Evaluation Advisors, with both teams under the direct guidance and oversight of the Contracting Officer. Proposal clarity, organization, and cross-referencing are mandatory. Failure to submit and organize proposals as requested may adversely affect an Offeror's evaluation.

3.0 INTRODUCTION - NOTICE TO OFFERORS

This section is designed to provide the Offeror with instructions to complete and deliver a competitive proposal in response to this request for proposals (RFP). Oral proposals are not solicited for Phase 1. The selection procedures to be used will be a Two-Phase approached IAW FAR Subpart 36.3. The Two-Phase selection procedure authorized under 10 U.S.C.

2305a allows Offerors to submit information related to specialized experience, technical competence, capability to perform, past performance, teaming arrangements and/or other information requested in Phase One. Based on information submitted in Phase One, the source selection authority will select no more than four (4) of the most qualified Offerors to advance onto Phase 2 in the competition and are thereby subsequently invited to submit technical design products as part of the technical proposals for evaluation during the second phase. All proposals must be complete and timely to be considered.

3.1 Acquisition Method:

The method of acquisition for this procurement considers the “Best Value” continuum, wherein a Best Value source selection process will be utilized in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.101. Award will be made to the proposal that represents the best value to the Government as determined by the Source Selection Official. In this acquisition method evaluation and price trade off, if conducted, are highly subjective in nature. The offer determined to be the Best Value may not be the lowest price or the highest technically rated offer.

The decision will involve a comparison and trade-off analysis of the combination of non-cost strengths, weaknesses, and risks, the evaluated cost/price offered in each proposal, and judgment as to which proposal provides the best combination. As a result Offerors must provide their best proposal with all required information in the required format. Information provided must be complete, clear and legible to obtain the best evaluation rating possible.

3.2. Contract Cost Ceiling Limitation for Design and Construction Costs:

The design and construction costs will be subject to the funds available for this project.

The current Programmed Amount of funds for design and construction, base proposal plus all options, is $7.8 M. It is not anticipated that that additional funds in excess of $7.8 M will be made available for this project prior to contract award.

3.3. The solicitation process is known as the “Request for Proposals” or the acronym:

“RFP”. Interested firms or joint venture entities (referred to as “Offerors”) may submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

3.4. The Government will evaluate the proposals, in accordance with the criteria described in Section 00 22 10 (Phase 1 and Phase 2) in the solicitation (and below, Evaluating Factors for Award), and award a firm-fixed-price design-build construction contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government considering all factors, sub-factors, and price. Cost information will not be rated, but will be evaluated for reasonableness.

3.5. The proposal must describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the work, describe the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements contained in the solicitation and set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by the Request for Proposals (RFP). The proposal should be prepared simply and economically in the prescribed format and be complete, legible, clear and coherent.

3.6. The Government included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, in this RFP. This clause states that the Government intends to make award based on initial offers, but reserves the right to conduct discussions with all Offerors determined to be part of the competitive range should the Source Selection Authority deem discussions necessary.

3.7. Oral Presentations:

The Government may conduct oral presentations for Phase 2. Location, assigned dates and times for each potential Offeror will be provided at a later date if it is determined oral presentations are necessary.

3.8. Offerors will not be participating in a sealed bid procurement process under this acquisition method. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

3.9. Contract Type:

An award of a firm-fixed-price design-build construction contract requiring delivery and installation is contemplated for this Acquisition.

4.0 PREPARING PROPOSALS

4.1 Proposal Submittal Information.

The following section describes the procedures for submittal of proposals in response to this Request for Proposal.

4.2 Who May Submit:

This request for proposal is set aside for Small Business Firms. The NAICS for this project is 236220, with a size standard of $39.5 Million, as determined by the U.S.

Small Business Administration.

4.3 Where to Submit Bidder Inquiries:

A Request for Information (RFI) Review has been set up for this RFP in ProjNet https://www.projnet.org/projnet/. The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 9XW697-IVQ246. All questions and inquiries will be accepted only via the ProjNet website. The review is open from 22 JAN 20 to 6 FEB 20 12:00 pm CT.

4.4 Where to Submit. Offerors shall submit proposals to:

US Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District ATTN: Contracting Division (Marcus Mitchell) CESWL-CT 700 W. Capitol Ave, RM 7315 Little Rock, AR 72203

The Packaging that contains the Proposals shall be marked:

All proposals must be marked on the outside with the solicitation number W9127S- 20-R-6002, VA / LETC Dining Facility, North Little Rock, Arkansas, “DO NOT

OPEN”.

4.5 Submission Deadline. Proposals shall be received by the Corps of Engineers no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the Standard Form 1442. All information requested in Paragraph 3 (below, Evaluating Factors for Award) must be submitted in response to this solicitation in order for the Offeror to be considered responsive to the RFP.

4.6 The Offeror is required to submit a bid guarantee with its proposal in the amount of

20% of the total proposed price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.

4.7 Submission Format and Number of Submittals.

All original proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The section should parallel the submission requirements identified below.

Volume I shall be submitted in one (1) hard copy marked “Original” and four (4)CDs copies in read only format, using pdf files and shall be placed in a clearly marked sealed envelope.

Volume II shall be submitted in one (1) hard copy marked “Original” and two (2) CD copies using pdf files and shall be placed in a clearly marked sealed envelope.

Volume III shall be submitted in one (1) hard copy marked “Original” and four (4) CD copies in read only format, using pdf files and shall be placed in a clearly marked sealed envelope.

Each binder or envelope furnished shall contain the following information on its cover: the volume number, solicitation number, name, address, and telephone numbers of the Prime and Subcontractors, Joint Venture, or other entity identified on the cover as appropriate.

Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory. No material (e.g. samples) shall be incorporated by reference. Each volume will be submitted separately bound or secured in envelopes. The information will be used by the Source Selection Board to evaluate each proposal.

Proposals should provide more than superficial coverage of the information required below. Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be non-responsive and thus ineligible for award.

4.7.1 Size of Printed Materials. “Original” copy pages containing text shall be submitted on 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper using 10 point or larger font size, in bound volumes, using 3-ring binders.

4.7.2 Drawings or other graphics may be submitted on 11 x 17 inch paper provided that they are bound/included within their respective Factor Submission sections/tabs. Any 11 x 17 sheets will be counted as one (1) sheet each.

4.8 Proposal Cost. The Government will not be liable for any costs incurred by the

Offeror submitting an offer in response to this Solicitation.

5.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 Submit proposals initially on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume that firms will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals. Submit proposals in tabbed, three-ring binders. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits, where indicated below.

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1 Project Title and Location: FY 18 VA / LETC Dining Facility, Eugene J Towbin VA Hospital Campus, North Little Rock, Arkansas

6.2 Proposed Contract Type: Firm-Fixed-Price

6.3 Design-Build: Yes

6.4 Source Selection Process: Best Value, Trade-Off, IAW FAR 15.101-1

6.5 Firms Which Submitted Proposals: The Request for Proposal is set aside for Small

Business Firms

PHASE 1 - DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCESS

7.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL, RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, and SUBMITTALS

7.1 PHASE 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.2 VOLUME I

7.2.1 FACTOR 1 - TAB A - PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

7.2.2 FACTOR 2 - TAB B - RISK ASSESSMENT

7.2.3 FACTOR 3 - TAB C - PAST PERFORMANCE

7.2.4 FACTOR 4 - TAB D - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.0 PHASE 1 - PROPOSAL AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

The following table describes the format for Volume I. Originals must be clearly marked as “Original”. – One (1) hard copy marked “Original” and four (4) CD copies using pdf files.

Volume I shall be limited to an overall maximum of 38 double-sided pages (front and back) and shall comply with the page limitations for each FACTOR listed below. Pages in excess of this limit shall be removed from the proposal and will not be evaluated for award.

PHASE ONE

SUBMITTALS

Factors Location Description Relative Importance Factor 1 VOLUME I

TAB A

PROJECT TEAM

QUALIFICATIONS AND

EXPERIENCE

For the Evaluation of Phase 1, Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2 and 3 but less important than Factor 4.

Factor 2 VOLUME I

TAB B

RISK ASSESSMENT For the Evaluation of Phase 1, Factor 2 is equal in importance to Factor 3, but less important than Factors 1 and 4.

Factor 3 VOLUME I

TAB C

PAST PERFORMANCE For the Evaluation of Phase 1, Factor 3 is equal in importance to Factor 2 but less important than Factors 1 and 4.

Factor 4 VOLUME I

TAB D

ORGANIZATION AND

TECHNICAL APPROACH

For the Evaluation of Phase 1, Factor 4 is the MOST important Factor.

7.1 PHASE ONE - EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.1.1 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB)

The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation.

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

7.1.2 EVALUATION

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

The Government reserves the right to allow proposal corrections, if deemed necessary, to determine the most highly qualified Offerors to short-list for Phase Two.

The Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will select up to four (4) of the most highly qualified Offerors to short-list for Phase Two.

7.1.3 EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor. The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements.

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

Rating System: The evaluation team will document strengths (e.g., advantages), weaknesses (e.g., disadvantages), and other comments (e.g., deficiency and/or clarification) to support the rating for each factor. Documentation and comments are required for all ratings.

The consensus rating and any minority opinions will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for selection and award. The ratings for Technical Factors will be expressed in an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable.

ADJECTIVE

DEFINITION AND CRITERIA

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

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

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

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

2. Strength. Any aspect of a proposal when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

3. Significant Strength. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

5. Significant Weakness. A significant weakness in a proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

6. Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror 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).

7. Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

8. EXCEPTIONS:

Exceptions to the contractual terms and conditions of the solicitation (e.g., standard company terms and conditions) may result in a determination to reject a proposal.

9. RESTRICTIONS:

Failure to submit all the data in the format indicated in this solicitation may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation, and for subsequent award.

7.2 VOLUME I –

7.2.1 FACTOR 1, TAB A - PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

This Factor considers the experience, knowledge, and skills of the Project Team and Key Personnel necessary to accomplish the requirements defined in the RFP.

7.2.1.1 Submission Requirements:

1. Examples: (NTE ten (10)-double sided pages) Provide a minimum of five (5) relevant dining facility, food service, or similar facility design-build construction contracts of the Design-Build Team that have been completed together within the last seven (7) years, or are currently under construction and are at least

25% complete; All projects referenced shall provide location and description, owner contact information, project cost, scope, award amount and final price, and major impacts of the project. At a minimum, two

(2) of the five (5) projects must be dining facility or food service projects, two (2) of the projects must be design-build in nature, and two (2) of the projects must be new construction. If no projects have been completed together as an existing design-build team, provide a minimum of three (3) projects for each company which represent at least one (1) food service project, one (1) design-build project, and at least one (1) new construction project. The examples shall be of similar size and complexity to the dining facility as proposed in this project.

2. Resumes (NTE eight (8) double sided pages) Provide 1-page resumes for the key personnel as per the

Project Team Qualifications in the RFP. Include as a minimum:

a. Name and Title

b. Specific assignment on this project

c. Name of Firm (if different from Offeror)

d. Number of years with this firm/with other firms (including specific title and role)

e. Education - Degree(s)/year/specialization

f. Active registration: number/state/year

g. Specific dining/food service experience, including dates, and qualifications relevant to this project. Provide three completed design-build projects (Project Name, location, P.O.C, experience and qualifications should reference specific details of the roles/involvement with projects used as a reference)

h. Personnel shall include as a minimum:

1. Project Manager

2. Project Engineer

3. Project Architect

4. QA/QC System Manager

5. Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)

6. Designer of Recorder (may be the same person as the Project Architect or Project Engineer)

7. Kitchen Consultant

8. Fire Protection Consultant

9. Civil Engineer

10. Sustainability – AP (may be the same person as the Project Architect or Project Engineer)

11. Project Superintendent

i. Other disciplines may be submitted as necessary (i.e. Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, etc) in order to fully demonstrate the Offeror’s project team capabilities.

Offerors are encouraged to provide descriptive analysis of why they feel their proposed personnel meet the criteria for principal program personnel experience.

Major subcontractors are required to have similar type facility and design-build experience.

7.2.1.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which:

1. Key Personnel have extensive knowledge of the construction marketplace and experience in dining facilities and/or food service facilities, Design Build construction projects, and new building construction projects.

2. Key Personnel are both knowledgeable and experienced in construction sequencing; understand how sophisticated dining facility and/or food service facility systems are integrated; understand the impact of proper kitchen equipment layout and utilization; and understand the site layout/traffic flow for food deliveries.

3. The Prime Contractor and A-E of Record, as a team, demonstrate the ability to:

A. Provide quality design and construction - Based on all information available, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror.

B. Meet performance periods - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

C. Manage subcontractors - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors, including mitigation of conflicts and resolution of disputes at the lowest level.

D. Control costs - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s ability to observe current cost levels, compare them with a standard plan or norm and institute corrective action to keep cost within acceptable levels.

E. Maintain safety - The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s ability to effectively implement and maintain their accident prevention program and have a documented safety incentive program. If there are excessive lost time accidents, Offeror is encouraged to submit an explanation of what has been done to improve their safety record.

F. Maintain campus operations – The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s ability to maintain access and services in order to keep a healthcare campus fully operational during construction.

7.2.2 FACTOR 2, TAB B - RISK ASSESSMENT

This Factor considers the level of understanding of the risks involved with this project and the ability and knowledge of how to manage and mitigate risks related to scope, schedule, costs, and safety.

7.2.2.1 Submission Requirements:

Narrative (NTE two (2) double sided pages) Provide a narrative of how the team will identify and manage risk generally; and the approach to managing risk associated with coordinating ongoing and concurrent efforts with other Designers/Contractors if applicable. Provide a list of risks specifically associated with this project, identify the degree of risk, impact of the risk on project (schedule, cost), whether it’s within or outside the Offeror’s control, and a plan to mitigate the risk(s).

7.2.2.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it:

1. Demonstrates the ability to identify and manage risk(s).

2. Demonstrates the ability to identify the degree of risk present in the project.

3. Demonstrates the ability to identify the impact of risk(s) on schedule and cost.

4. Demonstrates the ability to identify what risk(s) is/are within the Offeror’s control.

7.2.3 FACTOR 3, TAB C - PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance considers the Offeror’s track record for meeting customer satisfaction on project timeliness, costs, quality and safety.

7.2.3.1 Submission Requirements:

1. For the project submitted in Factor 1, Paragraph 1, Offerors may provide details on past performance problems and corrective actions taken as a part of the proposal. When an Offerors firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm that will actually perform the work.

2. Past Performance References: (NTE ten (10) double sided pages) For the projects submitted in

Factor 1, Paragraph 1, the government will query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to validate past performance ratings. For each project that does not have a final CPARS evaluation, Offerors shall provide a NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) to the point of contact, clearly identifying the project to be evaluated.

A NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) is included at the end of the RFP. When completed, these forms shall be mailed, faxed or emailed to the Little Rock District Contract Specialist identified in the RFP. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that the reference documentation is provided as the Government may not make additional requests for past performance information from the references.

Offerors submitting responses shall present a list of reference contacts that were mailed a past performance questionnaire to complete. The Offeror shall briefly discuss its past performance on each project identified above in order to explain any ratings that may impact its overall rating for this factor (positively or negatively).

The Government will assess the degree of success of the Offeror’s past performance in recent relevant projects. Owners/references will be asked to comment on items such as quality of construction, timeliness, management of subcontractor work, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such items or tasks as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas identified in the requirements of this solicitation including records conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, and level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, and problem resolution for construction errors, warranty work, and safety.

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE

TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE

SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT

QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED

DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE

GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

8. Client’s Signature:

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner.

There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable

No information or did not apply to your contract

Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS YOUR

EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E N

VG S M U

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance

E

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E N

VG S M U

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

E N

VG S M U

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E N

VG S M U

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

VG

S

M

U

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

E N

VG S M U

d) Overall customer satisfaction E N

VG S M U

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG S M U N

b)…