A.07.24_Amendment_0001.pdf

W9127S20R6002

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide the revised evaluation criteria, incorporate the projnet questions, include a draw ing indicating the proposed dining facility location and include the Program for Design document. The projnet questions, draw ing, and Program for Design document w ill be posted as a separate attachment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 43

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Feb-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W9127S20R6002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-Jan-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

15-Feb-2020

CODE

CONTRACTING DIVISION

USACE, LITTLE ROCK (W9127S)

700 W. CAPITOL AVE, RM 7315

LITTLE ROCK AR 72201-3225

W9127S 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 22 11 - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, BASIS OF

AWARD ONE-STEP-BEST VALUE, DESIGN-BUILD (SINGLE AWARD)

The following have been modified:

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 12 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

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

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) ten (10) 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) Note: The SSHO may be dual-hatted with either the Superintendent or QC Manager provided that they meet all of the requirements for both positions.

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. Provided that the CPARS rating is available for the referenced project, the offerer does not have to include a print-out of the CPARS rating. 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.

A PPQ is not required if CPARS is available for that project.

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

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1‐4)

(Explain)

Name:

Title:

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

8. Client’s Signature:

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

identified.

satisfactory.

contract.

Government/Owner.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

(U) 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

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 N

VG S M U

E N

VG S M U

performance)

E N

VG S M U

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

E N

VG S M U

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

communication)

E N

VG

S

M

U

E N

VG S M U

d) Overall customer satisfaction E N

VG S M U

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines

E VG S M U N

changes

E

VG

S

M

U

N

E VG S M U

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

E VG S M U

E

VG

S

M

U

E

VG

S

M

U

Yes

N o

Yes o

Yes o

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

E

VG

S

M

U

E VG S M U

7. GENERAL

E

VG

S

M

U

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)

E VG S M U

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below)

Yes o

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U

3. Other Sources: The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the Offeror for information with respect to past performance on projects completed, or at least 50% complete. These other sources may include, but are not limited to CPARS, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the Offeror’s performance, and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability. The Government may be unable to obtain any qualitative information under subcontracts due to the Government’s lack of privity with subcontractors. Unless otherwise requested by the subcontractor, adverse subcontractor performance information will be provided to the Offeror if discussions are held and/or during a requested debriefing.

7.2.3.2 Evaluation Criteria:

The past performance of each Offeror and subcontractor as reported on the past performance questionnaires will be evaluated to determine the proposals strengths in performing recent projects. Those proposals with questionnaires received indicating successful completion of recent and relevant projects will receive a better risk rating than those with past performance problems or those that have not completed similar projects or no projects of this type. The Government reserves the right to make contact with references provided and obtain clarification of the performance reported or other information as appropriate.

The Government will evaluate how well the contractor performed on these contracts (See Performance Confidence Assessment below).

Rating

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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 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.

See Performance Relevancy Rating definitions below.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definitions In performing the past performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of Offerors.

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.

7.2.3.3 No Past Performance History

In most cases, this problem will not be encountered, since this solicitation allows firms to identify related relevant past performance information for Federal, state, and local government contracts, commercial contracts and major sub-contractors.

However, in those cases where there is no relevant information, the Offeror’s lack of past performance must be treated as an unknown performance risk, having no positive or negative evaluative significance. Firms without relevant performance history must be neither rewarded or penalized a rating of Unknown (Neutral) confidence will be assigned.

7.2.4 FACTOR 4, TAB D - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

7.2.4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

1. (NTE eight (8) double sided pages for questions 1 through 10, combined)This information should address the Offeror’s organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract. Demonstrate an understanding of the fundamental design-build problem, i.e., a design and construction proposal that complies with the RFP requirements including the funding constraints of the cost limitation (CCL). Demonstrate an understanding of the risk management process associated with design-build process. Clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.

2. Describe the Offeror’s overall teaming approach with specific reference to the structure of your team (i.e. all inclusive design-build firm, joint-venture, mentor-protégé, etc). Describe the team members, their resources, how their resources will be utilized, and their roles and responsibilities. Provide an organizational chart of the proposed design-build team.

3. Describe any previous teaming experience between current team members.

4. Provide a general description of the work the Offeror will self-perform to be compliant with the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.236-1, Performance of Work by Contractor in Section 00 72 00.

5. Describe the technical approach to design and construction of this facility type.

Include information on design and construction. Describe your firm’s familiarity with applicable codes.

6. Describe your familiarity with local conditions, to include labor, subcontractors, and suppliers.

7. Describe interactions within the team and with the Corps of Engineers during the design. Discuss the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during design and construction.

8. Provide information on how your design-build team will manage the following:

a. Co-location of design and construction team members

b. Manage Government comments

c. The design team’s involvement throughout construction and how sub-contractors will be integrated into design and construction.

d. 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.

e. Describe the role of the construction team members during design. Describe the role and interaction of the design team with the construction team during construction, addressing, as a minimum, maintaining configuration management of the design during construction, including control and approval of revisions to the accepted design; requests for information; shop drawing and submittal reviews and approvals; progress meetings; site visits, if any; contract completion, closeout, as-built and completion documentation.

9. Provide information on your team’s project scheduling capabilities for design and construction. Identify the system you will utilize and how your team will implement the schedule to manage design and construction. Discuss internal procedures for handling delays to minimize “schedule creep”. The Government is looking for ways the design-builder will streamline design and construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and provide an achievable and flexible schedule. In Phase 2, the Offeror will develop a summary schedule. In Phase 1, the Government is interested in the Offeror’s planning and scheduling capabilities.

10. Provide…