B.08.02_Amendment_0001_21R6001.pdf

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 revise sections 7.2.1.1 & 7.2.4.2 of the evaluation criteria and incorporate the projnet questions and answers. All other terms and conditions remains the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 34

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

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 W9127S21R6001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Apr-2021

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 1 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

21-Apr-2021

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:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – FAR 3.104

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

PROJNET ANSWERS

Bid Inquiry Contractor Report All Inquiries

Project: VA/LETC Classroom Complex Review: Bidder Inquiry (00001) (sorted by CommentID )

Displaying 8 inquiries.

Id Discipline Sheet Detail Spec

9169273 Contracting Section 7.2.1.1

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Section 7.2.1.1 of the RFP requires a minimum of five (5) examples of relevant classroom projects from "the Design-Build Team". The same section states that if no projects have been completed together as an existing design-build team, provide a minimum of three projects for each company.

Section 7.2.1.2.3 mentions that the Contractor and A-E of Record demonstrate ability.

In Section 7.2.1.1 is the "the Design-Build Team" meant to include the proposed construction entity and the proposed design entity and therefore the construction entity and design entity should both provide three examples of relevant classroom projects?

On: Apr 08 2021.

Government Response. . In the event that the proposed Design Build Team to include the construction agent and the design agent haven't completed 5 examples of classroom projects per section 7.2.1.1, both the construction agent and the design agent must provide 3 examples of classroom projects each per section 7.2.1.1. On: Apr 20 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9172260 General RFP

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

We noticed in Section 00 21 16 that the project name listed is incorrect, "VA Food Service Center." In sections 7.2.1.1 Submission Requirements, the resumes should include "Specific dining/food service experience," however the project description for the Law Enforcement

Center does not include kitchen or dining components. Likewise, a Kitchen Consultant is included for the minimum personnel requirements. Please advise whether this is accurate and dining/food experience and a kitchen consultant are required.

On: Apr 09 2021.

Government Response. . dining/food experience and a kitchen consultant are not required. An amendment is forthcoming to remove that requirement.

On: Apr 20 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9176625 General 7.2.3.1

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

Factor 3, TAB C - Past Performance: If a project does not have a CPARS to accompany it and we have a PPQ in the same format as provided in the solicitation, can we use the PPQ on file in lieu of requesting yet another PPQ from our client?

On: Apr 13 2021.

Government Response. . Yes On: Apr 20 2021

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9176854 General 7.2.1.1

Comment Classification: UNCLASSIFIED (U)

Factor 1, TAB A - Project Team Qualifications and Experience. The solicitation requires prior projects to have been completed in the last 7 years. Would the Government consider extending the requirement to 10 years?

The government is asking for specialized experience in this requirement. 10 years will allow small businesses to provide examples more similar in size and complexity to this project.

On: Apr 13 2021.

Government Response. . Yes. An amendment is forthcoming to extend the requirement to 10 years. On: Apr 20 2021

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9183181 Contracting Section 7.2.3. Past

Performance

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Regarding Factor 3 - Past Performance, please confirm if Offerors are to include a copy of their CPARs Evaluation for their relevant projects in their proposal.

On: Apr 15 2021.

Government Response. . Offerors are not required to include a copy of their CPARS in their proposals. On: Apr 20 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9183245 Contracting Section 7.2.3.1, Paragraph 2

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Regarding Factor 3 - Past Performance, RFP Section 7.2.3.1, Paragraph 2, states that Offerors are to provide a PPQ for projects that do not have a "Final" CPARS evaluation. If an Offeror has an "Interim" CPARS evaluation in the system, please confirm if the Offeror is still required to provide a PPQ to their Government client?

If so, this may be difficult because in the past, we have requested PPQ's from our Government clients on projects that aren't 100% complete, and because there's already an "Interim" CPARS evaluation in the system, the Government client refuses to complete the PPQ. If the Little Rock District is still going to require a PPQ on projects that already have an "Interim" CPARS evaluation, and our Government client refuses to complete the PPQ please advise how Offerors are to fulfil this requirement.

On: Apr 15 2021.

Government Response. . The Government may query CPARS and if that interim CPARS evaluation is for a project that is at least 50% complete, it will be used to validate past performance ratings. On: Apr 20 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9183275 Contracting RFP Section

7.2.3.1

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

For projects that do not have a final CPARS evaluation, please confirm if Offerors are to include a copy of the PPQ's first page in their proposal, which provides the relevant project's contract information and scope of work.

On: Apr 15 2021.

Government Response. . Please see section 7.2.3.1 paragraph 2. On: Apr 20

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

9183297 Contracting Section 7.2.3.1

Comment Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Factor 3, TAB C - Past Performance: RFP Section 7.2.3.1, paragraph 2 states Offerors are to provide a PPQ to their client for relevant projects that do not have a "Final" CPARS evaluation. Then that client is to complete the PPQ, and the client is to forward the signed PPQ to the Little Rock District's Contract Specialist. Please confirm if it is acceptable if Offerors already have a signed PPQ from their client, in lieu of requesting another PPQ from the client, can Offerors submit the signed PPQ they already have, in the Phase 1 Proposal?

On: Apr 15 2021.

Government Response. . It is acceptable to submit the signed PPQ they already have from the client. On: Apr 20 2021

Current Request Status: Request Closed

Information for this report is procurement sensitive.

Report Complete

SECTION 00 21 16 - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

The following have been modified:

EVAL/CRITERIA/SUBMISSION REQ

Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation Criteria and Basis of Award for the VA Food Service Center 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 Law Enforcement Training Center (LETC) student classroom facility 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 classroom facility. The size of the facility will be approximately 23,500 SF and serve approximately 320 students with an optional to serve an additional 240 students in 35,500 SF. The facility/project will include Classrooms, common administrative space, mechanical, electrical and IT/ communications space, support space, equipment storage space, applicable site-work, utilities, both horizontal and vertical circulation (if required) and parking for 20-30 vehicles including accessible parking.

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/).

Anticipated Construction Components: Functional areas include staff and administrative areas, classrooms, and toilets. Supporting facilities shall include HVAC, utilities, fire protection, alarm systems, wiring for communications and CATV, sidewalks, parking, landscaping, traffic alterations/designations for deliveries, and site improvements/paving.

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 $12.4M. It is not anticipated that that additional funds in excess of $12.4M 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 21 00 (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: D4NCHY-AVT56K. All questions and inquiries will be accepted only via the ProjNet website. The review is open from 7 APR 2021 to 21 APR 20 12:00 pm CT.

4.4 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.

4.5 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.

4.6 Submission Format and Number of Submittals.

Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic copy of their proposal via DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil ) before the time and date specified in the solicitation (Standard Form 1442).

Send an email to the Contracting Officer AND Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This shall be completed no later than five (5) business days prior to the proposal due date.

Once in DOD SAFE, please add your files in accordance with the file format section below. Please add W9127S21R6001 – Firm Name’ in the Short Note to the Recipients box.

Add the Contracting Officer AND Contract Specialist as recipients. Ensure everything is correct, and then click “Drop-off Files” to send.

Should DOD SAFE be unavailable, proposals may be submitted via Compact Disc (CD) and delivered to:

US Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Timothy Pighee Solicitation W9127S21R6001 700 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72203

File Format. Files shall be in Portable Document Format, filename extension: “.pdf” and suitable for viewing in Adobe Reader. There shall only be one (1) files in each offerors’ submission for Phase 1 and the file format should read as follows: ‘W9127S21R6001 – Firm Name – Volume I, Phase One Submission.’ For Phase 2, there shall be two (2) files and the file format should read as follows: ‘W9127S21R6001 – Firm Name – Volume II, Phase 2 Price Submission’ & ‘W9127S21R6001 – Firm Name – Volume III, Phase 2 Technical Submission.’

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.

Sheet Size. Shall be 8-1/2 inches x 11 inches; however, if drawings, charts or other graphics are submitted, sheets no larger than 11 inches x 17 inches shall be used.

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. 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 21 VA Classroom Complex, 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

W9127S21R6001

Phase 1 of a Two-Phase Design Build Selection Process

PHASE 1 of 2

PHASE 1 - DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCESS

7.0 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

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

Volume I shall be limited to an overall maximum of 76 double-sided pages 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 20 pages) Provide a minimum of five (5) relevant classroom, school, or learning facility design-build construction contracts of the Design-Build Team that have been completed within the last seven (7) years, 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 school or classroom 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) school project, one (1) design-build project, and at least one (1) new construction project Provide three (3) each if they have not completed any projects together.

The examples shall be of similar size and complexity to the classroom complex as proposed in this project.

2. Resumes (NTE 16 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) Specific classroom complex 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

7. Fire Protection Consultant

8. Civil Engineer

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

10. 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 schools or educational facilities, Design Build construction projects, and new building construction projects.

2. Key Personnel are both knowledgeable and experienced in construction sequencing;

understand how sophisticated classroom facility systems are integrated; understand the impact of proper layout and utilization of classrooms and equipment; and understand the site layout/traffic flow for students.

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 4 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

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 16 pages)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 information on your team’s capabilities to assure quality control. Describe your quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction. Provide specific information on how you will manage design quality control, track design evolution and changes during design to meet the schedule and to facilitate quicker Government reviews. Provide information on how you will handle internal and external requests for information, shop drawings, submittal reviews, progress meetings, site visits, contract completion, closeout, as-built, and completion documentation. After contract award, the selected design-builder will submit their Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

7.2.4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the organization and technical approach. The Government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of design build and the capability to execute the project.

2. The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization, teaming approach, and the structure and key personnel staffing to execute the entire scope of work.

The Offeror is required to select and commit to design firms to achieve an “acceptable” rating. Joint venture participants’ contribution to the project should be commensurate with their skills and background. Previous teaming by the construction contractor and design firm(s) will be considered a strength.

3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability and intent to comply with the applicable requirements for self-performance of work by the prime contractor.

4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to design and construction of this facility type. The Government will evaluate demonstrated familiarity with applicable codes.

5. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of local conditions, to include labor, subcontractors, and suppliers.

6. The Government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process (see Special Contract Requirement: “Constructor’s Role during Design”, Section 00 73 00). The Offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the design. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the Government reviewers. The Government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for kitchen consulting, electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations.

7. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scheduling capabilities to develop and implement an integrated fast track design-build schedule and the systems that will be utilized to implement the schedule. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides methods to streamline construction and manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and supportsan achievable and flexible schedule.

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

Phase 2 of a Two-Phase Design Build Selection Process

PHASE 2 of 2

PHASE 2 - DESIGN BUILD SELECTION PROCESS

8.0 PHASE 2 - INTRODUCTION

8.1 PHASE 2 - BASIS OF AWARD

8.2 PHASE 2 - RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS and SUBMITTALS

8.3 PHASE 2 - EVALUATION PROCEDURES

VOLUME II – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION

9.0 TAB A – PRICE (CLIN Schedule)

9.1 TAB B – BID BOND

9.2 TAB C – PRE-AWARD INFORMATION

VOLUME III

10.0 FACTOR 5 – TECHNICAL DESIGN

10.1 FACTOR 5 – TAB A, SUB-FACTOR 1 – BUILDING FUNCTIONAL ARANGEMENT

10.2 FACTOR 5 – TAB B, SUB-FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

10.3 FACTOR 5 – TAB C, SUB-FACTOR 3 – QUALITY OF BUILDING MATERIALS

10.4 FACTOR 5 – TAB D, SUB-FACTOR 4 – SUSTAINABILITY

10.5 FACTOR 5 – TAB E, SUB-FACTOR 5 – SITE DESIGN

11.0 FACTOR 6 – PROPOSED CONTRACT DURATION AND SUMMARY SCHEDULE

8.0 PHASE 2 - INTRODUCTION

Phase 2 Submittals (Limited ONLY to Those Firms Selected to Progress to Phase 2)

The Offerors short-listed in Phase 1 are invited to…