Cost Limits Magnatude Eval..doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required performance has changed from DESIGN-BUILD, BRAC 132 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PROJECT 1, U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICE AGENCY (USALSA) AND ARMY AUDIT AGENCY (AAA) ON FORT BELVOIR, VANAICS Code: 236220Size Standard: $33,500,000.00Bonding requirement: Greater than $10,000,000.00Magnitude of construction: More than $10,000,000.00Completion period is expected to be approximately 365 calendar days from notice to proceed. Phase 1: Qualifications of OfferorsPhase 2: Request for ProposalsTechnical POC: John Barczak (410) 926-0008Submit Offers to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City Crescent BuildingATTN: Amphone Phommachanh, Room 700010 South Howard St.Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 to DESIGN-BUILD, BRAC 132 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PROJECT 1, U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICE AGENCY (USALSA) AND ARMY AUDIT AGENCY (AAA) ON FORT BELVOIR, VANAICS Code: 236220Size Standard: $33,500,000.00Bonding requirement: Greater than $10,000,000.00Magnitude of construction: $50,000,000.00 - $100,000,000.00Completion period is expected to be approximately 365 calendar days from notice to proceed. Phase 1: Qualifications of OfferorsPhase 2: Request for ProposalsTechnical POC: John Barczak (410) 926-0008Submit Offers to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City Crescent BuildingATTN: Amphone Phommachanh, Room 700010 South Howard St.Baltimore, MD 21203-1715.

SECTION 00100 - BIDDING SCHEDULE/INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION 00100

SECTION 00100

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 General: This is a “Best Value” two-phase design build solicitation for the construction of an administration building at Ft. Belvoir, VA. An award will be made at the end of Phase II to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government considering both price and technical factors. The project description and overall performance requirements for this solicitation are included in this RFP package. Offerors responding to this RFP are required to submit their proposals in accordance with the instructions contained in this section 00100.

1.2. Source Selection: In Phase I of the solicitation process, Offerors submit a “Qualifications” proposal only, without design information and without a price proposal. The full Quality/Technical Proposal (technical-design and sketches/design) is submitted in Phase II. Phase I will establish an initial short list of the most highly qualified firms to submit a Phase II proposal. The “short list” will be limited to a maximum of five Offerors (See FAR 36.303-1). During Phase I, the Government will only evaluate the factors listed below.

The design and construction criteria for this project will be included in the Phase II RFP package to be furnished by an amendment. The solicitation criteria rely predominately upon industry standards and performance oriented requirements, where allowable, to afford the Offeror a degree of design flexibility while meeting specific project requirements. The successful Contractor must design and construct a complete and usable facility within schedule mandates, as described in the RFP documents provided during Phase II, and to be issued by amendment.

The evaluation factors applicable to Phase I of this procurement appear below:

a. FACTOR 1 – Experience on Relevant Projects

b. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance on Relevant Projects

c. FACTOR 3 – Design/Build Experience

d. FACTOR 4 - Past Performance on Design/Build Experience

e. FACTOR 5 - Qualifications and Fast Track Approach

Factors 1 through 4 are of equal importance. Factor 5 is of greater importance than Factors 1 through 4.

1.3. Who May Submit in Phase I: Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms or any other interested parties may submit proposals. Associations may be as joint ventures or as key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal. To qualify for Phase II, the Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor has to have or will have to have professional architects and engineers, registered in the appropriate technical disciplines that must be met. All designs must be under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals for each discipline involved.

Each Offeror is required to submit a Technical Proposal for Phase I. PHASE I DOES NOT INVOLVE A PRICING SUBMISSION. The content of the Phase I proposal is discussed in section 1.5, below.

1.4 Proposal envelopes will be marked:

Solicitation Title: DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT 1, BRAC 132 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICE AGENCY (USALSA) AND ARMY AUDIT AGENCY (AAA) ON FORT BELVOIR, VA

Solicitation RFP: W912DR-10-R-0110

1.5 Specific Requirements: An Offeror’s proposal will consist of all information and material submitted in writing for evaluation in response to this RFP. The submission of false or misleading information will be grounds for disqualification of the proposal. Offerors must organize their proposals as described and outlined below. Phase I proposals must be in tabbed, three-ring binder(s). The contractor’s name, RFP number, and date must be affixed to the outside of the proposal. The proposal must have a table of contents. The proposal’s contents must be separated by tabs as discussed below. The proposals must be in an 8-1/2” x 11” format (for project schedule or organization chart, a folded 11” x 17” format may be used, and the entire project schedule shall be counted as one page provided the only information presented is scheduling). Pages may be single-sided or double-sided (double-sided pages count as two pages). The minimum acceptable type size is eleven (11) point with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides. The information in each volume must be organized as follows:

1.5.1. Technical Proposal (Factors 1-3): Offerors must submit the information identified in section 3, below. The information must be divided by tabs, which must be organized as follows:

TAB 1 – SF 1442 (Solicitation , Offer and Award)

Certificate of Corporate Principal

TAB 2 – FACTOR 1 – Experience on Relevant Projects

TAB 3 – FACTOR 2 – Past Performance on Relevant Projects

TAB 4 – FACTOR 3 – Design/Build Experience

TAB 5 – FACTOR 4 – Past Performance on Design/Build Experience

TAB 6 – FACTOR 5 – Qualifications and Fast Track Approach

The total number of pages behind Tabs 2, 4 and 6 must not exceed 40 pages in the aggregate. The data appearing behind Tabs 1 and 3 are not counted in the overall page limitation. Offerors may distribute the pages between Tabs 2, 4 and 6 at their discretion. The contractor shall provide one original and three copies of the proposal. Note that the Government will not evaluate any material that exceeds the page limits indicated above.

1.6. Offerors shall submit their proposals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 10 South Howard Street, Suite 7000, Baltimore, MD 21203-1715, no later than the time and date specified on Standard Form 1442, Block 13.

2. PHASE I EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1. Proposal Compliance Review: The proposal compliance review will ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that the technical proposals have been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose if the solicitation is a set aside. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and ratings of all proposals will be conducted in strict confidence.

2.2. Technical Proposals (Factors 1-5) will be evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), as established by the SSA, based upon the factors listed below. Factors 1 through 5 will be adjectivally rated. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals. See Section 4 below for a discussion of the evaluation criteria applicable to the Technical Proposal.

Technical Rating Definitions:

The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of all factors except past performance:

EXCELLENT: The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes numerous advantageous characteristics of substance, and essentially no disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to be exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements.

GOOD: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The proposal provides solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to be clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements.

ACCEPTABLE: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements.

MARGINAL: The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements.

UNACCEPTABLE: The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has numerous disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are far outweighed by disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages will not result in satisfactory performance. The proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions are further considered to lack any clarity and precision, are unsupported, and do not demonstrate an understanding of the requirement.

Past Performance will be evaluated using the following Performance Risk Levels:

VERY LOW – Essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their past performance

LOW - Little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

MODERATE - Some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

HIGH - Significant doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

VERY HIGH – It is extremely doubtful that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record

NEUTRAL – The Offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction.

2.4. Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will review all prepared reports. The SSEB will conduct a review of the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) evaluations of proposals against the solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria to ensure an equitable, impartial, and comprehensive evaluation against the solicitation requirements. The SSEB does not compare proposals against each other. The fundamental responsibility of the SSEB is to provide the Source Selection Authority with information to make an informed and reasoned selection. The SSEB will therefore prepare a summary report containing adjectival assessments for each factor and their supporting rationale; brief the SSA; and prepare any necessary items for discussion. A Source Selection Advisory Committee may be briefed prior to the SSA being briefed.

2.5. Ratings on individual factors, to include all supporting documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors will participate in Phase II of the solicitation.

2.6. Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that a Phase I most highly qualified Offerors determination will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government.

2.7. Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with Offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award a contract to the Offeror with the most advantageous proposal to the Government.

2.8. The maximum number of Offerors chosen during Phase I shall not exceed five unless the Procuring Contracting Officer determines, per authority granted in FAR 36.303-1(a)(4), that a number greater than five is in the government's interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives of two-phase design-build contracting.

2.9. The proposals from Phase I will be evaluated. Those proposals that meet the requirements and demonstrate the ability to successfully complete the solicitation may be selected to move to Phase II. The SSA may select up to five Offerors to advance to Phase II. Phase II will be issued via Amendment to the Offeror’s selected to advance to Phase II.

3. SUBMISSION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)

For purposes of this RFP, an “Offeror” may include a group of two (2) or more entities that have formed a “contractor team arrangement,” as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Section 9.601. In the case of entities that have formed a contractor team arrangement, the experience and performance history of any member of the team, whether or not gained while working with the other member(s) of the currently-proposed contractor team arrangement, will be considered as a part of the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. An Offeror that relies in part upon the experience and performance history of a member or members of a proposed contractor team arrangement will be required to maintain that arrangement during performance of any contract awarded to that Offeror under this RFP. As a part of their proposal, the Offeror must provide a contractor team agreement signed by all parties (including design contractors), identifying the legal name(s) of all entities and describing the nature of each entity’s relationship (teaming/partnering, joint venture, mentor/protégé, etc.) and their role on the solicited project. This documentation will not be included in the overall page count and must be provided at the beginning of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

For projects submitted under Factors 1 and 3, the Primary Offeror must have completed at least three (3) of the projects submitted for consideration. Additional projects can represent the experience of the primary Offeror, the designer, and/or other team members. In the case of contractor team arrangements involving a prime contractor and subcontractor(s), where the prime contractor submits the proposal in response to this RFP, the prime contractor is considered the “Primary Offeror”. In the case of joint ventures and mentor/protégé relationships, the “Primary Offeror” experience can come from any of the entities involved in the relationship. In the case of projects submitted by subcontractors, the subcontractor must submit the final cost of their portion of the project along with the other required information.

The information that is required to be supplied is identified on the form provided below entitled “CONTRACTOR’S RELEVANT EXPERIENCE” (Attachment A) or “CONTRACTOR’S DESIGN-BUILD EXPERIENCE” (Attachment C). Offerors are not required to use the form itself as part of their proposal, but the information requested on the form must be in the Offeror’s proposal and should be in the same format as the form. As requested on the form, the Offeror must provide a detailed explanation of how the Offeror managed and controlled the projects and how that management relates to and will be used in the proposed management of the solicited project.

If the Offeror does not address each of the items outlined on the “CONTRACTOR’S RELEVANT EXPERIENCE” or “CONTRACTOR’S DESIGN-BUILD EXPERIENCE” forms or does not meet the minimum requirements discussed in the Section 3.1 or 3.3, it will be determined that the Offeror does not have sufficient experience to be considered for award of this contract and the Offeror will be given an “Unacceptable” rating for this Factor.

3.1. FACTOR 1: Experience in Relevant Projects

The Offeror will submit information on at least four (4), but not more than six (6) completed similar projects having a minimum project size of 60,000 Building Gross Square Feet (BGSF). Building Gross Square Feet (BGSF) is the floor area of the entire building or project, which includes floor area occupied by rooms/spaces, walls, corridors, conveyances, mechanical/utility rooms, and shafts. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than seven (7) years prior to the original date of issuance of this RFP and no later than the original date of issuance of this RFP. Projects that have a Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) within the same date range will also be considered. Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) is the point at which the customer determines the facility or area can be occupied from both a regulatory and work function standpoint.

Similar projects should include experience in the following:

· Multi-story, administrative buildings for business occupancy and associated site work, to include multi-story parking and site improvements;

· Buildings with large functioning areas for audio-visual and teleconferencing;

· Buildings with administration areas with multiple IT/communications networks;

· Buildings with Open Storage or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) features either in rooms, floors, or buildings;

· Public assembly buildings.

The Offeror may submit other types of projects, but must specifically explain the relevancy of those projects to the project that is being solicited in this RFP.

3.2. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance For Experience On Relevant Projects

Provide the Offeror’s assigned performance evaluation for each of the projects supplied in response to Factor 3.1 above. If a formal evaluation is unavailable, the Offeror must obtain the information using the “PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE” (Attachment B), which is provided below. Formal performance evaluations are those that are similar to the Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD2626. Previously signed performance evaluations are acceptable for submittal. The Offeror may provide an explanation if the performance evaluation rating is less than satisfactory. Where applicable, the Offeror must explain facts related to any partial or completely terminated project and disclose any projects with an assessment of liquidated damages for the failure to meet the contractually required completion date. If an Offeror has a previously completed evaluation form for any project being submitted under this solicitation, the Offeror may submit that form. When submitting a previously used form, the form should reference the current solicitation.

The Government may also analyze past performance by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor or Architect-Engineers-Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), or by interviewing owners or checking references. The Offeror must submit all customer completed questionnaires and performance evaluations with its proposal. The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror. Awards, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other past performance information will not be included in the page count for the proposal submission.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

3.3. FACTOR 3 – Experience in Design/Build Projects

The Offeror shall submit an opening statement or narrative identifying their proposed designer for this solicitation. The Offeror will submit information on at least four (4), but not more than six (6) completed design/build projects with a minimum award value of $20,000,000 considering adjustment for escalation to 2010. All escalation values are to be labeled as escalated and the Offeror must explain their escalation rationale. All projects must have a construction completion date no earlier than seven (7) years prior to the original date of issuance of this RFP. For ongoing projects, one hundred percent (100%) of the design and at least fifty percent (50%) of the construction of each project must be completed at the time of proposal submission. The Offeror must clearly discuss what portions of the construction are complete and how that constitutes fifty percent (50%). At least one (1) of the submitted projects under this factor must document the proposed designer’s experience. Project representing the proposed designer’s experience must be clearly labeled as such. The projects do not have to be relevant in terms of technical complexity.

3.4. FACTOR 4 – Past Performance on Design/Build Projects

Provide the Offeror’s assigned performance evaluation for each of the projects supplied in response to Factor 3.3 above. If a formal evaluation is unavailable, the Offeror must obtain the information using the “PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE” (Attachment B), which is provided below. Formal performance evaluations are those that are similar to the Department of Defense Performance Evaluation (Construction) Form DD2626. Previously signed performance evaluations are acceptable for submittal. The Offeror may provide an explanation if the performance evaluation rating is less than satisfactory. Where applicable, the Offeror must explain facts related to any partial or completely terminated project and disclose any projects with an assessment of liquidated damages for the failure to meet the contractually required completion date. If an Offeror has a previously completed evaluation form for any project being submitted under this solicitation, the Offeror may submit that form. When submitting a previously used form, the form should reference the current solicitation.

The Government may also analyze past performance by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor or Architect-Engineers-Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), or by interviewing owners or checking references. The Offeror must submit all customer completed questionnaires and performance evaluations with its proposal. The Offeror also may provide information regarding any awards received for work done on any of the projects described by the Offeror. Awards, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other past performance information will not be included in the page count for the proposal submission.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

3.5. FACTOR 5 – QUALIFICATIONS AND FAST TRACK APPROACH: Organize the submitted material sequentially under tabs, to facilitate evaluation. Submit this information in the form of narratives and an organization chart.

3.5.1. Design Organization: This project is principally administrative buildings as described in the statement of work. The Offeror will provide its qualifications to design such a facility through specific examples of previous satisfactorily completed work. The narrative will state why your design firm is qualified to undertake this project. The Offeror will also discuss their experience with sustainable design. The Offeror will also discuss fast track experience and how they will use that to leverage success on this project. The Offeror shall submit an “Availability of Key Personnel” statement that indicates each individual’s current assignment and the Offeror’s plan to ensure that the named personnel will be used on this project; however, if the named person isn’t available upon award, a person with the same or better qualifications shall be substituted and approved by the Government. The Offeror shall submit an organizational chart which should identify the members or entities of the organization and show the lines of authority. The Offeror will explain how this organizational structure will effectively communicate to maintain the project schedule.

3.5.2. Construction Organization: This project is principally administrative buildings. The Offeror will provide its qualifications to construct such a facility through specific examples of previous satisfactorily completed work and organizational structure. The discussion will address as a minimum design and construction project delivery, scheduling capabilities, the process of customer input during the design phase. The Offeror will also discuss fast track experience and how they will use that to leverage success on this project. The narrative will also state why your construction firm is qualified to undertake this project; and identify the construction portion the Offeror intends to self perform and the items customarily subcontracted. The Offeror shall submit an “Availability of Key Personnel” statement that indicates each individual’s current assignment and the Offeror’s plan to ensure that the named personnel will be used on this project; however, if the named person isn’t available upon award, a person with the same or better qualifications shall be substituted and approved by the Government. The Offeror shall submit an organizational chart which should identify the members or entities of the organization and show the lines of authority and communication of all members of the construction entities. The Offeror will explain how this organizational structure will effectively communicate to maintain the project schedule.

3.5.3. Onsite Design-Build Management Team: Describe the onsite design-build management team’s responsibilities and staff organization. The description of the personnel will describe the duties of each staff member. Discuss how the team will interact during the design and construction phases.

3.5.4. Fast Track Approach: The Offeror will describe, in detail, their rationale and approach to fast tracking projects. (i.e. project analysis, schedule, potential risks and/or delays, staffing, equipment and delivery, permits, expertise from past projects, etc.)

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)

4.1. FACTOR 1 – Experience in Relevant Projects

All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate sufficient experience in relevant projects, as stated in Section 3.1 above. Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Experience demonstrating that the proposed contractor team has prior experience with the proposed designer as a design-build entity;

b. Experience in projects with the federal government and specifically with projects designed to DoD criteria and projects on US Military installations.

4.2. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance on Experience in Relevant Projects

Past performance will be rated in terms of likely performance risk to the Government; that is, low performance ratings will be taken as indicators of high risk that the Offeror will successfully perform the work. Lower risk ratings will be given for higher performance evaluations on projects that are most relevant in terms of cost, scope, or complexity. If an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the Offeror’s past performance is not available, the Offeror must state that fact. That Offeror will not be rated either favorably or unfavorably on this factor. Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Offerors who can demonstrate excellence in construction through receipt of professional or industry awards on the projects submitted under Factor 1.

4.3. FACTOR 3: Experience in Design/Build Projects: All submissions by Offerors must demonstrate experience in relevant projects, as stated in Section 3.3 above. Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Experience demonstrating familiarity with design-build processes to include fast track design and construction project delivery and turnkey delivery to include IT/Communications;

b. Experience demonstrating that the proposed contractor team has prior experience with the proposed designer as a design-build entity;

c. Experience in projects with the federal government and specifically with projects designed to DoD criteria and projects on US Military installations;

d. Demonstration of long-term, multiple project relationships with owners.

4.4. FACTOR 4 – Past Performance on Design/Build Projects

Past performance will be rated in terms of likely performance risk to the Government; that is, low performance ratings will be taken as indicators of high risk that the Offeror will successfully perform the work. Lower risk ratings will be given for higher performance evaluations on projects that are most relevant in terms of cost, scope, or complexity. If an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if information on the Offeror’s past performance is not available, the Offeror must state that fact. That Offeror will not be rated either favorably or unfavorably on this factor. Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Offerors who can demonstrate excellence in construction through receipt of professional or industry awards on the projects submitted under Factor 3.

4.5. FACTOR 5 – Qualifications: The Offeror will demonstrate their qualifications by addressing all of the elements identified in paragraph 3.5 above. Extra consideration may be given for the following:

a. Demonstration that the Offeror team has prior experience delivering projects on time on extremely tight schedules;

b. Demonstration that the Offeror team has prior experience as a design-build entity on projects similar to solicited project in terms of cost, scope, or complexity;

c. Demonstration and explanation of a team approach to the design and construction process;

d. Demonstration and explanation of superior design and construction scheduling capabilities;

e. Demonstration of extensive design and construction capability in high end, information technology oriented administrative buildings;

f. Demonstration of extensive design and construction experience with UFC 4-010-01 DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings.

g. The extent to which the Offeror addresses fast tracking.

5. BASIS OF AWARD

Phase 2 will be established by a Competitive Range. The proposals from Phase 1 will be evaluated. Those proposals that meet the requirements and demonstrate the ability to successfully complete the solicitation will be determined to be in the competitive range may be eligible for Phase 2. Phase 2 will be issued via Amendment to the Offeror’s in the Competitive Range. The same evaluation approach and controls will be used for Phase 2 as for Phase 1.

5.1. PHASE 2 EVALUATION APPROACH:

5.1.1. Proposal Compliance Review: The proposal compliance review will ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete, that the technical and price proposals and the subcontracting plan have been received and that the Offerors are eligible to propose if the solicitation is a set aside. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and ratings of all proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. The evaluation factors applicable to Phase II of this procurement appear below:

a. FACTOR 1 – Schedule

b. FACTOR 2 – Technical Approach

c. FACTOR 3 – Price

d. FACTOR 4 – Subcontracting Plan (as required)

5.1.2. Volume I (Technical Proposal, Factors 1 -3) of the proposal will be evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Factors 1 through 2 will be adjectivally rated. Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for the evaluation of proposals.

5.1.3. Volume II (Price Proposal, Factor 3) of the proposal will be evaluated by a Price Evaluation Committee (PEC) established by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, but will not be scored. Proposals will be evaluated using price analysis techniques. Prices in an Offeror’s proposal and breakdown are required to be reasonable for the work to be performed and consistent with relevant elements of the technical proposals.

5.1.4. Source Selection Evaluation Board: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will review the technical, price and sub-contracting ratings and reports. A summary report will then be written discussing risks associated with each Offeror. The summation of risk will be categorized as proposal risk, performance risk and price risk. Proposal risks are those risks associated with the likelihood that an Offeror’s proposed approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation. Performance risks are those risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of current or past performance. Price risk is the risk associated with the Offeror’s likelihood of completing the project for the proposed price. This report will be forwarded to the SSA and shall contain the adjectival assessments for each factor (excluding Cost) and the supporting rationale.

5.1.6. Trade-off Analysis: After all of the evaluations described above have been completed, the SSA will consider all factors to determine which Offeror submitted the proposal that represents the “best value” to the Government for this project.

5.1.7. Discussions: Offerors are advised that it is the intent of the Government that a PHASE 2 award will be made without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that discussions are necessary. Therefore, proposals should be submitted on the most favorable terms that the Offeror can submit to the Government.

5.1.8. Miscellaneous: The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award, to negotiate with Offerors in a competitive range, if one is established, and to award a contract to the Offeror with the most advantageous proposal to the Government

5.1.9. The maximum number of Offerors chosen during Phase I shall not exceed five unless the KO determines, per authority granted in FAR 36.303-1(a)(4), that a number greater than five is in the government's interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives of two-phase design-build contracting.

6. EVALUATION FORMS

Evaluation forms required to be used in responding to this Phase I RFP are provided below. They include:

Attachment A - Contractor’s Relevant Experience

Attachment B - Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment C - Contractor’s Design-Build Experience

Attachment a

CONTRACTOR’s RELEVANT Experience

<<Picture>>

1. Contractor’s Name (Who from the Offeror team performed this work?):

2. Project Name:

3. Project Location:

City, State

4. Project Owner: Point of contact information (owner name, POC name, address, and phone minimum) (If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number and contracting office)

5. Detailed Description: Provide a detailed description of the project including the general scope, the contractor’s role on the project, and relevance to the solicited project.

8. Management & Control Discussion: Provide a detailed explanation of Contractor’ management and control of this project & how it will be applied to the solicited project.

Schedule:

9. Start Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

10. Original Construction Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

11. Final Construction Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

12. Beneficial Occupancy Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Cost:

13. Original Cost:

14. Final Cost:

15. Cost Difference

16. Cost and Time Growth Discussion: Reason(s) for differences between original and final schedule or costs. This section can be excluded if not applicable to the project.

Attachment B

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

The contractor identified below has made an offer for the award of a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, in response to the referenced solicitation. This is a request for information about the past performance of the Offeror, which the Offeror has identified as being relevant to the referenced solicitation. The information provided below will be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. The information, once submitted by the Offeror, will be treated confidentially and will not be released. It will be used only to evaluate this Offeror for the referenced solicitation. If the project described below was a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or U.S. Navy project, please submit the SF-1420 evaluation form in lieu of this form.

Information may be typed or legibly handwritten in ink.

Please evaluate the project performance for which the contractor was solely responsible. Do not allow factors beyond the control of the contractor, which resulted in performance delays or other problems, to affect the evaluation of the contractor’s performance.

Past Project Information:

Contractor:

Project Title and Location:

Evaluator:

Owner’s Name: _____________________________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Date: ____________________ Phone No: _____________________________ Fax No. __________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________________ Position held of function in relation to project: _____________________________ Signature of Evaluator: ________________________________________________

The following is a definition of the rating system used:

Exceptional: Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good: Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory: Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal: Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflected a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified correction actions. The contractor’s proposed actions were only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory: Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were not effective.

Ratings: In completing this questionnaire, please circle a letter corresponding to your rating, or N/A if you are unable to provide an evaluation:

E=Exceptional, VG=Very Good, S=Satisfactory, M=Marginal, U=Unsatisfactory

Please provide clear and concise narrative explanations (both positive and negative) for your answers. This is especially important for any rating above or below satisfactory.

Please rate and provide any supporting information for the following: (Use additional sheets as needed.).

1. The contractor’s overall corporate management, integrity, reasonableness, and cooperative conduct.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

2. The relationship between the contractor and the owner’s teams.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

3. The contractor’s on-site management and coordination of subcontractors.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

4. The contractor’s quality control (CQC) system.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

5. The contractor’s performance on delivery of quality work.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

6. The contractor’s ability to meet the performance schedule.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

7. What did the contractor do to improve schedule problems?

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

8. The contractor’s ability to provide the required work at a reasonable total price.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

9. The contractor’s compliance with labor standards.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

10. The contractor’s compliance with safety standards and/or number of incidents.

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___

Comments:

11. Did the contractor receive any of the following: Cure Notices; Show Cause; Letters of Reprimand; Suspension of Payments; or Termination? If Yes, please explain.

12. Would you award another contract to this contractor? In no, please explain.

13. Customer satisfaction with end product.

14. Was the contractor been provided with an opportunity to discuss any negative performance ratings? If so, what were the results?

15. OVERALL RATING:

Rating: E ___, VG ___, S ___, M ___, U ___, N/A ___Comments:

Additional Comments:

Attachment C

CONTRACTOR’s Design-Build Experience

RELEVANT□ dESIGN/BUILD□ <<Picture>>

1. Contractor’s Name (Who from the Offeror team performed this work?):

Designer’s Name:

2. Project Name:

3. Project Location:

City, State

4. Project Owner: Point of contact information (owner name, POC name, address, and phone minimum) (If Government Contract, additionally provide the contract number and contracting office)

5. Detailed Description: Provide a detailed description of the project including the general scope, the contractor’s role on the project, and relevance to the solicited project.

8. Management & Control Discussion: Provide a detailed explanation of Contractor’ management and control of this project & how it will be applied to the solicited project.

Schedule:

9. Start Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

10. Original Construction Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

11. Final Construction Completion:

MM-DD-YYYY

12. Beneficial Occupancy Date:

MM-DD-YYYY

Cost:

13. Original Cost:

14. Final Cost:

15. Cost Difference

16. Cost and Time Growth Discussion: Reason(s) for differences between original and final schedule or costs. This section can be excluded if not applicable to the project.

SECTION 00700 - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been modified:

LOCAL CLAUSE

COST LIMITATION

The contract award ceiling for design and construction (the contract's base line items) is $50,000,000.00 based on the funds made available for this project. The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds will be made available for award. Offers submitting prices exceeding the funds available will not be considered for award. This is a best value award and offerors are reminded that cost and technical factors are approximately equal.

(End of Text)

DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT - ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

(a) The contract includes the standard contract clauses and schedules current at the time of contract award. It entails (1) the solicitation in its entirety, including all drawings, cuts, and illustrations, and any amendments, and (2) the successful offeror's accepted proposal. The contract constitutes and defines the entire agreement between the Contractor and the Government. No documentation shall be omitted which in any way bears upon the terms of that agreement.

(b) In the event of conflict or inconsistency between any of the provisions of this contract, precedence shall be given in the following order:

(1) Betterments: Any portions of the accepted proposal which both conform to and exceed the provisions of the solicitation.

(2) The provisions of the solicitation. (See also Contract Clause: SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION.)

(3) All other provisions of the accepted proposal.

(4) Any design products including, but not limited to, plans, specifications, engineering studies and analyses, shop drawings, equipment installation drawings, etc.. These are "deliverables" under the contract and are not part of the contract itself. Design products must conform with all provisions of the contract, in the order of precedence herein.

(End of Clause)

PROPOSED BETTERMENTS

(a) The minimum requirements of the contract are identified in the Request for Proposal. All betterment’s offered in the proposal become a requirement of the awarded contract.

(b) "Betterment" is defined as any component or system which exceeds the minimum requirements stated in the Request for Proposal. This includes all proposed betterment’s listed in accordance with the "Proposal Submission Requirements" of the Solicitation, and all Government identified betterment’s.

(c) "Government identified betterment’s" include the betterment’s identified on the "List of Accepted Project Betterment’s" prepared by the Proposal Evaluation Board and made part of the contract by alteration, and all other betterment’s identified in the accepted Proposal after award.

(End of Clause)

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR DESIGN

(a) The Contractor shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and any other non-construction services furnished by the Contractor under this contract. The Contractor shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiency in its designs, drawings, specifications, and other non-construction services.

(b) Neither the Government's review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for, the services required under this contract shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this contract or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this contract, and the Contractor shall be and remain liable to the Government in accordance with applicable law for all damages to the Government caused by the Contractor's negligent performance of any of the services described in paragraph (a) furnished under this contract.

The rights and remedies of the Government provided for under this contract are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

End of Clause

WARRANTY OF CONSTRUCTION WORK

(a) In addition to any other warranties in this contract, the Contractor warrants, except as provided in paragraph (1) of this clause, that work performed under this contract conforms to the contract requirements and is free of any defect in equipment, material, or workmanship performed by the Contractor or any subcontractor or supplier at any tier.

(b) This warranty shall continue for a period of I year from the date of final acceptance of the work. If the Government takes possession of any part of the work before final acceptance, this warranty shall continue for a period of 1 year from the date the Government takes possession.

(c) The Contractor shall remedy at the Contractors expense any failure to conform, or any defect. In addition, the Contractor shall remedy at the Contractor's expense any damage to Government-owned or controlled real or personal property, when that damage is the result of--

(1) The Contractor's failure to conform to contract requirements; or

(2) Any defect of equipment, material, or workmanship.

(d) The Contractor shall restore any work damaged in fulfilling the terms and conditions of this clause. The Contractors warranty with respect to work repaired or replaced will run for 1 year from the date of repair or replacement.

(e) The Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor, in writing, within a reasonable time after the discovery of any failure, defect, or damage.

(f) If the Contractor fails to remedy any failure, defect, or damage within a reasonable time after receipt of notice, the Government shall have the right to replace, repair, or otherwise remedy the failure, defect, or damage at the Contractor's expense.

(g) With respect to all warranties, express or implied, from subcontractors, manufacturers, or suppliers for work performed and materials furnished under this contract, the Contractor shall--

(1) Obtain all warranties that would be given in normal commercial.practice:

(2) Require all warranties to be executed, in writing, for the benefit of the Government, if directed by the Contracting Officer; and-

(3) Enforce all warranties for the benefit of the Government, if directed by the Contracting Officer.

(h) In the event the Contractor's warranty under paragraph (b) of this clause has expired, the Government may bring suit at its expense to enforce a subcontractor's, manufacturer's, or suppliers warranty.

(i) Unless a defect is caused by the negligence of the Contractor or subcontractor or supplier at any tier, the…