W912DR-10-R-0110 USALSA AND AAA.pdf

DESIGN-BUILD, BRAC 132 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING PROJECT 1, U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICE AGENCY (USALSA) AND ARMY AUDIT

AGENCY (AAA) ON FORT BELVOIR, VA

NAICS Code: 236220 Size Standard: $33,500,000.00 Bonding requirement: Greater than $10,000,000.00 Magnitude of construction: More than $10,000,000.00 Completion period is expected to be approximately 365 calendar days from notice to proceed.

Phase 1: Qualif ications of Offerors Phase 2: Request for Proposals

Technical POC: John Barczak (410) 926-0008 Design POC: Frances Young (410) 962-6682 Project Manager: Sherrod T. Jefferson (202) 345-7569

Submit Offers to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City Crescent Building ATTN: Amphone Phommachanh, Room 7000 10 South How ard St.

Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

AMPHONE PHOMMACHANH 703-806-5870

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

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

NEGOTIATED

11-May-2010

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

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

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

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

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________365 calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________

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

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

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________2 copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________25 May 2010 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

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

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

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

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

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

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USAED - BALTIMORE

10 S. HOWARD STREET, BOX 1715, ROOM 7000

BALTIMORE MD 21203-1715

W912DR

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

03:00 PM (hour)

Sealed envelopes containing offers

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

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

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912DR-10-R-0110 55

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

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

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

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

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

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

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

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

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

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

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

See Item 14

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

30B. SIGNATURE

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

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

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

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

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

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

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912DR-10-R-0110

Section 00010 - Solicitation Contract Form

PROJECT NARRATIVE-USALSA, AAA

USALSA & AAA

The project site is located within the Fort Belvoir Post in Fairfax, Virginia. The site is bounded by Gunston Road to the West, 3rd Street to the North, Chapak Road to the East and 4th Street to the South. The site is undeveloped consisting of a grassed area and a stand of trees on the Southeastern side, and an asphalt walk on the North side running parallel to 3rd Street. The site slopes from West to East with the high point on the site along Gunston Road.

Utilities such as water, gas and electric are available within the vicinity of the site. Sanitary sewer lines are available approximately one block North of the site along 1st Street. Water and Gas service is privatized. The Contractor shall coordinate utility tie-in for water and gas service with the private company.

The Contractor shall design and construct the project to comply with the requirements of the RFP. The Contractor shall provide complete construction documents. The plans shall meet Anti-terrorism and Force Protection Requirements and shall include the required number of parking spaces, pedestrian sidewalks, emergency vehicle access around the building, Uniform Accessibility Standards (UFAS), storm water management Best Management Practices (BMP), Low Impact Design (LID), and utility service connections. The project shall also include intersection improvements at the intersection of Gunston Road and 3rd Street and at the intersection of Gunston Road and 4th Street. Both intersection improvements shall involve right turn lanes. A traffic signal shall be provided at the intersection of Gunston Road and 3rd Street.

The stand of trees located on the southeastern side of the site shall be preserved. Trees that shall be demolished shall be mitigated to a 2:1 ratio. Landscape shall be in accordance with Fort Belvoir’s Installation Design Guide.

Because of site constraints, this project shall include structure parking for approximately 331 spaces and an underground storm water management facility. This project shall also require a precast duplex lift station approximately 8’ to 10’ in diameter. The force main shall tie to existing sanitary sewer manholes located along 1st Street, approximately one block north of the project site.

The project shall meet Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) for storm water management and quality. The Contractor shall follow the VPDES General Storm Water Permit requirements and all other associated VPDES permit requirements. Design of post construction storm water management system shall be in accordance with the Virginia Storm Water Management Handbook. The storm water collection system shall address both quantity and quality. The use of swales, grass depressions, pervious pavers, turf reinforcement, bio-retention ponds and berms are encouraged to reduce the amount of storm structures, storm drain piping and post development runoff. The runoff from the site outfalls to an existing stream North of the project site.

The proposed Administration Building, a multi-story Command Headquarters Building (USALSA and AAA Groups), is to be located at the “South Post” site as previously described in the Civil narrative above, consists of approximately 127,000 sf of administrative space, emergency operations center, appellate courtroom and adjoining spaces, secure and non secure conference rooms, video teleconference centers data processing center, General Officer/Senior Executive Service office suites, storage, administrative support areas, building support spaces, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) requirement, surface parking, loading and service areas, and a multi-level parking structure.

Forthcoming Request For Proposal (RFP) information shall include example floor plans depicting all required offices, rooms, ancillary spaces, and circulation areas, satisfying all adjacency requirements between building occupants & entities, complete with required/desired square footages, special furniture and equipment, and any other program specific requirements.

Engineering systems are to include an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), Intrusion Detections System (IDS), and an Energy Management Control System (EMCS).

All Facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the International building Code (2006), Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines, Sustainable Design and Development Policy (SDD), Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPACT 05), UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings (ATFP), and additional Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC).

The design shall comply with the base design theme of the Installation Design Guide (IDG) for Fort Belvoir.

Massing (size, height, spacing, Architectural Theme, etc.), exterior functional aesthetics, and character of the proposed Building shall be sympathetic to the style and context of this area of the Base, and optimum land use, massing, proportion and balance between facilities shall be considered. The primary exterior building materials and finishes shall be attractive, low maintenance, and sustainable, and the facility/site design shall comply with Leadership in Energy Environmental Design (LEED) requirements to achieve LEED “Silver” Certification.

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS UIC

Section 00100 - Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders

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 and price 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 Offeror will demonstrate experience by the successful and contractual completion of applicable projects under Factors 1 and 3. 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. 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.

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.

At least one project shall be submitted under this factor by the proposed designer.

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. In addition to the requirements listed at the beginning of Section 3.1, at least two (2) 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

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

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

2. Project Name:

3. Project Location:

City, State

<<Picture>>

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.

6. BGSF: XXX,XXX 7. Lost Time Accidents:

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…