Preproposal_Conference_Slides_13FEB2013.pdf

US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Encer R. Shaffer, P.E. / Michael Hogg, P.E. / Matthew Lubiak New York District

13 February 2013

PROTOTYPE FOR URBAN INTERIM HOUSING UNITS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

W912DS-13-R-0008

1315 Introductions Opening Remarks Program Overview Basis of Award Submission Requirements and Evaluation

Factor Descriptions Common Proposal Shortfalls Submittal of Written Questions 1415 Conclusion

Agenda

Welcome Sign-in Sheets Everything stated during today’s conference is included in the written RFP. In case of conflict with anything stated verbally during this conference, the RFP takes precedence. Please see the RFP (specifically section 00 22 11) for complete proposal requirements.

NYC OEM will present an overview of the program to provide context and background for this project. Any images or graphics in the presentation are generic representations and do not necessarily represent the requirements of the Request for Proposals.

Introduction

Local Solution to a National Problem

Urban Interim Housing Pilot Program

Presentation by:

James McConnell, Asst. Commissioner New York City Office of Emergency Management February 13, 2013

• The Problem

• Recovering Housing Post-Disaster

• The Solution

• Urban Interim Housing Unit

• Local Solution to a National Problem

• The Program

• Prototype

• The Partnership

• NYC OEM

• NYC DDC

• US Army Corps of Engineers

• FEMA

• Other Stakeholder Agencies

The Challenge in New York City

• 2.3 million residents within EVAC zones

• 3.1 million housing units in New York City

• 930,000 units lie within EVAC zones

• 605,000 people can be sheltered for 3-5 weeks within NYC’s current sheltering system

Urban Interim Housing Units

Post-Disaster Deployment

Existing interim housing options do not address urban conditions

• Lack of open space

• Multi-family housing types

• Multi-story buildings Typical FEMA interim housing deployment:

10 units per acre

Typical New York City block:

200 units per acre

Urban Interim Housing Pilot Program Creating a Local Solution to a National Problem

The Need for an Urban Model

Current Federal Research Single-family, Single-story options

FEMA Prototypes

01: Design Competition (2008) 02: Performance Spec (2010) 03: Urban Design Playbook (2010)

04: RFP: Planning and Deployment 05: Temporary Occupancy and Testing 06: Specification Revisions

We are here

Urban Interim Housing Pilot Program Process A Local Solution to a National Problem

Multi-storey Prototype

07: National Interim Housing Unit Prototype Package for Mass Production

Performance Specification: Leverage the Industry

• Universal Performance Criteria

• Enables greatest number of manufacturers

• Construction and Safety Standards

• NYC 2008 Construction Codes

• Design Priorities

• Multi-family options

• Sustainability

• Accommodate diverse family types

• Durability

• Comfort

• Recreate Neighborhoods

Siting Options: Urban Design Playbook Evaluation Criteria for Site Selection

Proof of Concept

• Leverage Existing Industry

• Build/Test Rapid Logistics Capability

• Deploy

• Construct/Manage Process

• Demobilize

• Reuse

Urban Interim Housing Prototype

Habitation

• Temporary Housing

• Accommodate both individuals and families

Prototype Goal: Test the Specification Evaluate Liveability

Chosen Site: “Park Strip” Behind NYC OEM

Site Dimensions: 41’ x 96’

41’

96’

Urban Interim Housing Prototype

Temporary Buildings

Design Competition for Post Disaster Provisional Housing

04: Darrell Mayer & Elizabeth Kolepp-Mayer – Raleigh, NC

Creating Livable Urban Communities

Demobilized in 1 year

FEMA

HUD

HHS

GSA

RCPGP Sites

DOF

DHS

USGBC

EPA

LPC

DSNY

HRA

NYPD

FDNY

DFTA DHS

CAU

DOHMH

MTA AIA

Salvation Army

American Red Cross

HCR

DHSES

MOPD

MOIA

DOJ

NAHB

Urban Interim Housing Pilot Program: Stakeholders Local, Regional and National Members

Project Design: Development Process

Next steps

• Receive Proposals Mar 7th

• Installation Summer 2013

• Demobilization Summer 2014* *Refer to the RFP for specifics and potential optional items

Description of Project

W912DS-13-R-0008

Prototype for Urban Interim Housing Units, Brooklyn, NY

CONTRACT TARGET AMOUNT: $1,015,000.00

This project includes the provision and installation of an Interim Housing Unit (IHU) complex located at Cadman Plaza East and Red Cross Place in Brooklyn, New York, including (but not necessarily limited to) planning, documentation, obtaining permits, site preparation, utility connections, providing and installing the units and appurtenances (e.g. stairs, lighting etc.), property management services during occupancy period (e.g. routine maintenance, upkeep of common areas), and removal and restoration.

Basis of Award The intent of this solicitation is to obtain the best proposal within the target price. The

Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority has determined conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering all non-price factors, and price.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. However, Offerors should note the target price and be aware that an award may not be possible if the target price is exceeded for this project.

As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria.

Offerors are reminded that the contract target price is $1,015,000.00 for this project.

Basis of Award (cont.)

After the Government individually evaluates and rates each proposal, the Contracting Officer/Source Selection Authority will compare proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value.

The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001.

Proposal Submission Requirements Refer to Sections L (00 21 00) and M (00 22 11) of the solicitation.

Submit the proposal in tabbed, three-ring binders. Each of the three (3) volumes shall have its own tabbed three-ring binder. You are required to submit the original and five

(5) copies as well as one (1) CD. For Pro Forma information, submit one original and one copy and one separate CD.

Volumes ► Volume 1 is the Design-Technical volume and includes your submission for

Factor 1 as per the solicitation ► Volume 2 is the Proposed Install Lead Time and Performance Capability volume and includes your submission for Factor 2 and Factor 3.

► Volume 3 is the Price and Pro Forma Information volume and includes your completed SF 33, price schedules, price support form and all the required pre-award information.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, your initial proposal should contain your best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary.

BUILDING STRONG® 8

General: The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of each evaluation factor and subfactor (if any). The SSEB will rate each proposal against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirements. They will not compare proposals at this time. After all proposals are rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages of proposals against each other.

Rating System: After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor and subfactor (except the Past Performance Factor), which reflect the Government's confidence in each Offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP.

Government Evaluation

Evaluation Factors FACTOR 1 DESIGN- TECHNICAL Most Important Factor

Subfactor 1 Vol. 1

TAB A

Building Functional, Aesthetics, and Space

All Subfactors within the Design Technical Factor are equally important

Subfactor 2 Vol. 1

TAB B

Quality of Building Systems and Materials

All Subfactors within the Design Technical Factor are equally important

Subfactor 3 Vol. 1

TAB C

Sustainability and Energy Conservation

All Subfactors within the Design Technical Factor are equally important

FACTOR 2 Vol. 2

TAB A

PROPOSED INSTALL LEAD

TIME AND SUMMARY

SCHEDULE

2nd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 1)

FACTOR 3 PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY 3rd Most Important Factor (less important than Factor 2)

Subfactor 1 Vol. 2 TAB B Organization/Technical Approach Most Important Subfactor

Subfactor 2 Vol. 2 TAB C Specialized Experience 2nd Most Important Subfactor (slightly less important than Subfactor 1)

Subfactor 3 Vol. 2 TAB D Past Performance 3rd Most Important Subfactor (slightly less important than Subfactor 2).

FACTOR 4 Vol. 3

TAB A

PRICE (Standard Form 1442, Proposal Data Sheet And Contract Line Item Schedule)

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price

Vol. 3 TAB B Bid Guarantee Not rated, but required

Vol. 3 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not rated, but required

Volume 1 – Factor 1 Design-Technical

Volume 1 only includes Factor 1 – Design Technical Factor 1 is the most important factor Consists of conceptual-level presentation drawings, technical approach narratives, and information regarding material and system quality Volume 1 – Design-Technical – Includes three (3) subfactors:

► Subfactor 1 (Tab A) – Building Functional, Aesthetics, and Space ► Subfactor 2 (Tab B) – Quality of Building Systems and Materials ► Subfactor 3 (Tab C) – Sustainability and Energy Conservation

All subfactors (subfactors 1, 2 & 3) are equally important Offeror shall identify what it considers to be betterments for Subfactors 1-3

(See Section 00 73 00)

Volume 1 – Factor 1/Subfactor 1 (Tab A) Building Functional, Aesthetics and Space

Submission requirements ► Exterior elevations or renderings of the primary elevations of IHU complex clearly noting proposed exterior materials ► At least one building section demonstrating typical exterior wall sections, typical exterior construction materials, finished floor elevations, and ceiling heights ► Schematic floor plans for each level of the complex ► Sketch or plan showing configuration of the complex within the project site ► Technical approach narrative (Limited to 3 typewritten pages)

Evaluation Criteria

► The following three elements are listed in descending order of importance

• Functional Arrangement

• Building Aesthetics

• Space and Facility Size

Volume 1 – Factor 1/Subfactor 1 (Tab A) Building Functional, Aesthetics and Space (Cont.)

Volume 1 – Factor 1/Subfactor 2 (Tab B) Quality of Building Systems and Materials

Submission requirements ► No specific drawing requirements ► Technical approach narrative (limited to 10 typewritten pages)

• Architectural Finishes

• Furniture

• Mechanical Systems

• Plumbing Systems

• Electrical Systems

• Utilities and Site Systems

Evaluation Criteria ► Evaluate the Offeror’s selected systems and components proposed in terms of:

• Maintenance considerations

• Operability

• Durability

• Sustainability

• Energy consumption

• Extended warranties provided

► Minimum accepted level of quality for finishes and materials are those materials suitable for the expected population and usage.

Volume 1 – Factor 1/Subfactor 2 (Tab B) Quality of Building Systems and Materials (cont.)

Provide a list of quality improvements that are above the minimum stated with the performance specifications. Develop the following table, or similar, to identify quality betterments:

Improved Quality Concise description of improved quality

Architectural Finishes

Ex.: Solid Surface Countertops

Solid Surface Countertops will be used because they are more resistant to scratching & dents than stainless steel surfaces.

Etc.

Volume 1 – Factor 1/Subfactor 3 (Tab C) Sustainability

Submission requirements ► No specific drawing requirements ► Offeror shall acknowledge that it understands the contract requirements for compliance with:

• New York City Energy Conservation Code (NYCECC)

• New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code (NYSECCC)

► Energy Star heating and cooling systems and appliances No page limit Evaluation Criteria – Acceptable proposals are those that acknowledge the contract requirements.

The Government will provide additional evaluation consideration for proposals that include additional sustainable design features above the minimum criteria.

Volume 2 – Factors 2 & 3 Volume 2 includes:

► Factor 2 (Tab A) – Proposed Install Lead Time and Summary

Schedule (less important than Factor 1)

► Factor 3 (Tabs B, C, & D) – Performance Capability (less important than Factor 2)

• Subfactor 1 (Tab B) – Organization/Technical Approach (most important subfactor)

• Subfactor 2 (Tab C) – Specialized Experience (slightly less important than subfactor 1)

• Subfactor 3 (Tab D) – Past Performance (slightly less important the subfactor 2)

Volume 2 – Factor 2 (Tab A) Proposed Install Lead Time and Summary Schedule

Submission requirements ► Proposed “Install Lead Time”

• Duration from receipt of Notice to Proceed to the Ready to Occupy Milestone

• Not to exceed 120 days

► Summary schedule

• Easy to read

• Task oriented

• Reflect the proposed “Install Lead Time”

• Give attention to the following features

Design Development Manufacturing/Factory Fit-out of Units Transportation and delivery Mobilization and start of on-site work Facility Turnover As-built submission Occupancy Period Duration for removal and site restoration

Volume 2 – Factor 2 (Tab A) Proposed Install Lead Time and Summary Schedule

(Cont.)

No page limit Evaluation Criteria

► A proposed “Install Lead Time” matching the maximum allowed duration is “acceptable”. A proposed “Install Lead Time” shorter than the maximum allowed will receive additional rating consideration, provided it is realistic and deemed to be achievable.

► The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule, for example obtaining permits.

► The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed duration and the realism of the schedule.

Volume 2 – Factor 3/Subfactor 1 (Tab B) Organization/Technical Approach

Submission requirements (Limited to 10 pages) ► Organization – Describe the composition of the Offeror’s team including resources, roles and responsibilities of each team member firm.

► Technical Approach - Describe the proposed process for design, manufacture, and installation the facility. Include a description of anticipated foundations, describe the capability of the proposed units to stack up to four

(4) stories, and describe the interconnects between the units, with particular attention to the structure and the utilities.

► Quality Control - Describe the team’s quality control approach, corporate systems and capabilities to maintain quality control of the design and construction

Evaluation Criteria ► Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the SOW ► Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline installation time, and that provides for greater flexibility in alternate deployment scenarios

► Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control process

Volume 2 – Factor 3/Subfactor 2 (Tab C) Specialized Experience

Submission requirements (Limited to 5 pages) ► Present examples of previous projects demonstrating experience relevant to this project ► Key elements include:

• Architectural design and/or manufacture of container-based or modular housing units, particularly stackable units

• Installation of Container Based or Modular Housing Units (should be multiple units, not a single stand-alone unit, particularly installation of stacked units)

• Engineering and Design for projects within the jurisdiction of New York City Construction Codes, to include obtaining permits (particularly multi-family residential)

• Construction within the jurisdiction of New York City Construction Codes to include foundations, trenching, and utility services. (particularly foundations of the same type proposed, water and sewer utility house services from mains)

► Offeror may provide a narrative or table addressing each element identified above. For each element, identify at least one previous project (a project may be used for multiple elements), and for each project provide the following information: Name of firm that performed the project, Project Owner’s name and contact information (email and phone), date of completion (or % complete if ongoing), and a description of the work explaining the similarity in scope, complexity, and magnitude to the subject element.

Specialized Experience (cont.)

Submission requirements (cont.)

► Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, if not described in the project list. The above information is limited to projects that are well underway (at least 75% complete) or that have been completed and turned over no longer than the past seven years preceding the date of this solicitation.

► NOTE: If experience of firms other than Prime Offeror is presented (for example, experience of a proposed subcontractor), the Offeror shall document unequivocal teaming arrangements with its key subcontractors or proposed team members.

Specialized Experience (cont.)

Evaluation Criteria ► The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, related experience of the prime Offeror and key subcontractors as relevant to their role on this project.

Experience will be rated on the degree to which it is similar to this project; how recent it is; and the extent demonstrated for each element. It is preferable for experience to demonstrate previous teaming experience between the current team members. It is also preferable to demonstrate multiple elements within a single previous project. Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline installation time, and that provides for greater flexibility in alternate deployment scenarios

► The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor (or Architect-Engineer) Appraisal Support System (CCASS/ACASS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

Volume 2 – Factor 3/Subfactor 3 (Tab D) Past Performance

Submission requirements ► Offeror highly encouraged to solicit Past Performance Questionnaires for each project noted in Subfactor 2 ► Past performance refers to the quality of recent project experience from the owner's perspective. Additional past performance examples may be submitted for consideration on any member of a Teaming Arrangement that will perform a major or critical aspect of the project. Projects cited shall be currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) or construction substantially completed within seven (7) years preceding the date of this solicitation. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

► Offerors may include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

Volume 2 – Factor 3/Subfactor 3 (Tab D) Past Performance (cont.)

No Page Limit Evaluation Criteria

► The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the Offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment rating

► The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the Offeror’s team's recent, relevant experience.

► If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will receive an Unknown Confidence rating, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

Volume 3 – Price Submission TAB A – Price (Standard Form 33 and Price Schedule):

► Completed SF33 and Price Schedule ► Currently there are 12 Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) ► Evaluation Criteria – Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness

TAB B – Bid Bond:

► A bid guarantee is required to be submitted with your offer. In accordance with

Contract Provision 52.228-1 BID GUARANTEE, The amount of the bid guarantee shall be twenty percent (20%) of the bid price or $3,000,000, whichever is less.

► Evaluation Criteria – This item is not Rated. The bond must be legally sufficient.

TAB C – Required Pre Award Information:

► Confirm that the Offeror’s representations and certifications have been completed in the Online Representations and Certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM). Submit the representations and certifications not covered by SAM, that are included in Section 00600 of this solicitation, under this tab.

Volume 3 – Price Submission (cont.)

TAB C – Required Pre Award Information (cont.)

► Submit this information for the Contracting Officer’s determination of Offeror responsibility, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

► (a) A list of present commitments, including the dollar value thereof, the percentage of work completed and the name of the organization under which the work is being performed. Include names and telephone numbers of personnel within each organization who are familiar with the prospective contractor’s performance.

► (b) A certified statement listing;

• (1) each contract awarded within the preceding three month period exceeding $1,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract;

and

• (2) each contract awarded within the preceding three year period not already physically completed and exceeding $5,000,000.00 in value with a brief description of the contract, including current percent complete, scheduled completion percent and expected completion date.

Volume 3 – Price Submission (cont.)

TAB C – Required Pre Award Information (cont.)

► (c) If the prospective contractor is a joint venture, each joint venture member will be required to submit the above defined certification.

► Evaluation Criteria – The Contracting Officer shall use this information in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the successful Offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

Evaluation Process The SSEB will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor and subfactor, except that performance risk ratings are assigned to past performance.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to evaluate proposals. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in their proposal after submitting it.

A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated proposals in the event that the Government decides that discussions with Offerors are required or are considered to be in the Government’s best interests. In such an event, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated proposals.

If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give and take with those Offerors in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated, will be afforded an opportunity to submit their proposal revisions for final evaluation and selection.

Betterments The minimum requirements of the contract are identified in the

Request for Proposal. All betterments offered in the accepted proposal become a requirement of the awarded contract.

“Betterment” is defined as any component or system in the accepted proposal which exceeds the minimum requirements stated in the Request for Proposal.

This includes all betterments identified in the accepted proposal. It also includes all Government identified betterments in the accepted proposal, whether or not the Government specifically identifies such betterments in a "List of Accepted Project Betterments", made part of the contract award by alteration. It also includes any other betterments in the accepted Proposal that might be identified after award.

Common Proposal Shortfalls

Proposal Instructions not followed – Information not provided as requested.

Statements in proposal are not well supported.

Proposals are not well organized – does not follow the proposal instructions structure and makes evaluators hunt for information

Deficiencies – preclude award – for example not including information in the proposal that the solicitation states SHALL be provided.

Proposal not signed, amendments not acknowledged (SF33)

Past Experience not relevant.

Page limits. After the page limit is exceeded, further information will not be considered.

Questions

Submit all questions regarding this Solicitation in writing to Matthew Lubiak at the email address provided.

All questions are requested to be received no later than 22 Feb 2013.

Conclusion

Thank you for your interest in this Solicitation and for participating in the Pre-proposal Conference.

As a reminder, please email your contact information to Matthew Lubiak.

A copy of this presentation will be provided, along with responses to any questions received to date in an upcoming amendment.