amd2.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment is issued to provide changes to the Phase One evaluation criteria as specified/addressed via ProjNet inquiries.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 38

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Mar-2018

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912HN18R3001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Feb-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Mar-2018

CODE

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

W912HN 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W912HN18R3001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The Issued By organization has changed from

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401-3640

to

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

SECTION 00 21 00 - INSTRUCTIONS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION V

SECTION 00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS NOTES:

A SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO PHASE II IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART

OF THE PHASE I PROPOSAL. A PHASE II PROPOSAL WILL BE

REQUESTED FROM ONLY THE OFFERORS SELECTED BY THE

CONTRACTING OFFICER TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR PHASE II.

THE PHASE II SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ARE SUBJECT

TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE PHASE II SOLICITATION BEING ISSUED.

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 This solicitation is for the purpose of awarding a firm fixed-price (FFP) design-build contract for the Blood Donor Center Replacement, PN 76934, at Fort Gordon, Georgia.

A Two-Phase Selection Process will be used.

1.2 The purpose of the Source Selection plan is to establish a uniform evaluation procedure for the technical evaluation of proposals by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the development of the Best Value Decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) using the Trade-Off Process (See Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-1). In as much as the proposal shall describe the capability of the Offeror to perform the resulting contract, the proposal should be specific and complete in every detail as well as be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of capabilities to satisfactorily perform the contract.

1.3 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two-Phase Design-Build selection process. In Phase One of the two phase design-build selection procedure, interested Offerors submit certain specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government.

1.4 In Phase One, the Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select up to five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase Two. In Phase Two of this process, the Government will evaluate both technical capability and price.

The technical and cost proposals of the selected contractors will be reviewed by the Government. The technical information in the Phase Two proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria set out in this section. The final evaluation ratings used for comparison, selection, and award will reflect both the ratings received in Phase One and the evaluation ratings received in Phase Two.

1.5 Only those Offeror’s who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that the firm has been selected to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase Two proposal. Those Offerors selected for Phase Two will be provided the technical requirements package for the contract.

1.6 Phase One and Two Factors:

Phase One:

FACTOR 1: Relevant Specialized Experience

FACTOR 2: Past Performance

PHASE Two:

PRICE

FACTOR 3: Building Function and Aesthetics

FACTOR 4: Quality of Building Systems

FACTOR 5: Site Design

FACTOR 6: Small Business Participation Plan

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for performance of this contract, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A design firm or construction contractor may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

2.2 Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer.

The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement. The submission must contain a narrative that clearly explains the relevance to a particular factor of information concerning a company that is part of a Contractor Team Arrangement. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance of the information to this procurement. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab D.

2.3 Notwithstanding the specific requirements of any other area of the Request For Proposal (RFP), information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight, if any, of the information to this procurement. Any narrative provided should be incorporated into the Offeror’s proposal at Tab D.

2.4 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in Paragraph 3.1 below.

2.5 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of the

SF1442.

2.6 Other General Review:

Debarred List: Offerors will be checked against the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs. Any Offeror who is listed will be eliminated without further consideration.

3. PROPOSALS

ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE WEBSITE

LISTED BELOW. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION SENT VIA EMAIL OR FACSIMILE

WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. HAND CARRIED PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS NOT

AUTHORIZED.

3.1 DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. This applies to both Phase One and Phase Two, except for the Bid Bond in Phase Two. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format.

Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN18R3001_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME I

W912HN18R3001_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME II

Submit proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website at:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/Welcome.aspx. At the AMRDEC SAFE website select the link: I do not have a CAC or this machine is not configured to read my CAC and I would like to access SAFE as a Guest User, to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s).

[Note: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.]

When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to enter e-mail addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Mr. Andrew K. Page, whose e-mail address is Andrew.K.Page@usace.army.mil. The Contracting Officer for this project is Ms. Nina G. Crow, whose e-mail address is Nina.G.Crow@usace.army.mil. These e-mail addresses are the ones you will enter as recipients.

In addition, after uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your email address before AMRDEC will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the Government until you verify your email address, which may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and the confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the e-mail notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, not by the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous – in fact, it can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ e-mail inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late.

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT:

3.2 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.3 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.4 Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated.

3.5. Number of Electronic Files. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II). These two files should be named in a specific format: Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (e.g.

W912HN18R3001_USACE_Volume I.pdf).

3.6 Drawings. For Offerors invited to participate in Phase Two, drawings submitted for the proposal may be done with any CADD software available to the Offeror. However, the drawings for design submittals after award will be done and submitted in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation for design after award.

3.7 Tabs. See paragraph 8 for Phase Two specific tabbing requirements. Phase One proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

PHASE ONE VOLUME I

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B - Representations and Certifications. Offerors must complete and return applicable clauses located in Section 00 45 00 – Representations & Certifications of the solicitation. Offerors are to ensure all information in the System for Award Management (SAM) is up to date and accurate including FAR/DFAR clause fill-in information. Submit verification that your firm is registered in SAM. For Offerors interested in submitting proposals as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses, you are requested to submit the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Verification Letter verifying that your business has been approved as such and added to the verified Veteran business database at www.VetBiz.gov. The Government reserves the right to rely on other sources to confirm SDVOSB status if the Offeror has not been approved through the VA.

TAB C – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section.

Offerors should ensure telephone number; fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included. The DUNS number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture it must be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for each company identified in any other proposed association of firms or Contractor Team Arrangement. The Offeror should also submit their Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB D – Teaming Agreements and Narratives, if applicable (See paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3).

PHASE ONE VOLUME II

TAB D –Teaming Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB E – FACTOR 1: Relevant Specialized Experience

TAB F – FACTOR 2: Past Performance

4. PHASE ONE—TAB E—FACTOR 1 RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The prime contractor and the design firm(s) (or prime contractor if design is to be self-performed) shall each demonstrate recent experience on similar projects.

4.1.2 Construction Team Member. The prime contractor shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of five (5) single side pages describing their construction experience on a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5) projects that meet or exceed the requirements at 4.1.4 below. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. These will be the same projects that will be submitted for evaluation for Factor 2 Past Performance. Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If projects were design-build, the Offeror should identify them. If the Offeror is a joint venture, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their role on this project in Tab D. Submit projects that are currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of this Solicitation. In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, square footage, if design-build or design-bid-build, the role of the Prime, and date of construction completion.

4.1.3 Design Team Member. The design team member shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of five (5) single side pages describing their design experience on a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) projects that meet or exceed the requirements at 4.1.4 below. If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated. Submit projects that are currently fully designed within six

(6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, square footage, if design-build or design-bid-build, the role of the A-E, and date of design completion. Projects do not have to be in construction. Design firms may list prime contractors they have worked for such as government, private or commercial customers. If projects were design-build, Offeror should identify them. If the submitted projects were design-build, the design team member must have been involved in the preparation the design from beginning through 100%, during the “Design After Award” of the design-build contract.

Preparation of a design-build RFP will not be considered design experience for this factor.

4.1.3.1 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. No more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire design team, even if the proposed Architect-Engineer Firm represents the combining of two or more companies.

If more than five (5) projects are submitted, only the first five (5) will be evaluated.

4.1.4 Similar Projects. Projects submitted under this factor will be considered similar to this procurement if they are similar in complexity, scope and magnitude. For this solicitation, a similar project is defined as a new Medical Clinic or new Hospital (or a new addition to an existing medical clinic or hospital), is 10,000 square feet of gross space or greater in size, and has a value or cost of at least $5,000,000.

Renovations/repairs of existing facilities or any portion of existing facilities will not be considered as similar. Renovations/repairs of any space will not be combined with new work or new additions to meet the 10,000 gross square feet requirement. Any projects showing experience specifically in Blood Donation and Apheresis function, Laboratory function (Level II), and/or Blood/Vaccine Storage/Processing function construction may receive additional consideration.

4.1.5 Supplemental Narrative. The Offeror may provide a supplemental narrative, not to exceed three (3) pages. The Offeror should describe any previous teaming experience between current team members, even if on other type projects. Offeror may describe design-build experience on other type projects. Any projects referenced in this narrative must be shown to be well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within five (5) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of experience of the prime contractor and design firm(s) in design, construction or design-build of projects similar to this procurement. The Government will review the projects provided by the Offeror for Factor 1 - Relevant Specialized Experience to evaluate the experience of the Offeror with similar projects. Except for the provisions of paragraph 4.1.5 above, projects will be evaluated for this factor only if they have been determined to be similar as described in paragraph 4.1.4. The Government will evaluate the similarity and amount of the offeror's experience. The quantity of similar experience demonstrated by the Offeror will affect the rating for this Factor. The Government may give additional consideration for previous design-build experience or teaming experience on other types of projects that are not similar to this procurement. However, experience on projects that are not similar will not be considered as one of the five (5) example projects submitted as required by 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 and will only be submitted in the supplemental narrative.

4.2.2 Rating Methodology for Factor 1 - Relevant Specialized Experience. Factor 1 will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

4.2.2.1 OUTSTANDING - Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

4.2.2.2 GOOD - Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

4.2.2.3 ACCEPTABLE - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

4.2.2.4 MARGINAL - Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

4.2.2.5 UNACCEPTABLE - Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

4.2.3 While previous design-build experience is not necessary, the Government may give additional consideration to previous design-build experience. Offerors may also receive additional consideration for previous recent teaming experience among the team members.

4.2.4 If the Offeror cannot provide information concerning recent experience on similar projects or the Offeror has no similar experience, a determination will be made as to the risk this lack of experience presents to the Government and the Offeror will be given an appropriate rating for this factor, and could receive a rating of “unacceptable.”

5. PHASE I—TAB F—FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of performance on similar, recent, relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3 at the end of this section. The design team member will not be evaluated under this factor. The projects submitted by the Offeror must be the same projects submitted for Factor 1. The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time.

Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1

– 5 on the first two pages of the PPQ and submit the PPQ with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first two pages of the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the Government to determine the similarity and relevancy of the project.

In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact, to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available.

5.1.2 By exception, the client may request, submission of questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact (Contract Specialist), Andrew Page. Request may be made via email to Andrew.K.Page@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance not later than 5 business days before the proposal due date.

PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Offerors are cautioned that the information submitted pertaining to a project shall be limited to the PPQ form and shall contain enough information to determine the similarity and relevancy of a project. Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ format (to include CCASS /ACASS/CPARS) will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. Offerors may submit PPQs submitted on other procurements provided they are on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form—Offerors may attach one additional single-sided page (per PPQ) to further describe how the project meets the RFP requirements.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements. If the Offeror is a joint venture or teaming arrangement, each firm shall provide information, demonstrating experience relevant to their expected role on this contract. However, the maximum number of project example submitted shall not exceed 5, even if the Offeror is a joint venture or is part of a teaming arrangement. 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.

5.1.3 Offeror shall submit projects that are similar and relevant to the project as this solicitation requires (Note: These shall be the same projects submitted in Factor 1).

See paragraph 4.1.4 for a description of similar projects. Submit projects that are currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

5.1.4 Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order considered similar and relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this solicitation, if the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies in a Contractor Team Arrangement, no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire team. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five (5) will be evaluated.

Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed team members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles.

5.1.5 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the Offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government. Please note that projects submitted by design firms (the design team member) will not be evaluated under this factor.

5.1.6 The past performance of individuals will NOT be considered under this factor.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on recent, similar, relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s past performance.

5.2.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability. Any interviews with Government personnel will be documented as necessary.

5.2.3 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance.

These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIPRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

Offerors will be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

5.2.4. Recency. Projects will be evaluated that are currently well underway (fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed) within six (6) years preceding the date of this Solicitation.

5.2.5. Relevancy Evaluation. Projects will only be evaluated for past performance that are relevant in accordance with paragraph 4.1.4. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders combined to meet the minimum value.

Projects will be evaluated to determine how relevant the project is compared to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation. Complexities and characteristics of relevant past performance include the following facility functions. The complexities and characteristics identified below are not intended to be a comprehensive list. However, projects that meet the similar criteria, and that also include the complexities/characteristics below may be considered more relevant in evaluating past performance. The project description in the PPQ should identify relevant complexities/characteristics of medical facility projects such as those listed in 4.1.4.

5.2.5.1 Relevancy. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the following Table.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

Rating Definition Very Relevant

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5.2.6 Quality. The past performance record will be evaluated to determine how well the contractor performed on past projects.

5.2.7. Confidence Assessment. An evaluation will be made of the probability that the offeror will meet the solicitation requirements based on the recency, relevancy and quality of past performance. The Government will consider the relevant past performance information, source of this information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance on recent projects to reach a performance confidence assessment using the ratings in 5.2.8.

5.2.8 Confidence Ratings

5.2.8.1 SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5.2.8.2 SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5.2.8.3 LIMITED CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5.2.8.4 NO CONFIDENCE - Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

5.2.8.5 UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE (NEUTRAL) - 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.

6. PHASE ONE PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

6.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g.

past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

6.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

6.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will be selected to participate in Phase Two.

6.4 Offeror’s are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase One submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offeror’s should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in the proposal after submitting it in response to Phase One.

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PHASE ONE FACTORS

Factor 1, Relevant Specialized Experience is equal in importance to Factor 2, Past Performance.

Factor 2, Past Performance is equal in importance to Factor 1, Relevant Specialized Experience.

8. PHASE TWO—PROPOSAL TABBING REQUIREMENTS. Phase Two proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

8.1 VOLUME I—CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND PRICE PROPOSAL

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement. Failure to do so may result in rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00—Solicitation, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Schedule.

TAB C – Bid Bond—submit in accordance with FAR clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee and Directions for Submitting Bid Bond below. This item is not rated. However, the Government will review the bid bond for legal sufficiency. Any bid bond found to be legally insufficient may render an offer ineligible for award.

The original bid bond must be mailed to:

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

ATTN: CECT-SAS-E (Andrew Page)

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVE.

SAVANNAH, GA 31401

The package must be clearly identified with the Offeror’s name, address, and the solicitation number.

The date and time of delivery established by commercial carriers is not the official time of receipt by the Government. Security Guards posted at the loading dock entry for the building do not receive bid bonds and will contact Mailroom personnel. Once Mailroom personnel are available, the bid bonds will be processed by the Security Guards using established security procedures and subsequently picked up by Mailroom personnel.

After receipt by the Mailroom personnel, a record will be made of the receipt of the bid bonds. Completion of these actions will constitute delivery of the bid bonds by the date and time designated for receipt of the bid bonds.

Offerors that use U.S. Mail or U.S. Express Mail must allow sufficient time for the bid bonds to be received by Mailroom personnel by the time specified. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bid bonds to be processed for receipt and are cautioned that sufficient time may be as much as 24 hours prior to the date and time designated. The Government will not be responsible for bid bonds delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that bid bonds are submitted so as to reach the office designated for receipt.

Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the bid bonds to be physically received and processed by Mailroom personnel in accordance with the information provided.

TAB D – Financial Information (e.g. the last three years financial statement, Annual Reports, Dun and Bradstreet ratings and/or number, etc.), a bank reference, and a letter from your company on company letterhead authorizing the release of financial information from your bank, with point of contact and telephone numbers for verification. Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount.

TAB E – Subcontracting Plan – FOR LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY.

Subcontracting Plan shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, and SBA’s Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) located at http://esrs.gov . Instructions for completion of requisite forms, as well as guidance on coordinating and preparing for all compliance reviews by Federal agencies can be found at this website. Offerors are to ensure subcontractors agree to submit to ESRS. Savannah District’s assigned subcontracting goals are as reflected the solicitation.

8.2 VOLUME II—TECHNICAL

8.2.1 GENERAL: The intent during the Phase Two proposal submission and review process is not to require a detailed design effort or to perform a detailed design engineering review. The submission of fully developed drawings, details, or specifications for Government evaluation is not required or desired. The use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to prepare or submit proposals is NOT required. The Government is not asking for design analyses in the proposal and will not be performing a detailed engineering analysis or design review at the proposal stage. Acceptance by the Government of the successful Offeror’s technical proposal will not relieve the Offeror of responsibilities as the Designer of Record for the resulting contract. The Government in its review does not assume responsibility to identify issues or errors in the proposed technical solution. After award, in the event of conflict between the contractor’s accepted proposal and the requirements in the final amended RFP, the order of precedence will be followed as indicated in clause UAI 5152.236-9000, DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT – ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. The final design must comply with the RFP requirements.

The Phase Two technical submission consists of conceptual level presentation drawings, technical approach narratives and information regarding material and system quality. It must clearly define the proposed scope and quality levels that the design-build team is offering to the Government in enough detail for the Government and the Offeror to mutually understand whether or not the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum Solicitation requirements.

Proposals will receive additional consideration for all components and systems offered that include extended warranties, longer life expectancies, sustainability, durability (stand up to the intended usage), have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the overall life cycle cost efficiency of the facility.

8.2.2 Drawings. Minimum drawings required are outlined in each section.

8.2.3 The technical data described in the Phase Two criteria below shall be submitted as part of the proposal. Offeror’s are advised that the required data listed below shall be for the project and will be utilized for technical review and evaluation. Materials indicated in the design/construction criteria, but not indicated in the Offeror’s specifications, will be assumed to be included and a part of the proposal.

8.2.4 Manufacturers’ catalog sheets that are submitted as part of the proposal will be used to rate offers based on their qualitative features and risk to the Government.

Because all design efforts are not completed at the time of the proposal submission, it is expected that some specific models and capacities may not be indicated at the time of proposal submission. However, manufacturers, product features, product lines, and models can be proposed and qualitative and risk evaluations can and will be made by the Government. Those manufacturers, product features, product lines, and models are to be included in the final design after award documents and will be incorporated into the construction contract.

8.2.5 Failure to submit all the data indicated in this section may be cause for determining a proposal incomplete and, therefore, not considered for evaluation or for subsequent award.

8.2.6 Outline of Factors for Phase Two:

PRICE

TAB H – FACTOR 3: Building Function and Aesthetics

TAB I – FACTOR 4: Quality of Building Systems

TAB J – FACTOR 5: Site Design

TAB K – FACTOR 6: Small Business Participation Plan

9. PHASE TWO – TAB H – FACTOR 3 BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Drawings and narratives are required for this factor.

The evaluation criteria is listed at end of this factor.

9.1.1 Presentation Drawings. Provide single line floor plans in sufficient detail to allow the Government to evaluate the functional layout of the spaces within the facility. The floor plans should conform to the scales given in the RFP. There is no specific proposal requirement as to the CAD/BIM decisions by the offeror as long as the Government is able to adequately visualize the offeror’s solution. Provide a listing of the spaces and show how they correlate to the net and gross size requirements shown in the Program for Design appendix to the RFP. This listing of spaces does not make up part of the 5-page limit in the Technical Narrative. Pay attention to the 10% space size deviations allowed by the RFP. While the intent is not to have a completely final floor plan design, the offeror should provide a best effort at showing spaces and relationships as accurately as possible to allow the Government enough information to ensure that the Program for Design space requirements can be met, and to evaluate the flow and relationships of the spaces and functions within the facility. Provide a front exterior elevation and other information sufficient to allow the Government to visualize what the facility will look like in terms of massing, exterior materials and color, and position on the site. Provide sufficient interior elevation information to allow the Government to visualize the interior look, spacing, and aesthetics. The drawings must include sufficient information that will allow the Government to evaluate the facility. Additionally, the information must clearly show how and where a future 20% Expansion could occur. A layout of a possible future expansion is not required, only where and how the expansion could occur.

9.1.2 Technical Approach Narrative. Provide a technical approach narrative no longer than five (5) typewritten pages at no smaller than 10 point font. Discuss the floor plan design approach and explain the rationale for decisions about space relationships and flow between spaces/functions. Discuss architectural themes, and initial decisions and rational on material and finish choices both interior and exterior. Provide information and examples of way-funding techniques to be used in the facility. Give the Government narrative information that will allow it to understand that the offeror understands the requirements for achieving a world class facility.

9.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

9.2.1 The Government will evaluate the following:

9.2.1.1 Does the overall “appeal” of the Blood Donor Center (both building interior and exterior) present an attractive appearance that meets the intent of the RFP in achieving a World Class Facility by improving the quality of the staff and patient experience? The following will be considered under this element: roof lines, massing, shade and shadow effects, use of natural light, interior space environment (both horizontal and vertical), materials, textures, and interior and exterior color schemes.

9.2.1.2 How well does the layout of the facility interior meet the intent of the RFP, and specifically the various flow, space relationships, and staffing requirements identified in the RFP Concept of Operations?

9.2.1.3 How well does the floor plan allow for a future 20% expansion in a logical manner that lends itself to easy future constructability?

9.2.1.4 How well does the narrative and floor plan provide for an intuitive and effective wayfinding solution?

9.2.1.5 Is the building within the maximum allowed Gross Square Feet?

9.2.1.6 Does the listing of spaces and floor plan layout indicate that the RFP Program for Design requirements have been met? Are deviations to space sizes within the 10% deviation allowance?

10. PHASE TWO – TAB I – FACTOR 4 QUALITY OF BUILDING SYSTEMS

10.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Drawings or sketches are optional. A technical narrative is required. The evaluation criteria is listed at end of this factor.

10.1.1 Presentation Drawings. There are no specific drawings requirements for this factor. However, the Offeror has the option of providing concept level drawing information or detailed sketches for specific materials and/or systems which the Offeror feels are necessary to describe the proposed systems or materials.

10.1.2 Technical Approach Narratives. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives combined shall be 12 typewritten pages at no smaller than 10 point font. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that all aspects identified in the evaluation criteria below are addressed. Should the Offeror choose to provide equipment/material information in the form of manufacturer or catalog data for major components, this information will not count toward the 12 page limitation. The Government will evaluate and consider any materials and equipment proposed by brand name and model number as a quality standard. Unless substitution of a manufacturer, brand name or model is otherwise specifically prohibited in the contract, if the successful Offeror desires to substitute manufacturers, brand names or models after award, the substituted product must meet the contract requirements and be approved by the designer of record and the Government as equal in function, performance, quality and salient features to that initially proposed.

Acceptance of the proposal is not a guarantee that the proposed products meet the contractual requirements.

10.1.2.1 Structural and Roofing Systems: Describe how the systems selected provide value to the Government and how they meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Describe how these systems will allow for a future 20% expansion in a logical manner that lends itself to easy future constructability.

10.1.2.2 Mechanical Systems: Describe how the mechanical systems selected will provide for a highly efficient environmental control system including information about provisions for indoor air quality maintenance. Discuss how these selections provide value to the Government and how they meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Narrative should focus on maintenance considerations (both ease of maintenance and cost of maintenance), limiting energy consumption, and suitability of the proposed systems for the expected usage. Describe how the Offeror will achieve the lowest life cycle cost for HVAC system.

10.1.2.3 Plumbing Systems: Describe how the plumbing systems selected provide for a highly efficient domestic hot water system and an efficient piping system that also reduces water consumption.