Section 00113_LPTA_Instructions Conditions Notice to Offerors.pdf

pg. 1

Section 00113

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO OFFERORS

Construction and Expansion, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Batavia, NY

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the construction of a new Segregated Housing Unit (SHU), expansion of the existing medical services area and multipurpose room within the BFDF, construction of a new warehouse facility, construction of a new gate house building, and miscellaneous site improvements at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility located at 4250 Federal Drive, Town of Batavia, Genesee County, New York.

The basis of award is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation and is technically acceptable, is fair and reasonable and offers the lowest price deemed fair and reasonable.

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror’s capabilities to successfully complete the project. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the RFP. Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror’s disqualification from award. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.

Offerors shall submit their proposals to the US Army Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara St, Attn: Contracting, Buffalo, NY 14207, no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. Volume II (Technical and Performance Capability) shall be submitted in original and three (3) copies. Volume I (Price and Pro Forma Information) shall be submitted in original only and shall be placed in a separate binder.

pg. 2

Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or subfactor) may result in an unacceptable rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

The Construction magnitude for contract award is between $10 Million and $25 Million.

The Government cannot guarantee that additional funds can be made available for award.

Offerors are under no obligation to approach this limit.

Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, major subcontractor, 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 for performance of this contract.

The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and acceptability of the information to this procurement. Information about major subcontractors may not be deemed acceptable unless the proposal contains some evidence that this subcontractor is committed to perform the work. Where information about a subcontractor is properly submitted and deemed acceptable during the evaluation, the failure of the Offeror to actually perform with that subcontractor may be grounds for termination for default.

3. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel, will evaluate the proposals.

Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence in that technical/quality proposals are reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and the basis of award is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable.

The evaluation process essentially consists of three parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, and price evaluation.

Determination responsibility for the awardee will be prepared by the Contracting Officer prior to award.

Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate those proposals passing the first review, above. Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP requirements. Factors will be rated using an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

Price Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

LPTA ratings for technical and past performance are as follows:

pg. 3

Corporate Experience & Past Performance

Rating Description Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, The Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Management Plan & Key Personnel

Rating Description Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the Minimum requirements of the solicitation.

RESTRICTIONS

Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be considered unacceptable.

The Offeror’s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.

Receipt of an unacceptable determination for any factor will make the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with Offerors and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

4. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 Evaluation Factors and Weights: All non-cost factors have equal rating. Tradeoffs will not be utilized. After acceptability of non-costs factors are determined, award will be made based on lowest evaluated price.

4.2 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and subfactors below.

Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government may make award of a conforming proposal without discussions.

pg. 4

4.3 Volume I - Price and Pro Forma Information

TAB A SF 1442, completed and signed by an authorized person from the company or team

TAB B Section 00010 – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs Schedule (also known as: Bid Schedule)

TAB C Section 00600 – Representations and Certifications

TAB D Bid Bond

NOTE: 8(a) Joint Venture Offeror or Offeror submitting Proposal as HubZone Joint Venture shall submit evidence from Offerors SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this specific project with the appropriate SBA Representative or Business Opportunity Specialist

4.4 VOLUME II – Technical & Performance Capability

THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY COST

INFORMATION.

NOTE: Information must be submitted on single sided paper only. Any additional pages beyond the maximum page requirement will not be assessed.

TAB E – 18 pages Factor 1: Corporate Experience &Past Performance

Corporate Experience - Three (3) pages per project (3 project max) o Pg 1: Provided Questionnaire Sheet o Pg 2 & 3: Photographs

Past Performance - Three (3) pages per project (3 project max) o Pg 1 & 2: Attached Form o Pg 3 (if needed): Ratings, letters, awards, etc

TAB F – 4 pages Factor 2: Management Plan

TAB G – 10 pages Factor 3: Key Personnel

Two (2) pages per each listed key personnel

pg. 5

5. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

5.1 FACTOR 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE & PAST PERFORMANCE

(VOLUME II, TAB E)

5.1.1 Submission Requirements

Corporate Experience:

Prime Contractor Experience: Provide descriptions of three (3) projects substantially complete or completed within the last 5 years which are same or similar to this project in size and scope using the attached Corporate Relevant Experience Form. Projects considered similar to this project may include, but not limited to: detention center facilities (most preferable), offices, administrative areas, schools, training facilities, medical facilities/clinics, and vehicle maintenance shops. Similar in size is defined as projects that involve construction of at least 25,000 square feet. Similar in dollar value is defined as construction projects with a minimum value of $8,000,000.00. An IDIQ contract may be submitted only if a single task order could be considered similar to this project. Task orders may not be combined in order for the contract to be considered similar. In each description detail the work that was self-performed.

Use of the attached forms is mandatory. At least 15 percent of the cost of the contract performance incurred must have been spent on the prime contractor’s own employees.

Past Performance:

Provide references for all projects provided as evidence of relevant corporate experience identified above. Offerors shall have customers fill out the attached Past Performance Survey Form. Offerors shall obtain the completed form from the rating entity in a sealed envelope. The sealed package shall be part of Volume II - TAB E. Evidence of tampering may lead to removal of consideration of the Past Performance Survey in question. Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. which support past performance on these projects.

The Government may also use other tools such as CPAR, CCASS, ACASS, PPIMS, Dun & Bradstreet, etc. to gather documentation on past performance, both on the projects submitted, as well as on other experience of the prime contractor considered relevant by the Government.

Contractor Team Arrangements. In accordance with FAR Part 9, 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. Past Performance evaluation will take into account the past performance information regarding predecessor or affiliated companies and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, except as submitted under the requirements of Section 2 of this document.

pg. 6

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

Corporate Experience:

Prime Contractor Experience: The SSEB will evaluate the experience identified in the proposal. Documentation of completion of at least three (3) projects similar in size and scope to this project, completed or substantially completed within the last 5 years, and that meets the 15% self-performance requirement as stated in 5.1.1, will be considered to have met the minimum requirements of the RFP and will receive an acceptable rating. Conversely, proposals that do not include sufficient evidence that the offeror has experience completing three (3) projects of similar size and scope within the last 5 years that meet the 15% self-performance will not be acceptable.

Past Performance:

Prime Contractor Past Performance: The SSEB will evaluate the successful completion of the relevant corporate experience identified in the proposal in response to Section 5.1 - Experience. Documentation of satisfactory performance of projects similar in size, scope and dollar value will be considered to have met the minimum requirements of the RFP and will be rated acceptable. Offers which do not demonstrate satisfactory performance of relevant projects will not be considered to have met the minimum and will be rated unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government may also use other tools such as CPAR, CCASS, ACASS, PPIMS, Dun & Bradstreet, or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an offeror’s past performance.

The Government rates an Offeror’s lack of past performance as unknown and therefore acceptable.

5.2 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT PLAN (VOLUME II, TAB F)

5.2.1 Submission Requirements

Provide a management plan for the project that describes how contractor labor, resources, subcontractors and material suppliers will be coordinated and used to ensure successful completion of the project. Describe how you will manage, supervise and coordinate the subcontractors’ work and who in the organization will be responsible for this management and coordination. Discuss which resources are available but will not be present at the site. Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management and the responsible chain of command. Include names of assigned personnel and proposed subcontractors and their areas of responsibility. Joint venture Offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner.

Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel. Quality Control and Safety should be included in the chart.

pg. 7

5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

Management Plan: Comprehensive plans that demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and an ability to coordinate resources to ensure successful pursuit of the work will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Plans that do not demonstrate a clear understanding of the work, that do not demonstrate a capability to coordinate resources, or that do not demonstrate appropriate excess capacity will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements. The SSEB will evaluate the clarity, adequacy, capabilities and strengths of the Offeror’s organizational chart for managing a successful project. An organizational chart that clearly depicts a highly qualified on-site team supported by appropriate resources off-site and that clearly defines responsibilities will be considered to meet the RFP requirements. Charts that are confusing, cluttered with duplicative entries, or that do not clearly define responsibilities will be considered to not meet the RFP requirements.

5.3 FACTOR 3: KEY PERSONNEL (VOLUME II, TAB G)

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

Prime Contractor

The Government will review the resumes of key personnel identified below.

Offerors must meet all of the following standards to receive an acceptable rating on this factor.

The Offeror must submit resumes for the following Key Personnel:

Project Manager for Construction On-Site Construction Superintendent Safety Officer Quality Control Manager Project Scheduler (Resume must indicate Scheduling Software experience (e.g., Primavera, Microsoft Project)

All resumes must include the following information and may NOT exceed two

(2) pages.

Name and title Project assignment Name of firm with which associated Years experience with this firm (to include field of expertise/discipline) and years of experience with other firms (to include your field of expertise/ discipline)

Education degree(s), year, and institution Active professional registration, year first registered, if applicable Other experience and qualifications relevant to same/similar work required under this contract

pg. 8

List of projects in which the individual has worked to include Name of project(s) and project location(s)

The following key personnel must have degrees in the required disciplines:

Project Manager for Construction – Architectural or Engineering Degree

ALL Key Personnel shall have a minimum of three (3) years of professional experience in that field. For example, a Civil Engineer must have a degree in Civil Engineering and 3 years of professional civil engineering experience.

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

Failure to meet all of the requirements under this Factor will result in an unacceptable rating.

6. PRICE

6.1 The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the IGE, and any other pricing tools necessary.

6.2 Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final LPTA determination for award.

6.3 Offerors shall not provide assumptions in their proposals. Assumptions that accompany proposals may disqualify the entire bid package from consideration.

6.4 Price is equal in importance to ALL TECHNICAL FACTORS when combined.

pg. 9

Construction & Expansion, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF), Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Batavia, NY

Factor 1: Volume II – Tab E

Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience (Offerors should submit for at least three projects).

Your firm’s name _______________________________________________________________________

Name of Project/Location _________________________________________________________________

General Scope of Project

Your role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor) and work your company self-performed______________________________________________________________________________

Percentage of Work completed by Prime Contractor Personnel: _________________________________%

Construction Cost:

At Award: $_______________ Reason for the cost growth:

Final Cost $_______________ ___________________________________

Award Date: _______________________

Scheduled Completion: ______________ Reason for the time growth:

Actual Completion: _________________ ___________________________________

Extent and type of work you subcontracted out

Owner’s Point of Contact (POC) for reference (name and company and telephone number)

pg. 10

Safety Performance and Record: Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

Please provide additional clarification if an EMR calculation is greater than 1.1 In the case of a joint venture, EMR information should be considered for both contractors.

Addition Information:

pg. 11

Factor 1: Volume II – Tab E PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

Contractor_____________________________________________________________________________

Project________________________________________________________________________________

Name of Company Official Providing Reference ______________________________________________

Phone and Email ________________________________________________________________________

Date Completed________________________________

Provide a rating of Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Good, Excellent, or Not Applicable for each of the following questions:

1. How do you rate the contractor’s past performance in meeting the construction quality requirements of the project?

Response______________________________________________________________________________

2. How do you rate the contractor’s overall ability in managing and minimizing the cost growth of the project?

3. How do you rate the contractor’s overall ability in managing and minimizing the schedule growth of the project?

4. How do you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively handle the owner’s requirements and needs during the construction of the project?

Response__________________________________________________________________________

pg. 12

Factor 1: Volume II – Tab E Past Performance Survey (Cont.)

5. How do you rate the contractor’s ability to effectively manage risk on the project?

6. How do you rate the contractor’s past performance on this project in meeting the owner’s total overall satisfaction considering all factors?

7. Is the project 100% constructed?

Response ______________________________________________________________________________

8. If not 100% constructed, have all spaces been turned over to the user for use as the spaces were intended?

9. If not 100% constructed, when is the completion of all work including the punch list items scheduled to be completed?

10. Are there any open financial actions, such as requests for equitable adjustments or claims?

pg. 13

Construction and Expansion, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF), Immigration and

PROPOSAL RATING WORKSHEET

**For Government Use Only**

1. GENERAL. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's past performance to determine how well it satisfied its customers. Evaluators will use this factor to evaluate the success of the Offeror based on the satisfaction of previous customers and clients as illustrated on the completed questionnaires, CCASS Ratings and personal knowledge. These completed questionnaires shall be used as a basis to begin the evaluation of this factor.

Has Government Received Three Completed Questionnaires for this Offeror? _____ YES ____ NO

Do All the Questionnaires Received Reflect Projects Completed or substantially compete within the Last Five Years? _____ YES ____ NO

2. CCASS RATINGS. The Contract Specialist will provide CCASS Ratings for the Offeror (and any other firms if a joint venture is offered). CCASS for the Mentor, in a Mentor-Protégé relationship, will not be evaluated.

Firm Name:

Number of Ratings: Outstanding _____

Above Average _____

Satisfactory _____

Marginal _____

Unsatisfactory _____

3. OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED. List all other sources of information considered (telephone interviews, personnel interviews, personal experience, etc.)

pg. 14

Construction & Expansion, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF), Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Batavia, NY

Summary and Overall Rating

SUMMARY RATING CHART

FACTOR

No.

Description

Rating*

Comments

Corporate Experience & Past

Performance

Management Plan

Key Personnel

OVERALL TECHNICAL RATING**

* Ratings may be either: Acceptable or Unacceptable

Acceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Board Member Signature

pg. 15

Construction & Expansion, Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF), Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Batavia, NY

Offeror __________________ Board Chairperson____________________

FACTOR

No.

Description

Board

Member

CONSENSUS

Corporate

Experience & Past Performance

2 Management Plan

3 Key Personnel

OVERALL RATING

Board Member 1 Board Member 2

Board Member 3 Board Member 4

Board Member 5 Board Member 6