Inactive

Architect/ Engineer Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract for ARS USDA Forage Animal Production Research Laboratory, Lexington, KY 1. SYNOPSIS: Architect and Engineering services, procured ... Architect/ Engineer Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract for ARS USDA Forage Animal Production Research Laboratory, Lexington, KY 1. SYNOPSIS: Architect and Engineering services, procured in accordance with PL 92-582 (Brooks A-E Act) and FAR Part 36, are required to plan and design a new ARS USDA Forage Animal Production Research Laboratory and other associated improvements in the vicinity of Lexington, Kentucky. Work will be considered to be performed primarily at the Architect/Engineer’s (A/E) office. However, site visits and meetings are anticipated to be conducted at facilities owned by the University of Kentucky. These meetings may be held in facilities at the main University of Kentucky Lexington campus or in facilities owned by the University of Kentucky in the areas surrounding Lexington Kentucky that support agricultural research. Awards will be made as Firm-Fixed-Price Task Orders during the period of performance. The total combined contract capacity under the Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) pool is not to exceed $10,000,000 over a five-year period. This is a five-year contract, with no option years. There is no limit on the value of individual task orders, but the total value of task orders awarded will not exceed the overall SATOC capacity. Work will be issued by negotiated firm-fixed-price task orders. The Firm that is selected for negotiation of a contract may be required to submit additional information at a later time for use in the evaluation of qualifications for specific Task Orders. The period of performance for task orders issued under these contracts may extend beyond the five-year ordering period. In accordance with FAR 36.604 and the supplements thereto, and upon final acceptance or termination, all task orders above $35,000 will receive a performance evaluation. A performance evaluation may be prepared for lesser task orders and interim performance evaluations may be prepared at any time. Performance evaluations will be maintained for use in future source selections for Architect-Engineer Services. Amendment 0001 ***************************************************************** ****************************************************Amendment 0001 Evaluation for Contract Award Selection Criteria - The selection criteria in descending order of importance are listed below. Specialized Experience/Past Performance (Sections E, F and G from the submitted SF330) Design Quality Management Plan (Section D and H from the submitted SF330) Submission Requirements: Offerors must submit one (1) electronic copy of the SF 330, Part l, and one copy of the SF330, Part II for the prime firm. Each branch office that will have a key role in the proposed contract must also submit a copy of the SF 330 Part II. Offerors must submit a current and accurate SF 330, Part II, for each proposed sub-consultant. Any firm with an electronic mailbox responding to the solicitation should identify such address in the SF 330, Part I. Please identify the Dun & Bradstreet number of the office(s) performing the work in Block 5 of the SF 330, Part I. Dun & Bradstreet numbers may be obtained by contacting (866) 705-5711, or via the internet at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. The proposal shall be submitted as one file using Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). Font size shall be 10 or larger on white letter-sized paper (8 inches by 11 inches). The SF 330 will be no longer than 50 pages in length (excluding the SF 330, Part IIs). Resumes in Section E can be no more than two pages in length, and individual projects in Section F can be no more than three pages in length. Section H shall be 10 pages or less in length and shall include the requested information as part of this solicitation. Any additional information included in the proposal not specifically required may not be evaluated or considered. Each printed side of a page will count as one page. Dividers, bindings and cover sheets do not count against the total page count of the response to the RFP. Do not furnish design portfolios, prints, magazines, newspaper clippings, or CDs of completed projects. All requirements of this notice must be met for a firm to be considered responsive. ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows: Send an email to the Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed five (5) business days prior to proposal due date. Josh Westgate, Contract Specialist at Joshua.K.Westgate@usace.army.mil You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two (2) business days prior to the proposal due date. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter W912QR21R0029-FIRMNAME. Click Upload button to send documents. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. (Government-issued Common Access Cards (CACs) are not required). File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below. File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention: W912QR21R0029-FIRMNAME Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see example above. File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 fold-outs, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor. Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208. Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked). Any information presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations. Additional instructions and clarifications for SF330: SF330 Section D: The offerors shall submit an organizational chart as required by SF330 Section D. Offerors can submit a folded 11”x 17” organizational chart as part of their submission. This will be considered only one page of their submission. SF330 Section E: Offerors shall only provide individual resumes in SF330 Section E for each of the individuals listed below in lines 1 through 3. Individuals included in SF330 Section E must possess the certifications and registrations listed below and must have performed i n their respective role (i.e. project manager, architect designer, etc.) on projects similar to this solicitation; this shall be demonstrated in Block 19. Proposals that strongly demonstrate, in lieu of just listing, the specialized experience and technical competence will be evaluated more favorably. For all designer roles, the resume shall clearly indicate features of work of the project for which the individual was the legal designer of record. Project Manager, Registered Architect or Professional Engineer, Indicate years of experience leading multidisciplinary teams (Architect, Civil/Site, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural) in vertical construction projects. Lead Architect/Designer, Registered Architect Lead Mechanical Engineer, Registered Professional Engineer SF330 Section F: In this section, the offeror shall provide up to five (5) previous projects which are similar in size and/or scope to this solicitation. Offerors may use the examples of format that are included at the end of this document or they may use their own format. However, at a minimum, the information that is indicated on the example forms must be clearly presented on any project detail sheet that is used. Projects included in SF330 Section F will be considered more relevant if construction is substantially complete, and projects that achieved substantial completion more recently will be considered more relevant. Substantially complete is defined as a construction project and/or facility that can be used for its intended purposes. Projects considered similar in scope to this project include complex university agricultural research facilities that include greenhouses or headhouses and agricultural research facilities associated with industry research that include greenhouse or headhouses. Projects considered similar in size to this project include projects similar in scope that contain 30,000 Square Feet (SF) of total space with 10,000 SF of laboratory/research space. Of the up to five projects included in SF330 Section F, a minimum of two must be fully designed by the offeror. Base MATOC or IDIQ contract awards may not be used as projects, only individual task orders that resulted in actual design effort from these base MATOC and IDIQ contracts may be used. For all projects included in Section F, the offeror must indicate what percentage by dollar value of the overall work was self-performed by the team being submitted as a part of this SF330. This percentage shall only include the work that was performed by individuals who were employed by the firms listed in this SF330, even if the work was performed as a part of a joint-venture or a team of A-E contractors. Also in Section F, the offeror shall indicate at least one (1) reference for each project that was identified for project specialized experience/past performance. Reference information must include project name, location, at least one point of contact, telephone number, and email address (for the point of contact). Also include any ratings, letters, awards, etc. that support past performance on these projects. Past Performance Questionnaires attached to this document are provided as an example of the information that shall be provided by the Offeror to identify business references that can be contacted for the purpose of verifying past performance. A blank Past Performance Questionnaire Template is attached for your convenience and reference. If used, the Past Performance Questionnaire must be submitted by the offeror with the proposal submission and not sent directly to the agency from the reference. Performance evaluation information will not be counted against the page limits previously stated. SF330 Section G: It is acceptable for Section G to be 11”x17”. SF330 Section H: In SF330 Section H, each offeror shall produce a detailed Design Quality Management Plan including the following items: An explanation of the firm's project specific management approach. This would include an explanation of the firm’s management of sub-consultants (if applicable). Design Quality Control procedures for the completion of plans, specification, design analysis and electronic documents Risk management and risk mitigation processes, as well as procedures to ensure that internal resources are not over committed. This could include a discussion of project specific risks and potential mitigation processes that might be utilized to manage those risks. Procedures for performing either planning and/or design charrettes. Amendment 0001 ***************************************************************** In SF 330 Section H, all large businesses shall present a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Public Law 95-507 as part of the response to this RFP. The number of pages of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan do not count against the total page count for the response to the RFP. **********************************************************************Amendment 0001 Evaluation Criteria Content and Rating. Proposals shall be specific and complete in every detail and shall contain the information necessary to properly assess and evaluate the Contractor's capability to perform the specified contract services, based upon the following factors: Specialized Experience/Past Performance Design Quality Management Plan The information provided on the SF330s will be used to evaluate each Offeror’s proposal. The Government will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein, and award an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Contract (IDIQ) contract to the responsible offeror, whose proposal conforms with all the terms and conditions of the solicitation and who is deemed the most highly qualified. Task orders will be negotiated against the IDIQ contract. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors contained in the following paragraphs. Specialized Experience/Past Performance. Offerors will be evaluated on the following: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate the relevancy of the submitted projects in comparison to the project description for this solicitation. Projects that are determined to be very relevant will receive more consideration than projects that are considered to be relevant or somewhat relevant. The government will also evaluate how well the offeror performed on the projects that were submitted as evidence of specialized experience/past performance. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the provided references. In addition to the information submitted by the offeror, the Government reserves the right to review any other sources of relevant information for evaluating past performance, including projects other than those submitted by the offeror. The Government will, at a minimum, review past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/Unique Entity Identifier numbers. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved from 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. The Government will consider information in the Past Performance Questionnaires completed by personnel for whom the Offeror has performed work, and any information obtained from other sources. Evaluation of specialized experience/past performance will be based on subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. The Government's conclusions about the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance may influence the selection of the proposal. Offerors may receive additional consideration if they have successfully completed previous design experience work with either the USDA or the USACE. Offerors may also receive additional consideration for professionals identified in Section E. that have worked previously on any of the submitted projects from Section F. Offerors that demonstrate experience with planning and/or design charrettes, especially on projects that involve scientific research or construction project in a University setting may receive additional consideration. Offerors that demonstrate expertise in the planning and design of complete veterinary facilities that could support the housing, monitored feeding, removal of waste, medicating, hoisting, euthanizing, and diagnosing of small and large farm animals may also receive additional consideration. Design Quality Management Plan. Offerors will be evaluated on the following: Design Quality Management Plan narratives will be evaluated based on the level of understanding of the design process and the involvement the lead designers will have in the management, oversight, control, and coordination of the design work performed during the design of the project. Narratives that demonstrate a clear understanding of the design process involved in agricultural research facilities and provide a thorough approach for successfully managing the specialized requirements for agricultural research facilities may receive additional consideration by the SSEB. The offeror’s organizational chart will be evaluated based on the clarity, adequacy, and capabilities for successfully managing the solicited project. Evaluation Process The SSEB will be comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel. Offerors are advised that the evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence. Reviews of non-price factors will be conducted prior to any rates or pricing being submitted. The number and identities of offerors will not be revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. The evaluation process will consist of the following two parts: Specialized Experience and past performance evaluation The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the solicitation requirements. Using the relevancy ratings and confidence assessments defined in the tables below, these non-price factors will be evaluated based on the extent of recent and relevant past experience, and the quality of the offeror’s performance during that experience. Design Quality Management Plan The SSEB will evaluate and rate the proposals against the solicitation requirements. Amendment 0001 Changes Project Description - Removed for clarity. Section H - Removed reference to a Small Disadvantaged Subcontracting Plan Amendment 0002 Changes 1. Added More Questions and Answers