DOS VSR 27th Floor, Summit Federal Building ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Amendment 0001 DOS @ Summit 27th Floor - Construction a. Amendment 0001 is hereby issued to provide responses to question received as a result of the site visit. b. Responses to questions are provided... Amendment 0001 DOS @ Summit 27th Floor - Construction a. Amendment 0001 is hereby issued to provide responses to question received as a result of the site visit. b. Responses to questions are provided enclosed. These are the questions that were provided by the contractors. 1. Will the sign-in sheet be provided? Response: Contractor sign in sheet will not be provided. 2. Is the GSA PM Software Kahooa required? Response: Yes, Kahua will be required. 3. Is a HAZMAT report available for the 27th Floor? Response: Yes 4. What rooms require the Woodworks Vector Ceiling tile with Axiom Vector Edge Trim? Response: Woodworks Vector Ceiling with Axiom Vector Edge Trim is located in the Lobby and Training Room. Attached RCP has been updated to reflect this. 5. If the existing ceiling tile cannot be recycled by the tile manufacturer(s), is disposing of them as general construction waste acceptable? Response: Awarded contractor will need to provide a plan for achieving the required LEED credits for construction and demolition waste management. The following resources are available for the recycling of ceiling tiles: Metro Green Recycling accepts ACT (Locations | Metro Green Recycling (mgrecycle.com)). You will need to contact them with the product details to ensure that they are able to accept and recycle it. Armstrong has a Ceiling Recycling program (Ceilings Recycling Program | Armstrong Ceiling Solutions Commercial). They accept All brands of dry, palpable mineral fiber ceiling panels or tiles,â as well as fiberglass panels, vinyl, scrim-faced panels on case-by-case basis. Verify with Armstrong ceilings recycling center (877-276-7876 Option 4) as to whether the tile will be accepted. Separate hauling of ceiling tile will need to be coordinated with building management. 6. What are the interior dimensions of the service elevator and what is its weight capacity? Response: See attached additional information for the preparation requirements. c. Proposal response date has been extended from May18, 2023 to May 25, 2023 and time for response remains unchanged. d. Time to receive questions has passed. No additional questions will be responded to. SOLICITATION NOTICE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 27TH FLOOR, SUMMIT FEDERAL BUILDING - ATLANTA, GA GEORGIA SOLICITATION NO. 47PE00323R0001 The Southeast Sunbelt Region of Public Buildings Services of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Region 4, formal announcement opportunity for excellence. This opportunity shall be for General Construction in Atlanta, Georgia . The Project Name and Location: Construction of Space for Summit Federal Building, Department of State 27th Floor 401, Atlanta, GA. This opportunity is for qualified Offerors desiring to compete in the procurement process for the subject Construction project. This procurement is set aside for Small businesses and advertised to General Construction Contractors. The project delivery method being used is Firm Fix Price (FFP). The contract type Construction Services. The General Construction Contractor shall be responsible ensure that all requirements construction are met. GSA intends to contract for Construction services with Contractor that offers the best overall value to the Government. Services are expected to commence upon award of the contract on or about July 2023. The project includes space alterations, consisting of demolition and installation of; new partitions, fire rated partitions, doors, hardware, new gypsum board, ceiling system, new light fixtures, and new telephone-data installation. Work shall include modifying the mechanical ductwork, modifying-relocate sprinkler heads, electrical work for new lights and outlets, new telephone and data outlets, providing conduit and junction boxes for the security system, and coordinating security devices. This project will ensure that the newly installed mechanical work is fully coordinated with the building’s BAS. The work also includes upgrades to the fire alarm system on the floor to include ensuring that it code compliant in accordance with all applicable codes. The project also includes replacement of the windows caulking (interior and exterior) as well as potential glass replacement. The estimated cost range is between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 for Construction Work. The North American Industry Classification System Code(s) (NAICS) for this procurement is 236220. The General Construction Contractor will be competitively chosen using Source Selection (FAR 15.3) procedures. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for construction . Construction Phase Work” means all work and services, including general conditions, necessary for the construction of the project described by the plans, specifications. A best value concept will be applied for evaluation of offers and selection of the successful Offeror for this procurement. The best value approach provides the opportunity to select an Offeror who is not necessarily the lowest-priced or the highest technically-ranked. GSA will select the proposal that represents the best value based on the evaluation of technical factors and price, with technical factors being weighed more important than price. Request for Proposals (RFP) - Proposals will be evaluated and scored according to technical evaluation factors included in the Solicitation document. The technical proposals will be reviewed and evaluated prior to and separately from the review of price proposals. As part of the evaluation, the Contracting Officer and Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct interviews. However, the Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions or oral presentations (clarifications may be made as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms. Final selection will be made based on technical factors being more important than price (price being represented by the Offeror’s proposal for Construction Services). If interviews are conducted, firms will be interviewed by members of the SSEB. The following criteria represent the factors that will be used by GSA’s Source Selection Evaluation Board in evaluating proposals. EVALUATION CRITERIA ELEMENTS Department of State Relocation 27th floor of the Peachtree Summit Federal Building Evaluation Factors Statement of Technical Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Importance The Government will make award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government. For this solicitation, technical quality is significantly more important than price. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following technical evaluation factors, in accordance with the weight assigned to each. As proposals become more equal in their technical merit, their price will become more important. Evaluation Criteria Element Weight Past Performance 3.5 Prior Experience 3.0 Organizational Structure & Key Personnel 2.5 Understanding of the Project 1.0 Total 10.0 Weight is multiplied by a raw score (ranging between 1 and 10) that is assigned by the evaluator. Scoring Guidelines for Technical Evaluation Factors Score each factor in accordance with the following guidelines: Adjectival Rating Numerical Rating (Raw Score) Description Excellent 10 The proposal significantly exceeds, in all aspects, the standard for evaluation. There are no significant weaknesses or deficiencies identified and the proposal must have at least one significant strength. There is a very high probability that the contractor will be successful which presents the lowest risk to the government if they were awarded the project. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Very Good 8 - 9 The proposal exceeds, to varying degrees, one or more of the requirements identified in the standard for evaluation. There are no significant weaknesses or deficiencies identified and the proposal must have at least one strength. There is high probability that the contractor will be successful which presents slight risk to the government if they were awarded the project. Slightly greater than normal contractor effort and Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Good 5 - 7 The proposal meets all aspects of the standard for evaluation. There are no significant weaknesses or deficiencies identified. There is moderate probability that the contractor will be successful and is neutral on the risk that is presented to the government if they were awarded the project. Enhanced contractor effort and concentrated Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Marginal 3 – 4 The proposal is slightly below the standard for evaluation but for the most part, complies with that standard. There is one or more weakness or deficiency identified in the proposal which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. There is a low probability that the contractor will be successful which presents moderate risk to the government if they were awarded the project. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. Unacceptable 0 – 2 One or more elements of the offeror’s proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation; or the proposal has major shortcomings when measured against the standard for evaluation and does not meet the standard for evaluation. There are numerous significant weaknesses and at least one deficiency identified which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. There is no probability that the contractor will be successful which presents the highest risk to the government if they were awarded the project. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Note: The numerical rating (raw score) is multiplied by the factor’s weight to arrive at the weighted score. Definitions Deficiency a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses, in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Major Subcontractors proposed subcontractors that contribute to the effort as proposed by the Prime Offeror for all CLINs combined. Past performance information related to predecessor companies or subcontractors will be considered the same as past performance information of the principal Offeror. Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Significant Weakness as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Relevant: similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicited project. Strength an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during contract performance Uncertainty a doubt regarding whether an aspect of a proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. Weakness as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance Description of Technical Factors and Standards of Evaluation. Factor 1 – Past Performance This criterion measures the quality of the offeror’s past performance for similar projects as defined herein. Quality is judged with respect to workmanship, administration, cost control, cooperation, safety, and adherence to schedule and will be evaluated through reference checks made by the Government on relevant projects, completed or in progress, that include activity-specific experience. Information Required: References – The contractor shall provide up to 5 complete or ongoing projects done in the last five years as it relates to the relevant project summary. For each project listed on the relevant project summaries, provide references that may be contacted regarding the quality of performance (name, title, current address, and telephone number for each.) Also, describe why the project is comparable in nature, type and complexity to the project described under this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to complete reference checks on projects not identified by the offeror in its proposal. Activity-Specific Experience – For each of the relevant projects identified, provide information to demonstrate the offeror’s firm and the key subcontractors’ firm performance in the following activities relevant to this project: Describe the relevance (similar work) to the Building F project Describe experience working in a non-adversarial relationship with the owner or agency of the federal government for major additions or new construction, including renovation projects. Explain in detail how the non-adversarial relationship was handled and specifically identify the projects where this experience was gained. Describe experience in providing value engineering. Explain in detail the methods used and identify the projects where this experience was gained. Describe experience in maintaining project quality and scheduling. Provide a description and explain the project quality, budget and schedule control methods used and identify the projects where this experience was gained. Demonstrate successful projects where major coordination of prior and follow-on construction work was facilitated by the offeror. Illustrations of coordination techniques are pertinent. Describe the experience or methods used to settle disputes. Identify the projects where this experience was gained. Provide a list of up to 20 additional ongoing and/or completed projects that have been performed in the past 5 years with names and contact information for the A/E, CM, and Owner’s Representative. If no CM involvement, please identify as not applicable. Standard for Evaluation: Offeror’s Performance Questionnaire (provided by GSA) are provided for at least two (2) of the projects. The standard is met when: Offeror demonstrates how each project is similar and comparable in scope and complexity to the project requirement for this RFQ. Offeror describes their non-adversarial relationship with the owner or agency of the federal government. Offeror demonstrates their experience in providing value engineering and maintaining project quality and scheduling. Offeror demonstrates their successful method of settling disputes. Offeror provided a list of up to 20 ongoing and/or completed projects done in the last 5 years. NOTE: The offeror should make the best endeavor to submit the best proposal possible. If an offeror does not have any past performance to submit for this factor, it will not count negatively against them. They will be evaluated out of a reduced weighted score of 6.5 (maximum) instead of 10. If an offeror does have past performance that could be submitted in response to this factor, but chooses to omit it and GSA discovers it, the contractor’s proposal will be deemed as deficient and will be evaluated accordingly. Based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality of work, the Government will assign an overall Past Performance Rating as follows: Rating Definition Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant/quality performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Neutral No recent/relevant/quality performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Government will assess past performance information to determine if it is recent. Past performance information that does not meet the definition of “recent” will be considered “not recent” and will not be evaluated. If any part of performance falls within the “recent” timeframe, the Government may consider the entire performance in its evaluation of past performance. The Government will assess past performance information that has been determined to be recent to ascertain its relevancy to the scope of this solicitation. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In assessing relevancy, the Government may consider all information it receives or obtains, such as contract type and dollar value, program phase, division of company, and major subcontractors, as well as performance information related to efforts the Offeror or major subcontractors performed for other agencies of Federal, State, or local Government, and commercial customers. Factor 2 – Prior Experience This criterion measures the relevancy of the offeror’s prior experience to the requirements of this project. Information Required: Information submitted under this shall consist of a Master Project List and Relevant Project Summary for both the Prime Contractor and the Team Members: Mechanical, Electrical and Security subcontractors. NOTE: The maximum number of projects submitted shall be five (5) projects. Offerors shall limit the information provided on each project to two pages. There is a page limitation of 10 pages for this factor. The Offeror shall provide the following information for each project on the Master Project List for both the Prime Contractor and Key Subcontractors: Name of Project Owner’s name and telephone number of the owner’s representative most knowledgeable of the project Occupant(s)/Tenant(s) Location Description of the Project GSF / OSF Special Features of Project (Security System, Historical Considerations) Construction Type Contract Type Contractors’ Responsibilities (Scope of Work) (If Subcontractor on the project, describe the function/service on the project) Date Of Award Date of Substantial Completion Date of Completion Construction Cost at Award Construction Cost at Completion Schedule Completion Time (days) Actual Completion Time (days) Number of Change Orders Classification (reason for) of Change Orders Claims and/or Appeals Filed, Including Litigation Special Features of Project (Security System, Historical Considerations) Standard for Evaluation: Relevant Project Summary: The Prime Contractor and the Team Members: Mechanical, Electrical and Security subcontractors shall provide relevant project summaries for a minimum of two (2) projects it deems most relevant to this project. NOTE: Failure of the Offeror to submit at least two (2) relevant projects for itself and at least two for each of the team members shall result in a deficiency for this criterion. The standard is met when: The Prime Contractor and the Team Members: Mechanical, Electrical and Security subcontractors Offeror demonstrates at least two (2) similar projects and no more than five (5), within the past five (5) years meets all seven (7) of the following characteristics: Two projects must be completed after 2019; OR demonstrate 85% completion or better; Two projects must be relevant as defined herein; At least one of the projects must have been executed as a General Contractor or a Construction Manager at Risk; Each project building submitted must contain a minimum of 100,000 gross square feet; At least one of the projects must be a Mid-rise (3-5 stories) type; Two of the projects submitted must have a minimum construction value of $5 Million and; The Offeror must show evidence of Construction experience within the Southeast Sunbelt Region to include – South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and/or Alabama. The Team Members: Mechanical, Electrical and Security subcontractors offeror must provide evidence of their portion of the total project cost (defined as actual cost at time of completion in total subcontract construction costs, excluding demolition) Value of the Scope of THEIR work. Factor 3 – Organizational Structure and Key Personnel This criterion measures the offeror’s plan for managing the project and the proposed lines of communication. This factor will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Team has a successful and satisfactory track record on relevant projects. Offerors shall identify the Key Personnel who will manage the overall efforts and perform the major duties required in this Solicitation. Key Personnel shall be those persons who will have major project responsibilities and/or who will provide unusual or unique capabilities and whose availability are considered critical to the accomplishment of required services. More favorable consideration will be given to those Key Personnel who have worked together on relevant projects. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance may be considered. Key Personnel past performance will be evaluated based on the information received as part of the past performance questionnaires, phone interviews with identified customers, project descriptions, and relevance summaries. The Government may also consider information obtained from any other sources. (Maximum of 20 pages) Information Required Corporate Structure and Depth - The Offeror shall submit an organization chart for its team for this project, showing organizational positions. This chart shall show lines of authority within the organization, as well as lines of communication connecting the project organization, the corporate organization, and the Government. Offerors shall describe their plans for securing and maintaining the key personnel and resources necessary to complete this project. Key Personnel - The offeror shall identify a minimum of five (5) key positions in their organization they intend to utilize for Building F Project and shall provide a rationale for selecting these personnel for these positions as being “key”. The Offeror shall provide resumes for its key personnel. Resumes must document recent and relevant experience (within the past three years), shall be a maximum of two pages, include beginning and ending month and year for each job, and include the following information: The Offeror shall indicate Key Personnel listed below and state their availability and responsibility to the proposed project. The Offeror shall provide evidence of the competency, past performance, and related experience for key personnel to be assigned to this project. Resumes shall be included for the following minimum five (5) Key Personnel: Project Manager Construction Superintendent Quality Control Manager CPM Scheduler MEP Coordinator/Commissioning Note: Any of the above Key Personnel may be represented by the same individual/firm, except as noted in the description of the contractor roles and responsibilities outlined in the RFP. Offerors must clearly note in their proposal any of the above Team members who will be represented by the same individual/firm. Offeror shall show evidence of successful participation for each Key Personnel in projects since 1 January 2021 of similar size, type and scope as described herein and provide any or all eight (8) of the following characteristics: Professional Experience Level; Currently held position/title; Proposed project position/title; Education, professional or skilled background; Professional licensing or certifications; Personal awards received; Previous government experience; Previous experience working with other Key personnel, and work experience since January 1, 2021; A detailed list of projects and the level of involvement (full-time, part-time, and responsibilities on project, etc.). A list of three (3) references that can provide appropriate feedback about the quality of performance and technical capabilities of the individual. Include a contact name, company, address and current telephone number. Position and number of years with the Offeror. The extent to which any key personnel have worked with each other. Standard for Evaluation: Project organizations, staffed with personnel experienced on projects of similar size, scope and complexity, with favorable performance evaluations will be judged more favorably than proposals reflecting less experience, less favorable performance evaluations and lack of understanding of the process. Staffing summaries will be judged less favorably if it is not evident that a sufficient number of people (with reasonable contingency) in the right trades/disciplines are directly available to complete the project on time. The standard is met when: The proposal discusses the relevant qualifications, experience, education, background, specific assignments, and other significant information for each proposed key member of the contractor’s team; At a minimum the Project Manager; Construction Superintendent; Quality Control Manager; CPM Scheduler; and MEP Coordinator/Commissioning must be provided. The Project Manager and General Superintendent should have experience on a least one (1) relevant project. A more favorable evaluation is given for additional personnel provided and that their background most closely is related to this project. A higher rating is given to experience on new construction projects that had green and sustainable requirements; and construction; and had the Government as a client (Federal, State and Local); A higher rating will be given if the Offeror shows mechanical, building automation, electrical and elevator personnel as key personnel. A higher rating will be given to Offerors with Key personnel that have worked on a project involving a higher level of security requirements in execution and systems. Factor 4 – Understanding of the Project This criterion measures the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the project through a proposed management plan, identification of key subcontractors, proposed schedule along with a risk management assessment for execution of the work as described herein and contained within the contract drawings and specifications provided. The offeror’s understanding of the project may be further evaluated if further discussions or clarifications are needed. (Maximum of 15 pages) Information Required: Management Plan – Offerors shall submit a narrative management plan describing how the offeror intends to execute the work in the field. This project requires occupancy to take place by July 31, 2024. Particular attention shall be placed on the sequencing of work and on how the offeror intends to manage its subcontractors and how it intends to cooperate and coordinate with follow-on contractors, to ensure a smooth working relationship with the Government Project Team and the adjacent occupied facilities. The offeror shall discuss its procedures for ensuring strict quality control relative to both workmanship and materials. Particular attention shall be devoted to identifying routes for the removal of demolition/excavation material, phasing and sequencing of the work and security management plan. The management plan shall include a summary narrative for the following: Construction Project Controls Construction Quality Control Security Management Plan Safety Plan Environmental Plan (Offerors shall submit a written discussion of current operational practices that have shown environmental stewardship. Project Close-Out Exterior Site Logistics Change Order Plan Cost Control Plan Dispute Resolution Plan Quality Control plan Identification of Key Subcontractors - The offeror shall identify the Key Subcontractors (such as security, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, interior/exterior construction and finishes, etc.) they intend to utilize. The offeror must provide a rationale for selecting these as being “key.” The offeror may identify single or multiple key subcontractors as they wish but must include a summary explaining why they have chosen to submit more than one for any given trade. The offeror shall also identify the number of HSPD-12 clearance held by each Key Subcontractor along with the expiration date. The legal names of the individuals with said clearances shall be provided for verification. If the submitted subcontractor is replaced on the project staff, they shall be replaced by another contractor with the same clearance. No cleared contractor shall be replaced with another who does not have the same clearance. Proposed Schedule - Provide a project schedule in Gantt chart format for execution of the project from award of the contract to completion of testing, acceptance and commissioning of the buildings, showing Substantial Completion on or by January 31, 2024. This type of schedule is sometimes called a Level 2 schedule, the proposed schedule should provide sufficient detail to illustrate the proposed flow of construction activities for the project. It is anticipated that a schedule with nominally 75-100 activities should provide sufficient detail for evaluation purposes. Specific items that have long lead times shall be identified with a that lead time shown in the schedule. If the offeror has any recommendations for remedy to those long lead times, that information shall be provided in narrative form along with the schedule. A manpower Schedule, (Bar Chart Form), indicating Key Personnel for all phases of the project and the estimated man-hours each will dedicate to the project for each of key personnel. Develop this information to show a monthly approach. Risk Management Assessment Offerors shall submit a written assessment of the challenges and threats to the budget, as well as discuss their expectations for project efficiencies to maintain schedule completion. Offerors shall address the most significant risks associated with this portion of the project. Offerors shall provide a description of how they propose to mitigate/manage those risks. Offers shall also describe the results, lessons learned, etc. from previous experiences related to the risks associated with this project, giving specific examples from the projects. Standard for Evaluation: An Offeror presenting a clear, complete Plan that addresses all points described above will be judged more favorably. Schedules that contain unusual assumptions or place greater responsibility on the Government for timely completion will be judged less favorably than schedules in which the builder anticipates, plans, and accepts responsibility for reasonable contingencies. The standard is met when: The management plan is provided and includes all summary narratives; Identifies key subcontractors and required information for clearance verification. A contractor MAY receive a higher rating for having greater than half of their submitted key subcontractors already in possession of the HSPD-12 clearance. A level 2 schedule is provided A manpower schedule is provided A risk management assessment is provided General Construction contractors, are invited to respond, by submitting one (1) Technical Proposal and (1)Price Proposal File Separately, Electronically to leslie.smalls@gsa.gov. The submission should be organized to correspond with the evaluation factors. The total submission should not exceed forty-five (45) 8-1/2”x 11” pages (not including Table of Contents or Section Separators), with one-inch margins, and in a font not less than 12-point in size. Font style is optional. Interested firms must submit their submission. One Titled: Technical Proposal and the other Titled: Price Proposal. no later than 2:00 PM EST VIA Email to the Contracting Officer Leslie M. Smalls; leslie.smalls@gsa.gov on May 18, 2023. Site visit date is scheduled to be held on April 26th, 2023 at 10:00 am. Construction Documents and Specification will be r...
Links ()
Attachments ()
Data sourced from SAM.gov.
View Official Posting »