SAM #36C25627Q0022

Building 170 Courtyard Window Recaulking and TPO Detail Repairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs seeks a contractor to stop water infiltration at Building 170’s courtyard windows at the Eugene J. Towbin Veterans Healthcare Center in North Little Rock, Arkansas. - Government buyer: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Network Contracting Office 16; Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. - Requested service: One job to repair and recaulk Building 170 courtyard windows, including areas by the 1B and 1C patios serving rooms G101A, G101B, and GF100. - Inspect the TPO roofing membrane and identify deficiencies; install and seal a termination bar; reattach or replace face caps; remove metal flashing and seal former fastener holes. - Restore pavers, clean windows and the work area, and disassemble/reassemble the courtyard entrance awning if needed. The contractor supplies labor, materials, equipment, supervision, and transportation. - Technical requirements: Follow VA TPO Specification 07 54 23 and applicable fall-protection and scaffold requirements. Protect curtainwall components and restore the site after work. The referenced TPO specification includes a reinforced 1.5 mm (60 mil) membrane and a 10-year manufacturer warranty requirement; project-specific material quantities are not stated. - Period of performance: Complete the work within 30 days after Notice to Proceed. Work is normally during standard daytime hours, subject to coordination. - Set-aside: Certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). - OEMs and vendors: No specific OEM, manufacturer, or vendor is named. The TPO specification refers to products and materials selected from the roofing-system manufacturer but does not identify a brand. - Estimated value: Not stated in the notice; estimated range is $10,000–$50,000.

Description

Proposal Format and Evaluation Proposal size will be limited as shown and font/size shall be Arial 11. Title pages, headers, and exhibits do not count towards the page limitations. If these page limits are exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit will not be read or considered. Offerors shall submit 1 (one) email. Email shall include a consolidated PDF file, no larger than 10mb, as an attachment, outlining each factor, as listed below:

Email Requirements Subject Line: Company Name, 36C25627Q0022 See Proposal Submission Requirements in the table below.

Proposal Submission Requirements VOL I — Factor 1 Submission Requirement: Material to satisfy Subfactor 1a criteria outlined below. Material to satisfy Subfactor 1b criteria outlined below. Factor 2 Submission Requirement: Offeror shall provide a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) projects completed within the last five (5) years similar in size, complexity, and scope to this project. Factor 3 — Price Submission Requirement: Signed 1442 and Amendments Completed Schedule of Offer Items

Definitions Recent: within past five (5) years from the date of solicitation issuance. Relevant: for purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is defined as completed in a clinical, hospital or other medical related use space similar in size and scope to this project.

Evaluation Factors Factor I (Approach Quality Management Technical Factor), Factor II (Professional Qualifications & Specialized Experience Technical Factor), and Factor III (Past Performance) are equal in importance. Factors I, II, and III, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to Factor IV (Price).

FACTOR 1 — APPROACH QUALITY MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL FACTOR Subfactors Subfactor 1a — Management Approach Narrative/Schedule Subfactor 1b — Quality Management The following subfactors are in descending order of importance:

<p><strong>Subfactor 1a — Management Approach Narrative/Schedule</strong></p>
<p><strong>Instructions</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li>Offeror shall demonstrate/explain how this project will be accomplished, based on the offeror’s best interpretation of the solicitation documents.</li>
  <li>Offeror shall provide techniques for maintaining on-time schedule performance and provide a detailed explanation as to how the project will be implemented and managed to ensure compliance with all OSHA Construction Standards, Fire and Life Safety Issues, and Security Measures.</li>
  <li>Offeror shall provide a schedule with critical path based off a fictional NTP date of 1/1/2027.</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Subfactor 1b — Quality Management</strong></p>
<p><strong>Instructions</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li>Offeror shall specify the roles/positions responsible for quality management &amp; explain the authority those individual(s) have to ensure quality work is provided.</li>
  <li>Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation of proposed quality control techniques for compliance with the solicitation requirements.</li>
  <li>Offeror shall provide a narrative on how quality issues are managed and resolved for construction projects.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Evaluation Methodology:</strong> The VA will evaluate Management Approach, and Quality Management to determine if the offeror understands the complexity and risk mitigation of performing all the required tasks included in this construction project. This technical factor will be evaluated for the offeror’s interpretation of the solicitation technical areas outlined in the drawings, specifications, SOW, and evaluation factor criteria. The offeror’s narratives should provide enough detail to demonstrate that the scope and complexity of the project requirements are understood and will be successfully completed.</p>

FACTOR 2 — PAST PERFORMANCE Projects must demonstrate an offeror’s experience as a prime contractor managing multiple subcontractors. Project(s) shall have a minimum construction value of between $25,000 and $100,000 and be 100% completed/or ongoing (>50% complete). The offeror’s submission should include at a minimum: Project Title Project Location (Physical Address) Contract Type (Example: Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build, Service, Construction) Project Owner’s Name & Current Contact Information Brief Description of the Scope of Work (highlight recent/relevant factors) Identify Project Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors Project Start & Completion Date Project Original Contract Award Amount & Final Award Amount For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity type contracts, the whole contract shall not be submitted as a project; rather offerors shall submit the work performed under a single task order as a project to demonstrate recent/relevancy. If the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant past performance should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared past performance, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. Offerors who fail to submit past performance for all Joint Venture partners may be rated lower. Evaluation Methodology: Past performance will be evaluated based on the projects provided by the offeror, and performance information from government databases. Focus will be on recent and relevant construction contracts that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity. The Intent of this evaluation is to evaluate the demonstrated ability to successfully complete comparable requirements, ensuring they have the experience and capability to deliver quality results on time, within budget, and incompliance with project specifications.

<p><strong>Performance Relevancy Definitions</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Very Relevant:</strong> Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.</li>
  <li><strong>Relevant:</strong> Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.</li>
  <li><strong>Somewhat Relevant:</strong> Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.</li>
  <li><strong>Not Relevant:</strong> Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Performance Confidence Assessments</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Substantial Confidence:</strong> Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.</li>
  <li><strong>Satisfactory Confidence:</strong> Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.</li>
  <li><strong>Limited Confidence:</strong> Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.</li>
  <li><strong>No Confidence:</strong> Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.</li>
  <li><strong>Unknown Confidence (Neutral):</strong> 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.</li>
</ul>

<p>Based on the evaluation of offers, the Government will assign a performance confidence rating for each proposal at the factor level. The evaluation will consider the sub-factors as described herein. The resulting evaluation will assign one of the confidence ratings as defined in the table above. The SSEB must establish overall team ratings by consensus and not by vote. If a consensus cannot be reached, the SSEB will provide the SSA with written majority and minority opinions. The SSEB will ensure that none of the SSEB members have misinterpreted or misunderstood any aspects of the proposal prior to issuing the majority and minority opinions.</p>
<p>The SSEB must establish overall team ratings by consensus and not by vote. If a consensus cannot be reached, the SSEB will provide the SSA with written majority and minority opinions. The SSEB will ensure that none of the SSEB members have misinterpreted or misunderstood any aspects of the proposal prior to issuing the majority and minority opinions.</p>

FACTOR 3 — Price Proposal Requirements Evaluation Methodology: The purpose of the price evaluation is to provide an assessment of the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed price in relation to the solicitation requirements. Price proposals will be evaluated to determine if the prices and support costs areas are: Complete: The proposal contains costs to perform all tasks required by the Scope of Work (SOW), specifications, and design drawings if provided. Reasonable: The price is determined fair and reasonable using cost or price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. In accordance with FAR 15.101-1(b)(2), the solicitation shall state that all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price. Prices that are too high, too low, or otherwise found to be unreasonable in comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and to historical prices may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal not being included into the competitive range if one is established. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether or not it complies with the stated criteria. Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying all the price/cost criteria, for example, may be eliminated from consideration for award unless the SSA determines: A minor clerical error has occurred, then the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the “clarifications” process. A competitive range will be established if discussions are necessary as determined by the SSA. Should the SSA determine that discussions are necessary, they will be held with only those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. Any proposal that does not have a reasonable chance of receiving award may be accordingly eliminated from competition and further evaluation. After the non-price factors have been evaluated and rankings have been established, price will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation of price will be based on each offeror’s price proposed. Responsibility determination will be made IAW FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors prior to award of contract.

V. Basis for Award This is a competitive source selection process which will result in a single contract award. The government anticipates discussions to be held. If a competitive range is established, proposals that do not have a reasonable chance of receiving award may be accordingly eliminated from competition and further evaluation. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

View original listing