Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2016 FBO #5203
DOCUMENT

C -- A-E Services to Support Historical Renovations - Request for Qualifications

Notice Date

2/19/2016
 

Notice Type

Request for Qualifications
 

NAICS

541310 — Architectural Services
 

Contracting Office

Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, MCCS Camp Pendleton, AC/S MCCS, ATTN: PROCUREMENT, BOX 555020, BLDG. 1377, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, 92055-5020, United States
 

ZIP Code

92055-5020
 

Solicitation Number

PNM16R0004
 

Archive Date

3/15/2016
 

Point of Contact

Amanda L. Gillam, Phone: 7607251174, Richard Scott, Phone: 7607255339
 

E-Mail Address

amanda.gillam@usmc-mccs.org, richard.scott@usmc-mccs.org
(amanda.gillam@usmc-mccs.org, richard.scott@usmc-mccs.org)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

Request for Qualifications in.pdf form. SYNOPSIS ALL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STANDARD FORM (SF) 330, ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING QUALIFICATIONS, IS CONTAINED HEREIN. THERE IS NO SEPRATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) PACKAGE TO DOWNLOAD. ALL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFIs) MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING IN ORDER TO BE ANSWERED. RFIs WILL BE ANSWERED VIA FEDBIZOPS. NO PHONE CALLS WILL BE RESPNDED TO DURING OPEN PROCUREMENTS. RFIs MSUT BE SUBMITTED BY 23 FEB 2016, 2PM PST. MCCS intends to award a firm fixed price contract for Architectural and Engineering (AE) Services required for 100% Design Services for Repair Improvement project at the San Onofre Beach Club, located Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California. The proposed contract is being solicited as UNRESTRICTED, FULL AND OPEN to small and large business concerns. The anticipated design start is 14 MAR 2016. This project is currently planned for a late spring construction award. The magnitude of estimated cost of construction (ECC) range for this project is between $25,000 and $100,000. San Onofre Beach Club (SOBB) The SOBB at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, is a recently remodeled facility of approximately 9,755 SF on a 20 acre site that operates as a recreational beach club with a venue to hold special events and ceremonies. This facility will provide an enhanced experience for retirements, going aways, other celebrations, and training events. The structure was designed by a famous American architect, Myron Hunt, who is also responsible for designing the Rose Bowl. The areas have been rehabilitated to historical preservation standards. However, there is a portion of 2,516 square footage that was not upgraded to MCCS branding standards. Therefore, it is necessary to have flooring installed in the Fountain Room of the facility that meets MCCS standards as well as the Historical Society's criteria of acceptability. To meet the National Register of Historical Places' criteria, a study needs to be conducted to include a scope of work and materials proposed for installation. Services may also include field investigation, proposal services, and Post Award Construction Support (PCAS). Duties will also include, but are not limited to architectural programming, cost estimating, and pre-construction documentation. The project associated with this contract shall involve any combination of the following primary disciplines: Architectural, Interior Designer; and the following specialist: architect with Historical Society expertise. NOTE: MCCS requires all new general building construction projects to integrate high performance and sustainable building guidelines in accordance with applicable UFC requirements as well as other command-specific historical standards. The offeror may be required to conduct comprehensive surveys and provide designs, which will provide for the removal and disposal of any hazardous materials in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The facility will be compatible with applicable Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Department of Defense (DoD) and Camp Pendleton Requirements (CPR) design standards applicable to a historical building. The project will comply with historical requirements per UFCs. The flooring will be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of UFC -latest edition. All design and construction will meet requirements for essential historical society accreditation. The design for the flooring at SOBB will need to incorporate additional requirements not normally found on standard projects. In addition to standard industry codes and Unified Facilities Criteria, the design will need to comply with the following: •a. Camp Pendleton Requirements •b. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The above list may not be all inclusive, and additional standards may be required during the design process as required. Board Evaluation, Interview, and Selection Procedures: The Offeror shall demonstrate its capability to perform design work as required under this contract using the Standard Form 330 (SF330). The Offeror is required to complete ALL sections of Part I and Part II of the SF330. The Government will evaluate the completed SF330. This section describes the tasks required for completion of a fair, comprehensive board-selection process. •1. Evaluations. The evaluation for this project will be conducted using the Selection Evaluation Board (Short Selection Process) procedure and will be held at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California. The Selection Board Chairman will make arrangements for the evaluation completion of the screening of the SF 330 by the Procurement Division. Each SF 330 submitted will be evaluated individually and independently. •2. Familiarization. All members of the architect-engineer evaluation board will be composed of members who, collectively, have experience in architecture, engineering, construction, and Government and related acquisitions matters. Members will be appointed from among highly qualified professional employees from MCCS or other agencies. The members are required to be familiar with the contents of the synopsis before evaluation begins. The Chairman will bring the evaluation team members of advisory staff together prior to the evaluation of proposals to discuss the synopsis, the rating methodology, and each member's responsibilities. •3. Communication. All members of the evaluation organization are to communicate via e-mail and/or verbally whenever possible and prudent to the Government. All e-mail communication among the evaluation organization is to be protected as sensitive to source selection. •4. Receipt and Preparation of SF 330. The Contract Specialist will screen all SF 330s to ensure that each is properly completed, executed and submitted in accordance with the synopsis requirements. After this initial screening, the Contract Specialist will forward the SF 330s to the Selection Evaluation Board Chair for evaluation. •5. Evaluation. Each member of the evaluation organization will independently evaluate each SF 330 submitted to identify compliance with the synopsis, strengths and weaknesses, potential clarifications and possible deficiencies. The evaluation will be documented on rationale worksheets and conducted in accordance with the guidelines established in this synopsis. •6. Assessments. The evaluators' assessment of each SF 330 is the cornerstone of the evaluation process. The assessments form the basis for the award decision. Board members will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each firm as compared to the evaluation factors, and then compare each firm to the other until an agreement is reached as to how the firms are to be ranked. The board must discuss, as a minimum, (1) where the SF 330 meets or fails to meet the minimum requirements; (2) strengths/advantages and the benefit to the government should the firm receive award; (3) weaknesses/disadvantages/deficiencies and the impact each would have on the capability to perform. •7. The rating given under each of the evaluation criterion reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the requirement through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses deficiencies, and risk of an offer. The methodology used to evaluate the SF 330 and related risk will be based on a Met or Not Met determination for each evaluation criterion. An overall rating will not be given. •8. Interviews will be held with the most highly qualified firms. Interviews will be conducted telephonically after determination of the most highly qualified firms. Any information received during the interview process may be used as justification for the ranking of the firms based on the published selection criteria. •9. Selection: Following the interviews, the evaluation board shall reach a consensus on the order of preference of the short listed firms and provide the selection board report recommending to the Contracting Officer, in order of preference, at least three firms that are considered to be the most highly qualified. The Selection Board Report will include clear justification for the basis of selecting the most highly qualified firm and will be based solely on the evaluation criteria identified in the publicized synopsis/solicitation. The selection report will include documentation supporting the decision to include and exclude the firms from the selection. •10. After selection: After the Selection Report has been to the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer may release information identifying only the AE firm selected as the most highly qualified with which negotiations will be conducted. Because of the Selection of Architects and Engineers procedures, if a fair and a reasonable price cannot be negotiated with the number one ranked firms, the next most highly qualified firm may be contacted and requested to provide a fee proposal. At this time, the name of the second firm may be released. Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria are listed below in descending order of importance (first by major criterion and then by each sub-criterion within each major criterion). Criteria a-e are primary and will be evaluated for all offerors. Criteria f-h are secondary and will only be used as tie-breakers among firms that are essentially equal. •a. Specialized experience and technical competence in: • i. Design of major renovation and restoration of historic buildings. The contractor shall provide evidence of its experience with various types of historic building projects and the firms's involvement as it relates to the types of proposed services (design, work statement/specifications, cost estimating). Firms with this type of specialized experience will be given favorable consideration. This basis of the evaluation will be the information exclusively in Section F of the SF 330. • ii. Quality management. The evaluation will consider quality control coordination between disciplines and subcontractors and quality control procedures (type and timing of reviews). The effectiveness of the proposed project team (including management structure, coordination of disciplines, offices and/or subcontractors; and prior working relationships) will be considered within quality management. Quality control processes that are formalized and certified by a third party will be rated higher. The basis of the evaluation will be the description of the firm's quality management procedures exclusively in Section H of SF 330. A detailed quality control plan is not required with this submission but will be required subsequent to award of the contract. •b. Professional Qualifications. The Contractor shall provide evidence of its ability to provide a full range of services, specialized experience with historic buildings and composition of the team to include appropriate specialties and clear line of authority demonstrating appropriate internal controls for QA/QC from design through construction. The responding firms shall demonstrate professional qualifications in these key disciplines: • i. Project management • ii. Architecture • iii. Cost estimating • iv. Building commissioning • v. Interior design • vi. Historic architect • vii. The key disciplines will all be considered of equal value in the evaluation. The basis of evaluation will be information provided exclusively in Section E of the SF 330. The SF 330 shall include a matrix in Section G showing experience of the proposed lead designers on the projects listed in Section F of the SF 330. The education, professional registration, certifications, overall and relevant experience, longevity with the firm will be considered. Experience on similar projects will have greater importance. The lead designer for each discipline listed above shall be clearly identified in section E and shall be registered as required by MCCS policies, but does not have to be registered in the particular state where the project is located. This criterion is primarily concerned with the qualifications of the key personnel and not the number of personnel. The number of personnel is addressed under the capacity criterion below. Firms with in-house capabilities will be given favorable consideration. •c. Past Performance. • i. Past performance on DOD and other contracts with respect to cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules. If deemed appropriate by the evaluation board, performance evaluations for any significant team subcontractors who have previously been prime A-E contractors may also be considered. The board will consider the relevancy of each performance evaluation on AE services contracts to the proposed contract, including the type of work, performing office, age of the evaluation, and whether subsequent evaluations indicate a change in a firm's performance. The board may seek information on past performance from other sources. In particular, the board may evaluate the responding firm's past performance working in a collaborative environment with other contractors. Each project in Section F of the SF 330 shall include contact information for the owner and the construction contractor. A firm that has earned excellent evaluations and/or positive feedback on recent DOD and other contracts for similar size, scope, and complexity of projects will be given additional consideration. •d. Knowledge of the locality. • i. Knowledge of local conditions with California, specifically regarding: (1) climatic conditions (key discipline: architect); (2) local construction methods, including the Camp Pendleton Requirements; and (3) local construction climate impact on cost estimating (estimator). Climactic conditions, local construction methods, and local construction climate sub-criteria will be considered of equal value in the evaluation. One rating will be determined for each of the three conditions. Within each condition, appropriate experience must be shown in each discipline to be counted. Experience in Southern California area will have greater importance. Evaluation will exclusively look at the specific experience of the proposed team as stated in Section E of the SF 330. •e. Capacity to initiate work and complete within the time parameters of the project. The evaluation will consider the availability of an adequate number of personnel in the architect discipline will be considered •f. Secondary Selection Criteria. The following secondary criteria will only be used as a tie-breaker among firms that are essentially technically equal. The secondary criteria will not be co-mingled with the primary criteria in the evaluation. The two secondary criteria are listed in descending order of importance. • i. Geographic Proximity. Responding firms should identify any offices operated in closed proximity to Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, and the contribution these office(s) will be make in support of the project. The basis of the evaluation will be information submitted in Section H of the SF 330. • ii. Volume of DOD A-E contract awards in the last 12 months. Responding firms should cite all contract numbers, task orders and modifications, award dates and total negotiated fees for any DOD A-E contract awarded within the past twelve (12) months. This information will assist in effecting an equitable distribution of DOD A-E contracts among qualified firms. The basis of the evaluation will be information submitted in Section H of the SF 330. Submittal Requirements. Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit one original and five copies of the SF 330 and one electronic copy on CD in pdf format to the address listed below no later than 2:00 PM PST, on 29 February, 2016. Copies of the SF 330, Part II, for the prime firm and all consultants shall be included in the SF 330. Only one SF 330 Part I of the team as a whole shall be included. Include the firm's DUNS number in the SF 330, Part I, Section B, Block 4. A maximum of ten projects for the proposed team (including join ventures and team partners) shall be show in Section F. For the ten (10) projects submitted in Section F of the SF 330, a 'project' is defined as work performed at one site or a single installation. If the offeror provides a specific task order as a project, it shall provide the base contract number and the task order number for reference purposes. If the offeror provides a site-specific contract as a project, it shall provide the contract number for reference purposes. Project descriptions shall clearly state extent of work performed by team, extent of design completed (for instance, preparation of design-build package; 100% design; etc.), and dates of completion for design and construction. Projects or phases of projects with construction completed before January 2010 will not be considered. Projects (or phases of projects) for which design is not complete not be considered. The SF 330 shall have a total page limitation of 150 printed pages with section H limited to twenty (20 pages; each project in Section F shall be limited to two (2) pages; Part II is excluded from the 150 printed page limit. Double-sided sheets will count as two pages. Page sheets of 11 inches x 17 inches will be counted as two (2) pages. Tabs do not count against the page count limit. For all SF 330, sections use no smaller than 11 pt. font. Solicitation packages are not provided. In SF 330, Section, cite whether the experience is that of the prime (or joint venture), consultant or an individual. Work cited that is experience of the prime (or joint venture) from an office other than that identified in Section C shall be so labeled. This is not a request for proposal. Submit responses to: A/C MCCS Procurement Attn: R. A. Scott Box 555020, Bldg. 1377 Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5020 Questions. Questions should be addressed to Amanda Gillam via e-mail to amanda.gillam@usmc-mccs.org by no later than Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 2:00 PM PST. Include A/E Beach Club in the subject line.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/8228189ae4612cd1066bdb4f3956c5a5)
 

Document(s)

Request for Qualifications
 

File Name: Download SF330 form at link provided. (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116486)

Link: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116486

 

Note: If links are broken, refer to Point of Contact above or contact the FBO Help Desk at 877-472-3779.
 

Place of Performance

Address: San Onofre Beach Club, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Camp Pendleton, California, 92055, United States

Zip Code: 92055
 

Record

SN04024978-W 20160221/160219234233-8228189ae4612cd1066bdb4f3956c5a5 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |