Y--Replace Family Housing Phases 4 and 5, Ellsworth AFB, SD

DRAFT solicitation (DRAFT-06-R-0007) Replacement Family Housing at Ellsworth AFB, SD, Phases 4 and 5 was posted on FEDTEDS 4-25-2006 and announced in the FEDBIZOPS to allow industry an opportunity to provide comments and have input into the solicitat ion and its content. The DRAFT solicitation is NOT to be construed as the official advertisement for the work stated. An Official Solicitation will be posted on FEDTEDS and in FEDBIZOPS upon receipt of finalized documents from internal sources to be published as the official solicitation. It is anticipated that the official solicitation will be published early in July, 2 006 however a firm date has not yet been established. Please continue to watch the FEDBIZOPS for further updated information. NOTE! See Change in resonse date. Please note the following minutes from the industry forum and list of attendees. Meeting Minutes Industry Forum / Site Visit Replace Family Housing Phase 4 & 5, Ellsworth AFB, SD Sol. No. W9128F-06-R-0007 Date: May 9, 2006 Time: 0900 Location: Education Center Ellsworth AFB, SD Attendees: See Below The Industry Forum conference commenced at 9:00 a.m. with a project overview and a question and answer session. At approximately 11:00 a.m. the attendees were shown a vacant housing unit that is scheduled to be demolished in this project. Attendees were ca utioned that the written requirements of the solicitation take precedence over verbal communications of the conference/site visit. Minutes are as follows: INTRODUCTIONS: All parties in attendance introduced themselves and the organization they represented. An attendance roster was distributed for everyone in attendance to sign. A copy of the attendance roster is included below. Index cards were distributed for Contractors to submit any formal questions. However, no formal questions were submitted. See Contractor Questions and Answers for discussion items that were made during the meeting. It was noted that anything stated in the Industry Forum was not contractually binding and that the written RFP provides the formal contractual requirements. STATUS OF ELLSWORTH HOUSING: Larry Herges from Ellsworths Base Civil Engineering Office (28 CES) gave a brief overview of the Ellsworth Housing history and the future work that remains to be done. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: This solicitation is for a stand alone design / build RFP. It is a fixed price contract. The scope of work for this RFP is as follows: Phase 4 (FY 05): 75 new housing units including: 25 JNCO 4-Bedroom units, 14 SNCO 4-Bedroom units, 22 CGO 4-Bedroom units, 7 E9 3 bedroom units, 4 E9 4 Bedroom units, and 3 SO 4 Bedroom units. There are handicap adaptable units for the JNCO 4BR, CGO 4BR, E 9 4BR, and all 3 of the SO units. An error on the current bid schedule was identified where a single E9-4BR handicap adaptable (ADA) unit was inadvertently omitted. The JNCO and SNCO/CGO units shall be in duplex configuration with E9 and SO units in single family units. There are 102 existing housing units to be demolished and 110 units that have previously been removed but still have the excavation that needs to be filled in and utilities that need to be removed. Housing units shall be designed to match th e concept floor plans and elevations and the concept site plans shown in the RFP Drawings. The Contractors shall base their proposal on the RFP plans with minor adjustments, as necessary and as described in the RFP, during the design stage. There is an alt ernate proposal in the planning stages to allow 4-Plex Townhouses for all the JNCO 4 Bedroom units as well. These would be horizontal 4-Plex townhouses with 2 hr fire rated, structurally independent party walls between each unit. Phase 5 (FY 06): 60 new h ousing units that are all JNCO 4 Bedroom units in duplex configuration. There are 116 existing housing units to be demolished. Housing units shall be designed to match the concept floor plans and elevations and the concept site plans shown in the RFP Drawings. The Contractors shall base their proposal on the RFP plans with minor adjustments, as necessary and as described in the RFP, during the design stage. There is an alternate proposal in the planning stages to al low 4-Plex Townhouses for all the JNCO 4 Bedroom units as well. These would be horizontal 4-Plex townhouses with 2 hr fire rated, structurally independent party walls between each unit. The RFP concept site plans and the Pricing Schedule (00010) show an Area 1 and 2 for Phase 4 and an Area 3 and 4 for Phase 5. Area 1 and 3 is shown as the minimum scope requirement of 75% of the total scope for Phase 4 and Phase 5 respectively. The Gover nment cannot make an award of a contract for less than 75% of scope without a reprogramming effort. Area 2 and Area 4 is the remainder of the housing units. The intent is to award a contract for the minimum scope plus any additional units in Area 2 (Ph 4) & Area 4 (Ph 5) that can be afforded within the Construction Cost Limitation (CCL). The location of the Phase 4 & 5 work is shown on the referenced Demo, Site, & Utility Plans in the RFP. All utilities including Water, Sanitary, Gas, Electrical, Telephone, & Cable T.V. are to be replaced as shown on the RFP Drawings. Streets are to be r eplaced and widened in areas indicated on the RFP drawings with new curb and gutter. The utilities are typically located under the streets in an effort to preserve as many trees as possible. No playgrounds are required to be replaced but existing playgroun ds need to be protected and reutilized. Reference Section 01000, Parts 1 through 14, for specific design and material requirements. CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS & PROPOSAL EVALUATION : This solicitation is a One Phase Acquisition where the Contractors will submit one complete proposal that will be evaluated and a contract awarded to the Contractor that provides the Best Value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to awar d without discussions or requesting revised proposals, so it is important that the proposals are complete and accurate. The Government can establish a competitive range that does not include all competing firms and hold discussions and request revised pro posals from only those firms. Since the Government can award without discussions or establish a competitive range, it is recommended that the prime contractors submit their best proposal possible and not count on submitting revised proposals. The current schedule is to advertise the solicitation by 25 May 06 with proposals due on 29 June 06 and award anticipated by late July or early August 06. However, due to a recent request by the Air Force for an alternative bid schedule to allow 4-plex t ownhouses for the JNCO 4 BR units, the schedule may be delayed. It is anticipated that a concept design for the 4-plex townhouses and an alternative site plan will be provided in the solicitation. The 4-plex townhouse is currently being developed by the Ai r Force. Congressional appropriation has been approved for this project so it appears that funding will be available when needed at the time of award. Reference Section 00110 of the RFP for proposal requirements and evaluation criteria. The Proposal shall contain 3 separate volumes. Volume 1 contains 5 tabs including: Tab 1 Contractual Documents, Tab 2 Experience (Construction & Design), Tab 3 Past Performance (Construction and Design), Tab 4 Project Management, and Tab 5 Utilization of Small Business. Volume II contains one tab, Tab 6 Design (Housing & Site). Volume III includes the Price Proposals with the SF 1442 and Section 00010 information. The evaluation factors will be weighted as follows in descending order of importance, except that Tab 2 and Tab 3 shall be of equal weight: Tab 2, Tab 3, Tab 6, Tab 4, and Tab 5. Tabs 2 through 6, taken as a whole, are approximately equal to the importance of the Price Proposal. However, there are on-going discussions that may r evise the importance and order of these Tabs. An adjectival rating system will be used in the evaluation (i.e., Exceptional, Above Average, Average, Marginal, and Unacceptable). The Army is prohibited from assigning numeric weights such as points or percentages to evaluations. Tab 2 Experience (Construction & Design) evaluates the Contractors and Designers experience with: Similar Housing projects, Design / Build, Military Construction, and Similar Climate experience. Tab 3 Past Performance (Construction & Design) will evaluate the Contractors and Designers past performance on both Government and Private I ndustry experience within the past 5 years. Tab 4 Project Management will evaluate the Contractors Project Management Plan (PMP), Construction and Design Personnel, Project Schedule, and Health & Safety Record. The PMP should address all pertinent information to illustrate that the Contractor has a formal plan to handle the specific situations that this project will create such as: designer / constructor relationship, schedule adherence on design and construction, phased turnover, prototype construction, limited local labor resources, weather conc erns, quality control, etc. Resumes shall be submitted in the proposal for the PM, Superintendent, CQC, and all of the main design team members as indicated in the RFP. The proposed Project Schedule will be evaluated based on the how it compares to the max imum allowable schedule (for design and construction) of 660 days for the entire Phase 4 & 5 project. We are asking the Contractors whether they believe this is a reasonable amount of time to construct this entire project. Refer to Section 00800, Paragrap h 1.2 for a liquidated damages schedule that will be based on a specific number of units turned over by a specific percentage of the scheduled time (i.e. 20% of units @ 60% of Schedule, 40% @ 70%, 60% @ 80%, 80% @ 90%, and 100% of units turned over @ 100% completion of schedule. The approved schedule will become a contractual obligation with LDs assessed as necessary. It is anticipated that the units will be turned over in areas as the Contractor finishes and moves the security fence to allow tenants to mov e in from on-base. The Contractor must maintain access on Washington Avenue for existing tenants in the Phase 3 Area to access their homes. The Health & Safety Record will evaluate incident rates from the past 5 years. Tab 5 Utilization of Small Business Concerns contains four subfactors as follows: - Subcontracting goals: recommended percentages stated in solicitation; - Mitigation efforts: how the prime contractor will help SBs get a piece of the action; - Utilization and participation of small business concerns: identify small business team members, suppliers, etc.; If you dont know who will be the subs/suppliers, describe procurement practices, set-asides, etc. - Past performance in utilization of small business concerns: Demonstrate the extent to which applicable small business goals have been met or exceeded in past contracts. Tab 6 Design (Housing & site) currently includes providing supporting data for 5 select items (Foundation System, Windows, Party Wall Construction, Furnace & A/C Equipment, and Durability & Efficiency). There have been recent discussions allowing up to 7 items total so we may be revising or adding a few more to the list. This information will include a write-up or description of the system, product literature, catalog cut sheets, etc. for each item. Since the Contractors are now required to base their pro posal on the RFP concept floor plans, elevations, and site plans, there is not a requirement for the Contractors to submit proposed concept housing designs or site designs. The Construction Cost Limitation for Phase 4 is $18,900,000 and for Phase 5 it is $13,300,000. The CCL includes all design, design review, and construction costs for the project. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposals that exceed the se given cost limitations. Area 1 is shown as the minimum scope requirement of 75% of the total Phase 4 scope (57 units). Area 3 is shown as the minimum scope requirement of 75% of the total Phase 5 scope (46 units). The Government cannot make an award of a contract for less than 75% of scope on either Phase 4 or Phase 5 without a reprogramming effort. There are 2 Pricing Schedules to fill out. Pricing Schedule I is the total scope that is to be filled out for the Government to evaluate the cost of the tota l project scope. Pricing Schedule II shall be filled out to indicate at least the minimum scope (Area 1 for Phase 4 and Area 3 for Phase 5) and then fill out the pricing schedules for Area 2 (Phase 4) and Area 4 (Phase 5) with as many units as can be built within the Construction Cost Limitation (CCL) as noted above for each Phase. Pricing Schedule II will be used for evaluation purposes to determine the Best Value to the Government with the Price being evaluated approximately equal to the total of Tabs 2-6 . It was noted that proposals should be prepared that meet the RFP requirements with any deviations, and associated cost savings, identified separately in the proposal. Performance & Payment bonds are required. Evaluation of proposals and potential revised proposals will take several weeks. Inquiries for status should be directed to COE Contracting Division (Mel Vogt or Phillip Holman). No other Government personnel are permitted to respond to inquiries during the evaluation process. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS: Reference Section 01332 of the RFP for Design Requirements. Concept site plans are provided in the RFP drawings to show how the proposed concept plans will fit on the site with a general site and utility layout to serve the housing units. The Site plan can be adjusted, as necessary, during the design stages. Copies of the AutoCad CDs of the RFP Drawings will be made available to the awarded Contractor to support the preparation of the design. English will be used, not metric. Designer can split out site and foundation design to expedite work effort. However, a set of For Construction drawings must ultimately be completed and received before NTP is typically issued for a particular area of work. Typically, the first review i s 100% Site and 60% Housing Design with the second review being a Back Check (100%) Site and 100% Housing Design with review conferences at Ellsworth AFB, SD. Government requires a 20 day review time for each design submittal. PROJNET will be used for coordinating design review comments & responses. CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Index cards were distributed for Contractors to submit any formal questions. However, no formal questions were submitted. A few comments and concerns that were made in the meeting are as follows. A question was asked about the Architect being required to be LEED certified. It was agreed that this requirement would be investigated and removed, if necessary. After the meeting, it was discovered that this requirement had already been taken out of th e Draft RFP requirements. A question was asked about requirements for Contractors to have military housing experience with the concern that most local Contractors would not have much military housing experience. It was agreed to investigate this requirement and revise as necessar y. After the meeting, it was noted that the RFP does not specifically require that Contractors to have Military Housing Experience. The RFP requires construction experience for similar housing projects (No mention of it being Military Housing), design-buil d construction, military construction (No mention of it being Military Housing), and similar climate construction is to be submitted and evaluated. Additional edits will be made to the RFP to clarify the intent. A question was posed to the Industry on what they believe the optimum construction duration should be for this project. The RFP requires that the Contractor pr opose their own schedule but uses a 660 day duration as a measure for evaluation purposes. A request was made to the industry to provide any input on this subject directly to John Stobbe. A question was posed to the Industry on whether they would rather submit all the major product and material data sheets in their proposal or to not submit any at all. The previous housing RFP asked for all the major material information. This Draft RFP o nly requires that 5 items be submitted in their proposal. There was mixed reaction from the audience where some indicated that they would rather get concurrence from the Government that all their major proposed products and materials meet the RFP and other s that would rather submit that information as part of their design after the contract award. No formal agreement was made. Currently the Air Force is planning to require that only 5 to 7 specific items be submitted for evaluation in the proposal with a p ass / fail evaluation as to whether they meet the RFP requirements. A concern was made about the over-excavation requirements in this RFP with 4 of a specific select fill material to be used under all foundations and floor slabs. There was a concern that this requirement substantially increases the cost of the housing u nits. It was agreed that the Government would look at these requirements and make revisions if deemed necessary. It was noted that the Buy American Act is required to be followed in this contract. It was noted that we have recently had problems meeting the Buy American Act on other housing project with several products such as carbon monoxide detectors, fluorescent lamps, ceiling fans with light kits, door chimes, chrome plated, zinc die cast residential grade bath accessories, etc. where we will most likely allow specific exceptions in the RFP. JOHN J. STOBBE, P.E. Project Manager, Military Branch Programs & Project Management Division Attendance Roster Replace Family Housing Phase 4 & 5, Ellsworth AFB, SD Sol. No. W9128F-06-R-0007 Industry Forum May 9, 2006 (0900) Ellsworth AFB, SD (Education Center) Name Organization Phone E-Mail Address 1. Phillip E. Holman CENWO-CT-M +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 2. Stan Shirk CENWO-ED-DG +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 3. Robin Hill 28 CES/CECN +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 4. Jim Randall CENWO-ED-DJ +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 5. John J. Stobbe CENWO-PM-M +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 6. Kurt von Sternberg CENWO-ED-DJ +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 7. John Stoffer ITSI +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 8. Lewis Johnson ITSI +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 9. Larry Herges 28 CES/CECN +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 10. Bruce Anderson CENWO-CD-BH-E +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 11. Jay Grass GE Mod Space +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 12. Bryan Vulcan Envision Design Inc. +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 13. Howie Aubertin 28 CES/CEC +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 14. Eric Perterson Wayne Dalton +1 (555) 000-0000 15. Don Stoltz CENWO-CD-BH-E +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 16. Bob Allman 28 CES/CEH +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 17. David LEsperance 28 CES +1 (555) 000-0000 David.Lcontact@example.gov 18. Karl Feller Dakota Craft +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 19. Brett McManigal Dakota Craft +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 20. Lisa Krajcik Home Depot Supply +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 21. Jason Baumeister Jason Baumeister Co. +1 (555) 000-0000 22. Al Johnson Parsons +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 23. Maurice Schurger Quinn +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 24. Bret Budd CENWO-CD-BH +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 25. Kristi Barber GBA +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 26. Bill Barber GBA +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 27. Mark William Markco +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 28. Dan Colgan 28 CES/CECS +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 29. Steve Burgess Dean Kurtz Const. +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 30. Rick Himmelspach MDU +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov 31. Mark Knodel MDU +1 (555) 000-0000 contact@example.gov