National Institutes of Health, Office of Procurement Management, Acquistions Branch C, Bldg. 13, Room G800, Bethesda, MD 20892-5057

Y -- RENOVATE BUILDING 2, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, BETHESDA, MD. 20892-5711 SOL 263-98-P(CH)-0124 POC Larry Hunter, Contracting Officer, (301)435-4325, Fax (301) 402-1103 E-MAIL: Click here to contact the contracting officer via, hunterl@ors.od.nih.gov.. The NIH seeks an 8(a) firm under (SIC) 1542 who can demonstrate (a) successful completion of at least one $2 million dollar project within the last 5 years, (b) experience on "complete building" renovation projects to include all new architectural, mechanical systems, and (c) bonding capacity of $5 million dollars for one project, to renovate Building 2 on the NIH campus. The "Renovation of Building 2" project includes repair and restoration of exterior windows, wood trim, brickwork and related stone masonry, roof and the general building site. Interior selective demolition of structural concrete slabs and miscellaneous steel framing and concrete, for new renovated areas, along with complete new mechanical, electrical, elevator systems, insulation and finishes for one complete office building are included. The estimated cost of construction ranges between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 (inclusive of options). Construction is estimated to begin upon contract award with a performance period of 240 calendar days (inclusive of options). Plans and specifications will be available on or about the third week of September, 1998 at a non-refundable cost of $175.00, (ONLY Money Orders, Certified Checks, or Cashier's checks made payable to NIH). Personal or company checks will not be accepted unless they are certified. Plans and Specifications will be available for inspection without charge at Building 13, Room G800, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland and upon issuance of the solicitation at various area plan holding rooms. If a bid is not going to be submitted for this solicitation by the firm purchasing the plans and specifications, please state whether said firm would like to receive future pre-solicitation notices The Pre-Proposal Conference and Bid Closing date are scheduled per the RFP documents. When calling be prepared to state the solicitation/RFP number. The project risks compel the Government to seek above-minimum performance from the Contractor. In addition, it may be necessary for the Government to open negotiations prior to award of the contract to identify deficiencies and request clarifications, and to ascertain that all Offerors fully understand the requirements of the RFP. Therefore, pursuant to the authority in FAR6.401, the Source Selection Team has determined that it is in the best interests of the Government to solicit competition through the use of competitive proposals. The specific approach, commonly referred to as "the tradeoff source selection process", will permit the Government to confirm the Offerors' understanding of the project requirements and challenges, evaluate the Offerors' capability to meet those challenges, and award to the Offeror whose offer presents the greatest overall value to the Government, cost and other factors considered. The Government will award the contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by comparing the differences in the value of technical and managementfeatures with differences in cost to the Government. The combined weight of the technical factors is significantly more important than price. The Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical or management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical or management features. The Offers will consist of two distinct parts: the price proposal which constitutes "promises" to satisfy the contract requirements for a specified price; and the technical proposal which attests to the Offerors' capabilities to satisfy the "promises". The Government does not intend to alter the"promises" through the source selection process, rather, it intends to evaluate the respective Offeror's capabilities to satisfy those promises. Consequently, the Government does not intend to incorporate any part of the Offeror's technical proposals intothe contract. Evaluation Factors: The goal of the technical evaluation is to select a Contractor that will provide above minimum performance. The Government's method is to assess the Offerors' "capabilities" by evaluating the Offerors' technical proposals. The technical evaluation factors are past performance oriented. Descriptions of the factors and their subfactors follow: A. Past Performance: Each offer will be rated based on the Government's evaluation of the Offeror's past performance on recent projects for similar services. Offerors will be required to identify projects more than 50% completed within the past 5 years which meet a minimum threshold value. The threshold value is defined as "any "complete building" renovation project to include all new architectural, mechanical, and electrical systems with a construction value of at least $2,000,000 on which the Offeror served as the General Contractor or "At Risk" Managing Venturer (with at least a 51% entity role in the case of joint venture arrangements)". The Government evaluation will be based on the Offerors' written submissions describing the projects, interviews of references provided by the Offerors, and past performance evaluations available through the NIH-ABC and GSA databases. The past performance evaluation subfactors, in descending order of importance, are: I.Similarity of Projects ( weight = 30%): a."Complete Building" renovation construction work of a scale similar to the work of this contract. b. Government Work, c. Geographic proximity.d. Confined site interfacing with adjacent construction.e.Common subcontractors and key personnel. II. Business Relations (weight = 20%):a.How well did the offeror work with the Owner and the Owner's technical advisors?b. How cooperative, responsive and concerned was the Offeror with the interests of project related third party entities(i.e., tenants and maintenance engineering staff? c. How effective was the Offeror in resolving disputes at the lowest level possible? d. How successful was the Offeror in maintaining a consistent management team throughout the duration of the project?e.How well did the Offeror comply with the Key Personnel clause, if any was in effect? g. How pleased would the reference be to work with the Offeror again? III. Quality Control (weight = 15%):a.How well did the Offeror comply with contract requirements? b.How well did the Offeror comply with standards of good workmanship? c.How well did the Offeror adapt to changing requirements while maintaining the required level of quality? d.How well did the Offeror manage its subcontractors? IV.Cost Control (weight = 15%): a. How reasonable and complete were the Offeror's notices of change and change order proposals? b.How timely were the Offerors' notices of change and change order proposals? c.How pro-active was the Offeror in suggesting cost-saving alternatives? V.Timeliness of Performance (weight = 15%): a. How well did the Offeror adhere to contract delivery schedules and/or milestones? b.How responsive was the Offeror in addressing unforseen conditions and changes? VI. Safety (weight = 5%) : a.How effective was the Offeror in maintaining a safe workplace? b.How proactive was the Offeror in demonstrating safety awareness and implementing an effective safety policy? Price offers will consist of a lump-sum price to provide a complete renovation of Building 2. Cost realism will be confirmed by means of competition. The proposed contract is a 100 percent set-aside for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (SDB). Offers from concerns other SDBs will not be considered. Posted 08/28/98 (W-SN243383). (0240)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0149 19980901\Y-0010.SOL)