About this archived opportunity

, Samantha Chavanga via email at Samantha.Chavanga@va.gov, prior to the response date. A-Es shall not incorporate by references into their response CPARS or PPQ evaluations previously submitted in response to other A-E services procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Submitted CPARS and PPQ evaluations will not be counted as part of any page limitation and shall be attached to the SF330, behind the SF330 Part II document. (5) Location -10% within a 300-mile radius to the design site (Brooklyn, NY) and knowledge of the location (Brooklyn VAMC, NY); provided that the application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the contract, firms/teams will be evaluated on the locations of their office or offices that will be performing the work under this contract. Submission requirements: i. The A/E Firm proximity to the Brooklyn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 800 Poly Place, Brooklyn, NY 11209. ii. This distance is determined according to http://maps.google.com/ iii. This factor evaluates the distance the AE firm's design office or offices from the location of work. Please provide the address (es) and distance of your closest office to the address listed (6) Record of significant claims against the firm because of improper or incomplete architectural and engineering services-10%. Offerors with substantiated claims against the firm as a result of improper architectural and engineering services provided in the last three (3) years. Submission requirements: Records and any other documentation of substantiated claims highlighting improper or incomplete architectural engineering services against the firm within the last three (3) years. The SF-330 shall contain a statement affirming that there are no records of significant claims because of improper or incomplete architectural and engineering services. (7) Specific experience and qualifications of personnel proposed for assignment to the project and their record of working together as a team- 10%. Submission requirements: Offerors shall submit evidence of individuals experience and qualifications in their respective fields. Additionally, documentation must be provided to show these individuals have worked together as a team on previous projects and their role. (Completing Sections E, F, and G, on the SF-330 meets the documentation requirement). Furthermore, offerors shall describe the ability of the firm to manage, coordinate and work effectively with team members, both internal staff and consultants. Discuss the history of working relationships with team members, including joint venture partners where applicable. Evaluation Scoring Evaluation factors will be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings as follows: Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable. The firm s proposal demonstrates a misunderstanding of the requirement, and the approach fails to meet performance standards. The firm s proposal has major omissions and inadequate details to assure evaluators that the offeror has an understanding of requirement. The ratings identified below were used in the evaluation of Past Performance (Criterion 4): Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No doubt exists based on the offeror s past performance that they can satisfy the requirements of the contract. Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Little doubt exists based on the offeror s past performance that they could satisfy the requirements of the contract. Unknown Confidence (Neutral): 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. Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has little expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Some doubt exists based on past performance that they could satisfy the terms and conditions of the contract. No Confidence: Based on the offeror s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has little expectations that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Significant doubt exists based on the offeror s past performance that they can satisfy the requirements of the contract. PLEASE NOTE: The AE Evaluation Board must be provided with complete and accurate information for ALL seven (7) evaluation factors above in order to rank as qualified and eligible firms. Therefore, the AE firm must expand upon, as it deems necessary, on any evaluation factor not well demonstrated or addressed with Part 1A to Part IG and Part II of the SF330. The AE firm shall use Part IH and/or use additional sheets to supplement/address all evaluation factors to clearly demonstrate its qualifications. SELECTION INTERVIEW: Interviews shall be scheduled with firms slated as the most highly qualified. Firms slated for interviews may be asked to explain or expand on information contained in the SF-330 submittal through a formal interview or a discussion questionnaire as determined by the Contracting Officer. NOTE: The Consultant is responsible for the development of a project estimate. Th...