This is a service / maintenance or supply contract in Salem, Virginia. Contact the soliciting agency for additional information.

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PROCUREMENT OF ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING (A/E) SERVICES: This is a request for Standard Form 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications only. A/E Services are being procured in accordance with the Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute (Public Law 92-582), formerly known as the Brooks Act, and implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.6. All submissions will be evaluated in accordance with the below selection criteria. The Government will not pay, nor reimburse, any costs associated with responding to this request. The Government is under no obligation to award a contract as a result of this announcement. Firms will be selected based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work. Any resulting award for the proposed A/E services will be procured under a negotiated Firm-Fixed Price contract. The NAICS Code for this acquisition is 541330, Engineering Services, and the applicable Small Business Size Standard is $16.5 million annual revenue. During performance, the selected A/E firm will be required to attend meetings in person, on site, at the Salem VA Medical Center, Salem, VA. Therefore, the area of consideration is RESTRICTED to a maximum 500-mile radius of the Salem VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Blvd, Salem, Virginia 24153 in which either the A/E firm s Primary or established Auxiliary/Satellite office must be located. NOTE: The 500-mile radius will be measured by one or more of the nationally recognized commercial free on-line mapping services from the Primary or established Auxiliary/Satellite Office Address to the above VA address (shortest driving distance option). Proximity of the firms assigned office, to the project site, including within the 500-mile radius, is one of the criteria on which selection of the most highly qualified firms will be based. Interested parties shall ensure current licensing to provide real property design services (Engineer Services) in accordance with the State regulations of which the firms assigned office is located, and shall have a current registration in: (1.) the System for Award Management (SAM) database at https://www.sam.gov, (2.) and the Vendor Information Pages database at http://www.va.gov/osdbu, if applicable, and (3.) have submitted the current cycle VETS-4212 Report at http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/fcp/main.htm (for contracts in the amount of $150,000.00 or more). Failure of a proposed SDVOSB to be certified by the CVE at the time the SF 330 is submitted shall result in elimination from further consideration. DUE DATE FOR SF330 QUALIFICATIONS: March 17, 2022 @ 11:00am EST PROJECT INFORMATION: Project No.: 658-22-102 Project Title: Correct Stormwater Drainage Deficiencies Place of Performance: Salem VA Medical Center (VAMC), 1970 Roanoke Blvd, Salem, Virginia 24153 A/E: STATEMENT OF WORK PROJECT NO. 658-22-102 Correct Stormwater Drainage Deficiencies VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER SALEM, VA 24153 1. General Description of Services: Provide professional engineering services to survey and assess the existing stormwater infrastructure, and develop a prioritized design and construction program, with cost estimates and statements of work, for the stormwater management program. 2. Project Description: The intent of this project is to evaluate all aspects of stormwater management at the VAMC. The A/E is responsible for conducting detailed and thorough site investigations of the existing infrastructure and the site conditions as they exist at the time of award. This study will review and define requirements of local, state and federal stormwater regulations that pertain to the campus. It will also evaluate erosion control requirements, the existing MS-IV permit, delineated wetlands and outfalls that leave the Salem VAMC property. This project will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will conduct a comprehensive assessment and survey of the stormwater system and a stormwater map. The deliverables from phase 1 will be a report that provides the findings of the assessment. Phase 2 will develop a prioritized program of projects with estimates for design and construction and detailed statements of work. The deliverables from phase Phase 1 of this project shall conduct a survey of the entire two hundred and twelve acre (212 ac) campus and identify all structures and impervious structures; locations, sizes and capacity of all stormwater conveyances (pipes, drains, curb inlets, swales, box culverts, etc.) to include flow direction; location and capacity of stormwater control measures and Best Management Practices (BMP); location and size of existing surface water bodies to include wetlands; locations and size of stormwater outfalls to include delineation of area for each outfall; and a description of all receiving waters and wetlands. Study shall include all hydrological and hydraulic calculations necessary to ensure compliance and address peak flow rate; runoff volume and velocity; and capacity. The key deliverables of this phase are as follows: Report, with drawings, detailing existing conditions and assessment of current infrastructure. Updated stormwater map for the entire campus that will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality that accurately captures all conditions outlined above and as required by applicable local, state and federal regulations. This map will consider tributary areas that lie outside the property but may contribute to the total runoff generated by the site. Phase 2 of this project shall perform a program development study. Based on the results of the assessment of site conditions, the A/E will work with the VA to develop a consolidated design and construction program that will address all deficiencies outlined in the assessment. The development study will consider the complexity of necessary projects, total project costs, impacts to the campus and services offered, severity of deficiencies identified and overall strategic plan of the medical center to develop a comprehensive plan. In developing the program, the A/E shall work with the VA staff to consider implementation of innovative solutions that reduce the total runoff leaving the site and the feasibility of retention systems that would provide non-potable water to reduce potable water usage. The key outputs of this phase will be a prioritized program of design and construction with cost estimates, definitized scopes of work for projects and a documented risk register that outlines all risks and assumptions that will impact program executions. 3. Site Investigation and Meetings: The following should inform the A/E estimate in terms of the Department of Veterans Affairs expectations for site investigation and coordination. The A/E shall include in their estimate sufficient time to review, field verify and survey all existing conditions and existing stormwater drawings. The A/E shall plan for a minimum of two reviews by the Government of the stormwater map, hydraulic/watershed calculations, report on existing conditions and construction estimates. The A/E shall plan for one 4-hour meeting to confirm understanding of the project scope, review contract clauses and establish expectation for project completion. For each review, the A/E shall plan for a meeting of at least 2 hours to address concerns and issues. For phase 2, the A/E shall plan for two full day project scoping meetings based to review the assessment, and plan and prioritize projects. 4. Design Standards: The study shall be completed in accordance with this A/E scope of work, and all applicable Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) standards, specifications, and other criteria referenced herein unless otherwise approved by the VA. The A/E shall retrieve all VA design information and standards from the VA Facilities Web Site (http://www.va.gov/facmgt/standard). These documents and all national, state and local codes adopted and used by the VA shall be incorporated into the design of this project. At a minimum, the following references shall be utilized for planning and design purposes. The facility record drawings and AutoCAD files are available for the A/E s use. NOTE: Not all record drawings are available on AutoCAD. Additionally, the A/E is responsible for field verification of all facility record drawings. Design shall meet or exceed the follow guidelines: VA BIM Manual v2.2 VHA Program Guide PG-18-3 VA Master Construction Specifications Structural Design Manual H-18-8 Seismic Design Requirements Sanitary Design Manual for Hospital Projects PG-18-13 Barrier Free Design Handbook Life Safety Codes Electrical Design Manual HVAC Design Manual PG-18-10 Government Record Drawings (A/E shall field verify conditions) PG-18-15 A/E Submission Requirements. Physical Security Design Manual (Final Draft) VADEQ SWPPP Guidelines 5. Construction Estimates: AE shall provide an estimate of design services and construction project costs for each project to include all work required for the base scope of work. A/E shall prepare cost estimate in accordance with the VA s Manual for Preparation of Cost Estimates & Related Documents for VA Facilities. 6. Deliverables: Quantities of review materials for each design submission are provided below. Stormwater/site assessment report, stormwater drawings and calculations, and project estimate submissions for each review and at acceptance once all changes are addressed: One (1) set design drawings, complete set bound with all disciplines, Arch D (24 x 36) size. One (1) set design drawings, separated and bound by each discipline, Arch D (24 x 36) size. Three (3) sets design drawings, complete set bound with all disciplines, Arch C (18 x 24) size. One (1) hardcopy copy, edited/marked-up report and hydraulic calculations. One (1) hardcopy cost estimate One (1) hardcopy investigative reports. One (1) hardcopy investigative project plan and prioritization. One (1) Electronic copy on CD, BIM/CAD Model and Drawing Files in BIM/CAD Software format. One (1) electronic copy of all design deliverables listed above in (pdf format). 7. Schedule of Deliverables: All deliverables shall be provided as specified in the schedule of deliverables provide below. The total contract duration for this project is 205 calendar days from issuance of NTP. A/E shall submit a schedule not to exceed 205 calendar days within 14 calendar days following issuance of NTP. Schedule shall include at a minimum all activities and/or milestones listed in the sample schedule below. The A/E shall provide monthly progress schedule updates throughout the design process. The selected A/E must be able to deliver on this timeline. Task Name Duration Stormwater Improvement Development Study 205 days NTP/Kickoff/Scope Confirmation Meeting 0 days Phase 1 126 days Site Investigation 42 days Draft submission of site infrastructure assessment, stormwater drawings and hydraulic calculations. (Phase 1) 42 days Government Review 14 days Corrections to Phase 1 Submittal 14 days Final submission of Phase 1 Deliverables 0 days Government Review 7 days Corrections to Phase 1 Submittal 7 days Phase 1 Deliverables Accepted 0 days Phase 2 79 days Option Analysis 1 day Scope of Work Development 1 day Construction Estimate Development (Phase 2) 42 days Government Review 14 days Corrections to Phase 2 Deliverables 14 days Final Submission of Phase 2 Deliverables 0 days Government Review 7 days Phase 2 Deliverables Accepted 0 days Note: Dates listed in the table above are calendar days. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: 1. All proposal preparation cost will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government will not reimburse any firm for their proposal preparation cost. Technical proposals of each offeror will be evaluated independently. All copies shall therefore be labeled with the offerors name, business address, and VA Solicitation Number. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. A firm will not be considered if its SF 330 Part I is not signed, unless the SF 330 Part I is accompanied with a signed cover letter or a current signed SF 330 Part II. If a firm does not submit a SF 330 Part II with its SF 330 Part I, or have one on file, it will not be considered (FAR 36.603(b)). The offer shall consist of two separate parts: Part I - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Part II PAST PERFORMANCE (b) SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS 1. PART I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Submit original and two (2) copies and 1 CD. Professional Qualifications, Design Schedule & Experience shall be limited to no more than 15 pages total. The Design Quality Control plan shall be limited to no more than 10 pages total. Format as follows: TAB A: General Information Cover page with Solicitation Number and Project Title Table of Contents Company information to include: DUNS Number, Cage Code, Tax ID Number, Principle points of contact with addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. TAB B: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (Evaluation Factor 1) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence Sub Factor 1 Professional Qualifications Sub Factor 2 Capacity - Sub Factor 3 Knowledge of the Locality Sub Factor 4 Design Quality Control Plan Sub Factor 5 PART II PAST PERFORMANCE Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror s performance deemed relevant and recent to the requirements of this solicitation. (c) GENERAL INFORMATION Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth will not be evaluated and will be removed from the proposal. Format for proposal Part I & II shall be as follows: A page is defined as one face of an 8 A 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper containing information. Typing shall not be less than 12-point font. The Offeror, separately (but included in the same sealed envelope) shall submit an original, TWO IDENTICAL COPIES (including any colored images, tabs, etc.) of a detailed technical proposal in a format that clearly addresses the technical evaluation factors below. Each response shall address each factor in the sequence listed and clearly identify which factor is being addressed. There shall be no mention of costs in the Technical Proposal. Proposals shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and delivered to the address below by or on the set forth due date: Salem VA Medical Center Attn: Bryant Guerrant 1970 Roanoke Boulevard Building 74, Rm 211 Contracting Salem, Virginia 24153 FEDERAL HOLIDAYS: The following Federal Legal Holidays are observed by this Medical Facility: New Year s Day 1 January Martin Luther King s Birthday Third Monday in January Presidents Day Third Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Juneteenth 19 June Independence Day 4 July Labor Day First Monday in September Columbus Day Second Monday in October Veterans Day 11 November Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November Christmas Day 25 December Any other Federal Holiday granted by the President of the United States For the purposes of this document the term Relevant Project is defined as follows: A project, completed within five years of similar dollar value, size, complexity and scope that includes a stormwater management study, identifying existing storm water transportation and retention systems condition, capabilities, inefficiencies, and hydrological impacts; project have led to the preparation and subsequent approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or other equivalent documents addressing Soil Erosion Control and Stormwater Management; project was of similar size and complexity to the provided scope of work. Ongoing projects will not be considered as no accurate performance record can exist if work is not yet complete. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, and other factors considered. Boards will evaluate firms' qualifications strictly on the basis of the announced selection criteria and their stated order of importance. The criteria will be applied as follows: PART I TECHNICAL CAPABILITY The following criteria will be used to by a selection board to determine the most highly qualified firms in respect to their technical capability. Technical capability will be evaluated based on the following factors: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence (FAR 36.602-1(a)(2)). Offerors will be evaluated based on the specialized experience of a firm on similar projects and the technical capabilities (such as design quality management procedures, CADD/BIM, and equipment resources,) of the prime firm and any subcontractors. Evaluation will be based on the information presented in the Architect-Engineer Qualifications - Standard Form 330 (SF330). A maximum of five (5)example Relevant Projects may be submitted for consideration under SF330, Part I, Section F. Professional Qualifications (FAR 36.602-1(a)(1)). A board will evaluate, as appropriate, the education, training, registration, certifications (see paragraph 3-4.d(4)), overall and relevant experience, and longevity with the firm of the key management and technical personnel. This criterion is primarily concerned with the qualifications of the key personnel and not the number of personnel, which is addressed under the capacity criterion. The lead designer in each discipline must be registered as required by FAR 36.609-4 and 52.236-25 but does not have to be registered in the particular state where the project is located. Capacity (FAR 36.602-1(a)(3)). A firm s capacity will be evaluated based on their experience with similar size projects, the available capacity of key disciplines to perform the work in the required time, and a primary project schedule. The volume of work awarded during the previous 12 months, based on data extracted from the Federal Procurement Data System, will be considered when evaluating capacity. Additionally, the full potential value of any current indefinite delivery contracts that a firm has been awarded will be considered when evaluating capacity. Knowledge of the Locality (FAR 36.602-1(a)(5)). Firms will be evaluated on their knowledge of the locality such as knowledge of local historical features, climatic conditions, and local construction methods that are unusual or unique to the area. Quality Control Plan. Firms will be evaluated on their approach to ensure technical quality and accuracy of work products. A firm's approach to resolve issues of quality will be analyzed to determine its ability to provide quality design products. Describe and define the processes of the firm's quality control plan and list, by name and position, all key personnel responsible for its execution. Quality control information shall also address safety measures particularly with respect to field work and site investigations. Information describing Quality Management may be presented in SF330, Part I, Section H. A quality control plan shall be submitted as part of the proposal. PART II PAST PERFORMANCE The following criteria will be used to by a selection board to determine the most highly qualified firms based on a firm s past performance. Past Performance (FAR 36.602-1(a)(4)). The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror s performance deemed relevant and recent to the requirements of this solicitation. PART I TECHNICAL CAPABILITY First, the technical capability of all offers will be evaluated on an adjectival basis. Sub-factors will be weighted equally, and all areas must have at least a satisfactory rating. Evaluators shall assign a rating from the following table based on the minimum requirements stated in each sub-factor section. Adjectival Rating Definitions Exceptional Meets all requirements and exceed majority of requirements. Overall, the proposal meets and significantly exceeds, in all aspects, the standards for evaluation: very high probability of success: no significant weaknesses. Very Good Meets all requirements and exceed some requirements. The proposal meets and, in some cases, exceeds the standards for evaluation; high probability of success; no significant weaknesses and only minor correctable deficiencies. Satisfactory The proposal meets the standard for evaluation; good probability of success; only minor weaknesses and correctable deficiencies. Marginal Lacks material information. The proposal fails to meet some of the standards for evaluation; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or uncorrectable. Unacceptable Lacks material information. The proposal fails to meet some or all of the standards for evaluation; need major revision to a new submission to make if acceptable or may contain uncorrectable deficiencies. Sub-Factor 1 Specialized Experience and Technical Competence CRITERIA: This factor will evaluate the Offeror s technical competence, based on successful completion of relevant projects. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) examples of their choice of completed relevant projects as defined in the proposal preparation guidelines. In describing the experience, provide the following information: Project title, location and brief description including the building use (Medical Facility, etc) and contracting method (design build, design bid construct, CM at risk, Turnkey, etc). Project owner and name and telephone number of owner s contact person. Indicate your firm s role as a prime contractor or subcontractor, etc. Project Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors and name and telephone number of contact person(s). Project Statistics including start and completion dates (original vs. actual) for design; cost (with brief explanation of what is included in the cost); square footage; and any awards (prizes) received. Sub-Factor 2 Professional Qualifications CRITERIA: This factor evaluates the Offerors specific experience and qualifications of personnel proposed for assignment to the project and their record of working together as a team. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The Offeror must provide the resumes for the following Key Personnel purposed for assignment to the project: Project/Design Manager: Must have a minimum of five (5) years experience successfully managing design projects that meet the criteria for similar projects as defined in the proposal preparation guidelines above. Civil Engineer: Must have a minimum of five (5) years experience performing stormwater management studies, designing stormwater management systems, and SWMP or SWPPP preparation. Projects shall meet the criteria for similar projects as defined in evaluation factor 3 above. Other Disciplines proposed by the Offeror: Must have a minimum of three (3) years experience successfully designing projects that meet the criteria for similar projects as defined in evaluation factor 3 above. All Resumes must include the following information and may not exceed two (2) pages per Resume, and must explain how the proposed key personnel s experience meets the minimum qualification requirements for this contract, as described above: Name and title Project assignment Name of firm with which associated Sub-Factor 3 Capacity CRITERIA: This factor will evaluate the Offeror s ability to perform the study, design, and construction period services. The Offeror shall demonstrate that is has the capacity to accomplish the work in the required time. Additionally, the Offeror shall show that it can perform the required stormwater management study, site investigations, design services, preparation and subsequent approval of a SWPPP or equivalent, and construction period services without adversely affecting the project schedule. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides: Offeror must specify the total volume of work awarded to the firm within twelve (12) months of solicitation closing and provide a proposed design schedule not to exceed 365 calendar days. Prepare and submit a practicable design schedule laying out all necessary performance elements needed to complete this project identified in the solicitation in the proposed period of performance. The schedule must be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale to indicate appropriately the percentage of work scheduled for completion by any given date during the performance period. In addition, the schedule must be submitted in the Microsoft Project format. Offerors should only include the work elements necessary to complete the required work. It is the Offeror s responsibility to identify all necessary project/work elements and the proposal adequately identifies acceptable critical path elements. Sub-Factor 4 Knowledge of the Locality CRITERIA: Identify example projects that demonstrate the firm s knowledge of the locality (i.e., Salem VA Medical Center). MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides: Firms shall demonstrate knowledge of localities per example projects. Knowledge of the VA VISN 6 service area will hold much higher weight and evaluated more favorably than projects outside the VISN 6 service area. General understanding of the local conditions, including physical environment, local engineering criteria, and construction methods will be evaluated. The following key personnel resumes shall also be evaluated for knowledge of localities: Project Manager, Civil or Environmental Engineer. The basis of evaluation for this criterion will focus on the information provided in SF330, Part I, Section E (Resume of Key Personnel), Section F (Example Projects), and Section H (Additional Information) that provides additional information describing same/similar qualifications as deemed relevant to performance at the Salem VA Medical Center. Sub-Factor 5 Design Quality Control Plan CRITERIA: The plan shall identify personnel, design review procedures, site investigation/confirmation of existing conditions plan, and forms or electronic systems to be used. A finalized, more detailed Design Quality Control Plan (QCP) will be required to be submitted and approved after contract award. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standards of acceptability are met when the Offeror provides: A description of the quality control system, including a chart showing lines of authority and acknowledgement that the Design Manager shall implement control measures for verification of all design activities. The names, qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person assigned as Design Quality Control (QC) manager. Any replacements must have similar qualifications in dealing with projects of similar size and scope. PART II PAST PERFORMANCE Next, the Government will evaluate the offeror s demonstrated past performance of projects in order to determine the offeror s ability to perform the contract successfully and help determine responsibility. As with technical capabilities, the firms will be evaluated with an adjectival rating system. Adjectival Rating Definitions Exceptional Meets all requirements and exceed majority of requirements. Overall, the proposal meets and significantly exceeds, in all aspects, the standards for evaluation: very high probability of success: no significant weaknesses. Very Good Meets all requirements and exceed some requirements. The proposal meets and, in some cases, exceeds the standards for evaluation; high probability of success; no significant weaknesses and only minor correctable deficiencies. Satisfactory The proposal meets the standard for evaluation; good probability of success; only minor weaknesses and correctable deficiencies. Marginal Lacks material information. The proposal fails to meet some of the standards for evaluation; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or uncorrectable. Unacceptable Lacks material information. The proposal fails to meet some or all of the standards for evaluation; need major revision to a new submission to make if acceptable or may contain uncorrectable deficiencies. NOTE: Offerors with no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be given a neutral rating. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references of their choice of relevant projects as defined in the proposal preparation guidelines. The Offeror must provide for each reference the reference's company name, POCs, address, contact information to include phone number and e-mail address, project description, dollar value and period of performance. The questionnaire included in Attachment A must be completed for all references. The Government will consider and evaluate Offeror's past performance information, to include the references, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 6 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Relevancy Assessment: An evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the provided design performed under those contracts relate to a similar size and scope as those required by this solicitation. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime contractor and/or subcontractors. The past performance information obtained from sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references of their choice of relevant projects as defined in the proposal preparation guidelines in which the Offeror adhered to period of performances. The Offeror must provide for each reference the reference's company name, POCs, address, contact information to include phone number and e-mail address, project description, dollar value and period of performance. The Government will consider and evaluate Offeror's past performance information, to include the references, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. The method of contractor selection has not been determined at this time.