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

Cancellation Description THIS SOLICITATION IS CANCELED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT Presolicitation Notice Presolicitation Notice Page 13 of 17 Presolicitation Notice *=Required Field Presolicitation Notice Page 1 of 17 This Pre-solicitation Notice is NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. ALL INFORMATION NEEDED TO SUBMIT SF330 DOCUMENTS ARE CONTAINED HEREIN. NO ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION PACKAGE OR TECHNICAL INFORMATION WILL BE ISSUED. Project: 557-24-102 - A/E Correct Critical FCA Sanitary & Storm Deficiencies Work Location: Carl Vinson VA Medical Center Dublin, GA 31021 Estimated/Target Completion Period: 180 calendar days after Award. Construction Magnitude: Between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000. NAICS: 541330 Engineering Services Small Business Standard: $25.5 million Set-Aside: 100% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Site Visits will not be arranged during this phase. Request for Information (RFI): RFIs shall be submitted by the prime contractor, to Christopher Nash Jenkins, Contracting Officer at christopher.jenkins@va.gov no later than 12:00 PM April 19, 2024. SF 330 Date of Receipt/Due Date: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit one (1) electronic SF 330 and attachments (if any) no later than 12:00 PM (EST) May 3, 2024. PROJECT OVERVIEW: The purpose of this project is to correct specific identified failing FCA issues associated with mains. It was noted that sewer metering indicates site storm water is migrating into sanitary mains. Mains are original terracotta piping, and manholes are original brick. Piping should have a camera study and piping and manholes upgraded as indicated. Project will ensure improved conditions to the mains water systems and ensure avoidance of system failure. SDVOSB SET-ASIDE: This requirement is a 100% set-aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 8127(d). To be eligible for award the SDVOSB you must be considered small under the relevant NAICS code. SDVOSB contractors must be verified and viewable in VetCert www.veterans.certify.sba.gov prior to submission of proposal and prior to award of contract with VAAR 804.1103-70. Status as a qualified SDVOSB concern is under the authority of 38 CFR Part 74 in accordance with the VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Part 819. Any person, persons, or business entity suspected of misrepresenting itself for the purpose of securing a government contract may be criminally investigated and prosecuted for fraud against the United States of America. Parties found misrepresenting their status also risk debarment from further Government contracts. Eligibility determination is performed by the Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE). Eligible SDVOSB concerns must also be registered at the following websites: System for Award Management (SAM): https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ VETS100/100A Report must be complete: http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets4212.htm Important Notice: Prior to submitting a proposal under this SDVOSB set- aside solicitation; offerors must apply for and receive verification from the Department of Veteran Affairs Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE) in accordance with 38 CFR Part 74 and VAAR 819.70 by submission of documentation of Veteran status, ownership and control sufficient to establish appropriate status. All offerors are urged to contact the CVE and submit the aforementioned required documents to obtain CVE verification of their SDVOSB status if they have not already done so. For a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) to be considered as a prospective contractor, the firm, including Joint Ventures, must be verified and registered in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) Vendor Information Pages (VIP), VETCERT (www.veterans.certify.sba.gov) , and registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database (www.sam.gov) at time of submission of their qualifications. Failure of a prospective SDVOSB to be verified by the Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE) at the time the SF 330 is submitted shall result in elimination from consideration. All Joint Ventures must be CVE verified at time of submission and submit agreements that comply with 13CFR 125.15 prior to contract award. In order to assure compliance with FAR Clauses, 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (DEVIATION 2019-01) and VAAR 852.219-10, VA Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside (JUL 2019) (DEVIATION), all firms submitting a SF 330 for this pre-solicitation notice are required to indicate what percentage of the cost of contract performance will be expended on the concerns employees and in which discipline(s) and percentage of cost of contract performance to be expended (and in what disciplines) by any other consultant/subcontractor or otherwise used small or large business entity(s). Any consultant/subcontractor or otherwise business entity(s) used must be identified by name, office location and size/type of business (i.e. SDVOSB, VOSB, 8(a), small, large, etc.). Failure to provide this information will deem the firm s SF 330 submittal as nonresponsive and preclude further evaluation. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36.6 (Brooks Act) selection procedures apply. The A-E Services listed herein is being procured in accordance with the Brooks Act (Public Law 92-582) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.6 and VAAR 836.6. Pursuant to FAR, the firm responding to this requirement must be permitted, by law, to practice the professions of architecture or engineering and meet all required qualifications for the state of Georgia. SF 330 SELECTION CRITERIA: The VA will utilize the following selection criteria in descending order of importance. Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. Basis of Evaluation: Specialized experience pertains to the types, size, volume, budget, and complexity of work previously or currently being performed by the Offeror that is comparable to the work covered by this solicitation. Specialized experience may also include unique conditions, considerations, or circumstances encountered that are relevant to this solicitation. Specialized experience does not include overseas offices for projects outside the United States, its territories, or possessions; nor does it include subsidiaries that are not normally subject to management decisions, accounting, and policies, or a holding or parent company or an incorporated subsidiary that operates under a firm name different from the parent company. Technical competence includes construction and design projects similar in project scope, size, construction features, dollar value, and complexity of that listed in the solicitation. Technical competence also includes experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials. Similar complexity is considered projects of an operational, construction, or design likeness to the work covered in this solicitation. Specific emphasis of experience and technical competence shall be geared primarily towards electrical systems design, while also demonstrating competence with related structure, fire protection, and healthcare facility design. Offerors unable to demonstrate proven specialized experience and technical competence may be considered non-responsive. Failure to provide requested data may negatively impact an Offeror's rating. Submission requirements: Submit a summary sheet for the Offeror and each key consultant. Each summary sheet shall not be more than one (1) page in length, and no more than fifteen (15) pages total. Past Performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules. Basis of Evaluation: Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an Offeror satisfied its customers needs and requirements and compliance with applicable codes, standards, laws, and regulations. The evaluation of past performance will include but is not limited to: The customer s assessment of the Offeror's commitment to customer satisfaction; Timely delivery of quality work; The Offeror's record of conforming to contract requirements and applicable codes, standards, laws, and regulations; Successful implementation of the Quality Control Plan and quality control procedures; Addressing design errors/omissions timely; Providing Construction Period Services satisfactorily to customers; Adherence to approved schedules; and, History of timely and professional communication and cooperative behavior. Include information on problems (errors/omissions) found, how the problems were corrected, and the impacts to the successful completion of the project (time delays, cost impacts, design modifications, etc.). Provide information supporting favorable cost control, quality of design submissions, and schedule compliance. Provide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings for submitted relevant projects. If no CPARS data is available, provide Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). PPQs must be incorporated into the submission; CPARS reports and PPQs will not count towards page limitations. Offeror risks receiving a lower rating if fewer than three (3) are received. Include a discussion on the Offeror s record of significant claims for improper or incomplete design services. Higher ratings may be given for work performed on VA Medical Center campuses. Failure to provide requested data or to provide an accessible point of contact (POC) may negatively impact an Offeror's rating. Failure to demonstrate proven competence to perform projects like the requirements of the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award. Data from other projects not included in b) above are acceptable under past performance (such as cost control or schedule delays) in tables or charts. Submission requirements: Submit a summary sheet describing the Offeror s past performance. The summary sheet shall not be more than two (2) pages in length. Provide either a CPARS or PPQ for each submitted relevant project. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required. services. Evaluation of professional qualifications will include but is not limited to the subjective assessment of the Offeror's individual resumes. The Offeror shall have a professional engineer, registered in any state in the United States, knowledgeable in their appropriate design discipline, to be the lead designer responsible for reviewing and approving design submissions. The Offeror shall have a professional engineer, qualified and knowledgeable of state and local regulations, be the lead designer responsible for reviewing and approving design submissions and facilitating permit documentation (depending on the nature of the design i.e. environmental, stormwater, etc.). Key personnel to provide qualifications to meet this criterion include Principal(s), Project Manager(s), key consultants, individuals responsible for implementation of the Design QA/QC Plan, and other individuals that are responsible or accountable for design submissions. The Offeror shall describe and/or depict which projects and how well key personnel of the design team have worked together. Higher ratings for this criterion may be given when the Offeror's specific personnel demonstrate relevant credentials, such as professional engineer/architect registration, involvement, and degree of involvement in professional organizations, research/publications, code/standard body involvement, etc. Offerors unable to demonstrate professional qualifications necessary to perform designs may be considered non-responsive . Failure to provide sufficient data supporting professional qualifications may negatively impact an Offeror's rating. Submission Requirements: Submit personal resumes and relevant information for key and responsible personnel on SF330 documentation. SF330 documentation shall not be more than one (1) page in length, and not more than fifteen (15) total pages. Experience in construction period services to include professional field inspections during the construction period, review of construction submittals, support in answering requests for information during the construction period, and support of construction contract changes to include drafting statements of work, and cost estimates shall be included as an evaluation criterion when construction period services is included in the statement of work for A-E services. Evaluation of the Offeror s knowledge, skills, and abilities to complete necessary Construction Period Services (CPS) to support successful project completion. Provide a narrative describing the below services, but not limited to: Professional field inspections, both scheduled and emergent; Maintaining a comprehensive submittal log inclusive of material data, shop drawings, certifications, etc.; Review of construction submittals for design conformance, variance, and applicable code/standard compliance; Providing timely and complete responses to requests for information; Providing supporting documentation (statements of work, cost estimates, technical reports, etc.) for construction modifications; Providing record drawing documentation; Process for correcting design errors/omissions identified during construction; and, Other requirements defined under CPS in the Statement of Work. Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror s performance completing CPS for construction. Narrative shall not be more than one (1) page in length Location in the general geographical area Dublin, GA, and knowledge of the locality of the Carl Vinson VA Medical Center. Basis of Evaluation: Offeror s will be subjectively evaluated based on their knowledge (and the knowledge of subcontractors) of unique conditions or variables, such as familiarity of applicable codes, regulations, construction market & labor conditions, geotechnical, seismic, weather, environmental, or other unique considerations found in the Dublin, GA geographical area.If prior experience in Dublin, GA is minimal, describe how the design team plans to obtain specific knowledge of local conditions or project features required for a compliant design. Data from other projects are acceptable to highlight knowledge of the Dublin, GA geographical area. Offerors that submit relevant projects outside of the Dublin, GA geographical area may be given a lower rating than projects within the Dublin, GA geographical area. Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror s experience in the Dublin, GA geographical area. Narrative shall not be more than one (1) page in length. Implementation of a Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan. Basis of Evaluation: Provide a Preliminary Design QA/QC Plan and associated procedures to be utilized on this solicitation that demonstrates that the design submissions, drawings, plans, specifications, submittal logs and other relevant information will go through a rigorous review process and coordination effort within the A/E firm and with subcontracted firms. Denote industry standards, best practices, and performance improvements taken to increase efficiency and quality, Identify the roles and responsibilities of the major personnel of the Offeror. It is expected that a Principal of the Offeror, knowledgeable and engaged with the project, reviews and approves submissions prior to their submission. Identify the key personnel that are expected to be accountable for the implementation of the QA/QC plan and responsible for completion of contract requirements. Depict the successful implementation of the QA/QC plan/procedures in the submitted relevant projects. Failure to provide QA/QC plan/procedures for each project may negatively impact an Offeror s rating. Describe the process for finding and mitigating design errors/omissions during design. Submission Requirements: Provide a preliminary Design QA/QC Plan and any associated procedures to be utilized for this solicitation. Provide a summary sheet depicting the successful implementation of the Design QA/QC Plan. The summary sheet shall not be more than one (1) page in length. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time. Basis of Evaluation: Identify the Offeror s past, present and projected future workload, including VA contracts over the previous 12 months. Describe the Offeror s capacity to incorporate this solicitation s work while meeting prescribed dates for current workload. Each key team member to include % of available capacity to take on new project. Evaluation of this factor will be an assessment of the Offeror s ability to complete design documents within the period of performance and meet solicitation requirements. Data from other projects are acceptable in tables or charts. Higher ratings may be given for this criterion when information provided exceeds the minimum requirements. Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror s work capacity. Narrative shall not be more than one (1) page in length. The extent to which potential contractors identify and commit to the use of service- disabled Veteran-owned small businesses, Veteran-owned small businesses, and other types of small businesses as subcontractors. Basis of Evaluation: Offerors shall be evaluated based on their utilization plans for service- disabled Veteran- owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), Veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs), or other types of small businesses. Offerors shall submit qualifications for proposed consultants per other criteria in this solicitation. Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative that discusses the Offeror s approach. Narrative shall not be more than one (1) page in length. The following format shall be used: Cover Page with Solicitation Number, Project Title Table of Contents SF 330 s Copy of Current A/E License Copy of current vetBiz.gov SDVOSB certification UEI Number Cage Code Tax ID number The E mail address and Phone number of the Primary Point of Contact. All SF330 submittals and questions must be sent electronically to the attention of Christopher Jenkins, Contract Specialist at christopher.jenkins@va.gov please provide Pre-Solicitation Number, Project Title, and Firm Name in Subject Line of email. When submitting SF330s, if more than one email is sent, please number emails in Subjects as 1 of n . Submittals received after the date and time identified on page one (1) will not be considered. Firms not providing the required information may be negatively evaluated. Facsimile submittals will not be accepted. All information must be included in the SF330. Page 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER Complete one set of letters and forms for each project identified in your firm s SF 330 Section F, Example projects Which best Illustrate proposed Team s qualifications for This contract. Additional space or blank sheets may be added to answer any question. Transmittal Letter to Accompany Past Performance Questionnaire FROM: [Insert Company Official Name, Title, and Company Name] SUBJECT: Past Performance Questionnaire for Contract(s): [Insert Company Name] is currently responding to Department of Veterans Affairs (NCO 7) request for SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications for a complete design to correct and replace all utility system FCA deficiencies. This Request for SF 330 s requires respondents to identify customers and solicit their response regarding [Insert Company Name] performance. [Insert Company Name] is providing past performance data to NCO 7 relating to our performance on contract [Insert contract name/number] and have identified [Insert name of reference] as the point of contact for this contract. The request for SF 330 instructs that the respondents will provide customers with the attached questionnaire. Please complete the questionnaire and submit it by close date directly to the NCO 7 Contracting Office Contracting Officer. The requested data must be submitted by e-mail to the Government representative identified below. Christopher Jenkins, Contract Specialist VISN 7 Network Contracting Office (NCO7) 1826 Veterans Blvd Dublin, GA 31021 E-mail: christopher.jenkins@va.gov The information contained in the completed Past Performance Questionnaire is considered sensitive and cannot be released to [Insert Company Name]. Please direct any questions about the acquisition or the attached questionnaire to the VISN 7 NCO point of contact identified above. Thank you GENERAL INFORMATION A-E FIRM TO BE EVALUATED: Firm Name: Phone: Address: Email: Point of Contact: Firm Cage Code: ______________________________ Firm Tax ID Number: __________________________ Firm UEI Number: _________________________________ Project Title: _______________________________________ Description of Project: Description of A-E Firms Responsibilities: Contract Number: ________________________________________________________ Dollar Amount: _____________________ _____________________________________ Contract Period of Performance: _____________________________________________ A-E Firm performed as: Prime Contractor/Sub-Contractor/Consultant/Team Member ______ Percent of work performed by A-E Firm: ___________________________________________ Other (Please describe) ________________________________________________________ EVALUATION INFORMATION: Evaluator s Company or Agency Firm Name: Evaluator s Name: Address: Title: Phone: Email: SEND COMPLETED QUESTIONAIRE (SECTIONS B through D) TO: (Email Only) Christopher Jenkins, Contract Specialist VISN 7 Network Contracting Office (NCO7) 1826 Veterans Blvd Dublin, GA 31021 E-mail: christopher.jenkins@va.gov PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Choose the appropriate rating that most accurately describes the A/E s performance or situation. PLEASE PROVIDE A NARRATIVE EXPLANATION FOR ALL RATINGS OF Marginal or Unsatisfactory on page 7 under Narrative Summary. Exceptional (5) Very Good (4) Satisfactory (3) Marginal (2) Unsatisfactory (1) N/A -Performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded many of your company s expectations. The contractual performance reflects or reflected few minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor appear to be highly effective or corrective actions taken were effective. -Performance meets or met contractual requirements and exceeds or exceeded some of your company s expectations. The contractual performance reflects or reflected some minor problems and corrective actions being taken by the contractor appear to be effective or Corrective actions taken were effective. -Performance meets or met contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects or reflected some minor problems. Corrective actions being taken by the contractor appear to be effective or Corrective actions taken were effective. -Performance does or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects or reflected serious problems(s) for which the contractor has not yet identified acceptable corrective actions or did not provide acceptable corrective actions. -Performance does or did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely or did not occur. The contractual performance contains or contained serious problem (s) for which the contractor s corrective actions appear ineffective or were ineffective. -Not applicable or rater has not observed performance in this area. A-E FIRM S NAME: PROJECT NAME: Contract Period of Performance: Note: Include this information on each page of the questionnaire form to ensure there is no mix up in information among contracts surveyed for respective primes/subs, etc. Place an X in the appropriate column using the definitions matrix on page 4. Item FACTORS TO BE RATED Exceptional (5) Very Good (4) Satisfactory (3) Marginal (2) Unsatisfactory (1) N/A Design Services: 1. Overall skill level and technical competence of A/E s personnel. 2. A/E s ability to identify and resolve design issues expeditiously. 3. A/E s responsiveness to design review questions. 4. A/E s ability to effectively coordinate, integrate and manage their consultants/subcontractors/team 5. A/E s effectiveness and responsiveness in interfacing with the Client s staff 6. Overall accuracy, completeness, and coordination of final design documents. (Quality) 7. A/E s ability to provide detailed, accurate cost estimates. 8. A/E s ability to meet contract schedule. Follow-On Construction Support Services: 9. Thoroughness and timely review of construction submittals. 10. Timely resolution of construction design issues. 11. Overall quality, responsiveness, and timeliness of A/E follow-on construction support services. LEED (If Applicable): 12. Overall accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and coordination of LEED documentation. 13. A/E s ability and understanding of the overall LEED process. BIM (If Applicable): 14. Overall accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and coordination of BIM documentation. 15. A/E s ability and understanding of the overall BIM process. Owner s Representative on Design/Build Projects (If Applicable): 16. Overall accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and coordination of requirements documents and bridging documents. 17. A/E s ability, thoroughness, timeliness, and support as Owner s Representative throughout the project. Overall: 18. How would you rate the A/E s ability to control cost 19. How would you rate the A/E s overall management performance on this contract 20. How would you rate the A/E s overall technical/quality performance on this contract 21. Would you use this A/E again (If No , please comment in the Narrative Summary) YES NO CONTRACTOR S NAME: PROJECT NAME: CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Note: Include this information on each page of the questionnaire form to ensure there is no mix up in information among contracts surveyed for respective primes/subs, etc. NARRATIVE SUMMARY (Use this section to explain any rating from the previous page) ITEMS COMMENTS. Request for Information (RFI): RFIs shall be submitted by the prime contractor, to Christopher Nash Jenkins, Contracting Officer at christopher.jenkins@va.gov no later than 12:00 PM April 19, 2024. The Method of Contractor Selection has not been determined at this Time *The value for this project is based on a financial range. The value is listed as the highest possible cost from the range provided by a stakeholder or official project document.