Renovation of a mixed-use development in Charleston, South Carolina. Working plans call for the renovation of a medical facility.

Bid is cancelled Cancellation Description This pre-solicitation notice is hereby canceled due to a change in the project number and title. The new project number is 534-25-103, and the new project title is Correct AHU-14 Deficiencies. We appreciate your interest in this project and apologize for any inconvenience this cancellation may cause.A new pre-solicitation notice will be issued, which will provide further details regarding the updated project requirements. Thank you for your understanding and continued interest. VA CONTRACTING NCO 7 Page 2 of 2 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: 534-19-105 Correct AHU Deficiencies Project Location: Ralph H. Johnson VA Health Care System, Charleston, SC. Estimated/Target Completion Period: 360 calendar days after Notice of award. Estimated Magnitude of Construction: Between $2,000,000.00 and $5,000,000.00 NAICS: 541310 Architectural Services Small Business Size Standard: $12.5 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 Pamela Moffitt, Contracting Specialist Pamela.Moffitt@va.gov no later than December 05, 2024, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time. 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 Thursday, December 19, 2024, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time to Pamela Moffitt, Contracting Specialist at Pamela.Moffitt@va.gov PROJECT OVERVIEW: The Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center located in Charleston, South Carolina is seeking a qualified Architectural Engineering firm to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and design services including Schematics, Design Development, Construction Documents, Technical Specifications, Cost Estimates, As-Built Documentation, and all other related services necessary for the Correct AHU Deficiencies Scope of work to include, but is not limited to site investigation, designing, preparing drawings, phase planning, specifications, and cost estimates for all disciplines for project 534-19-105, Correct AHU Deficiencies. The project will provide Professional Architect/Engineer (A/E) and healthcare planning services necessary to replace the emergency room department air handling unit (RTU-14) that services 16,300 SF and 6,350 SF of education office spaces, correct HVAC and mechanical systems deficiencies, and provide complaint temperature control and air change requirements by areas served by RTU-14. The project will include temporary HVAC considerations and phasing to enable continued operations. The A/E shall conduct site investigations for each system. Direct Digital Control (DDC), dependent components (VAVs, dampers, etc.) energy conservation, future use, and other considerations shall be addressed. Replacement of dependent components of RTU-14 will be evaluated. Replacement of isolation exhaust fans associated with the limits of work will be evaluated. The A/E will be required to attend phase meetings to discuss progress with the VA staff. The A/E will be required to take meeting minutes and distribute them to the VA for approval and as documentation of what was covered within five business days of the meeting. The A/E shall show a detailed containment plan for infection control and hazmat control, where required during construction design. This plan shall be detailed showing locations and what infection and hazmat control requirements are to be used for each area. Construction barriers will be required for the duration of the construction to isolate staff from dust, debris, and construction hazards. The A/E shall indicate these construction barriers on their drawings. 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 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), SBA VetCert, 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 the 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 South Carolina. SF 330 SELECTION CRITERIA: Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria are provided below and listed in relative order of importance. Submissions will be evaluated in a two-phase model: Phase 1 Submission Requirements, Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria. Submissions MUST pass Phase 1 Submission Requirements with an Acceptable rating to be evaluated in Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria. An Acceptable rating is achieved when ALL Submission Requirements are met and deemed Acceptable. One Unacceptable rating WILL result in an Unacceptable rating for the entire Submission. Note: Failure to meet Submission Requirements for each evaluation factor WILL result in the entire submission being unevaluated in Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria. Phase 1 Submission Requirements Objective Scoring: Acceptable Submissions meets ALL Submission Requirements Unacceptable Submission fails to meet at least one Submission Requirement Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required. Submission Requirements: SF 330 information shall be provided per the latest format from the GSA Library located at https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/architect-engineer-qualifications. Complete using blocks F. and H. of the SF330 form. Complete block F. for each relevant project. Complete block H. summary sheet for the Offeror and each key consultant; each summary sheet shall be not more than one (1) page in length. Submit no more than five (5) projects similar to the required work in the solicitation from the date the solicitation closes to five (5) years prior. At a minimum, three (3) projects must be construction complete or construction substantially (50%+) complete. Projects/data submitted shall be projects with total construction costs of $2,000,000 and greater. Projects may include Federal, State, or local Government, as well as private industry projects. Offerors are responsible for providing project descriptions and applicable information in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy versus these minimum requirements. Past Performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality work, and compliance with performance schedules. Submission Requirements: Complete a Summary Sheet using block H. of the SF 330 describing the Offeror s past performance. The summary sheet shall be not more than two (2) pages in length. Provide the Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS), interim and final reports, for each submitted Federal entity project under the Specialized Experience criteria, above. If a CPARS is not available, provide a PPQ. If a relevant project submitted under the Specialized Experience criteria does not have a CPARS because it is a non-Federal entity project, provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). CPAR and PPQ reports will not count towards page limitations. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services. Submission Requirements: Complete using block E. of the SF 330. Submit personal resumes and relevant information for key and responsible personnel. Block E. shall be not more than one (1) page in length per individual. The Offeror shall have a professional engineer, currently registered in any US state or territory of the United States, knowledgeable in their registered 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 South Carolina 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, hazardous material abatement, 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, Licensed Asbestos Inspector, Physical Security Specialist, Life Safety Specialist, and other individuals that are responsible or accountable for design submissions and regulatory compliance. Physical Security Subject Matter Experts shall meet the requirements of Section 10.1.5 of the Physical Security & Resiliency Design Manual. Implementation of a Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan (Other). 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. Submission Requirements: Complete using block H. of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror s work capacity. The narrative shall be not more than one (1) page in length. Location in the general geographical area of Charleston, SC, and knowledge of the locality of the Ralph H. Johnson VA facility: Submission Requirements: Complete using block H. of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror s experience in the Charleston, SC geographical area. The narrative shall be not 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: Submission Requirements: Complete using block H. of the SF 330. Provide a narrative that discusses the Offeror s approach. The narrative shall be not more than one (1) page in length. Offerors shall complete and submit the following statement in block H. : I [signatory authority], of [Offeror Company or Joint Venture] certify that the team proposed to perform under this requirement demonstrates the capability of 50% SDVOSB performance in compliance with 48 CFR 852.219-10 . Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria Adjectival Scoring Rating Description Exceptional Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies. Very Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies. Satisfactory Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths that exceed specified performance or capability requirements and has no significant deficiencies. Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. 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 that are 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 the solicitation. Specific emphasis on experience and technical competence shall be geared towards fire protection, seismic design/retrofit, physical security resilience, and design, healthcare design/planning, building automatic system design, and mechanical/electrical system design. Past Performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality 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 a quality control plan and quality control procedures; Addressing design errors/omissions timely; 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. 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. Adjectival Rating: Offeror risks receiving a lower rating if fewer than three (3) PPQs are provided or if the PPQs were not completed by project point of contact. Failure to demonstrate proven competence to perform projects with similar requirements to the requirements of the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award. If no CPARs or PPQs are submitted or responses to requests were not provided, the rating shall not be higher than Satisfactory . Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services. Basis of Evaluation: Evaluation of professional qualifications will include but is not limited to the subjective assessment of the Offeror's individual resumes. 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 involvement and degree of involvement in professional organizations, research/publications, code/standard body involvement, etc. Adjectival Scoring: Offerors unable to demonstrate professional qualifications necessary to perform designs may be considered ineligible for award. Implementation of a Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan (Other); 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 who are expected to be accountable for the implementation of the QA/QC plan and responsible for the 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. 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 the current workload. Each key team member is to include % of available capacity to take on new projects. 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 is acceptable in tables or charts. Capacity < 25% shall be rated not greater than Satisfactory. Higher ratings may be given for this criterion when the information provided exceeds the minimum requirements. Location in the general geographical area of Charleston, SC, and knowledge of the locality of the Ralph H. Johnson VA facility: Basis of Evaluation: Offerors will be subjectively evaluated based on their knowledge (and the knowledge of subcontractors) of unique conditions or variables, such as familiarity with applicable codes, regulations, construction market & labor conditions, geotechnical, seismic, weather, environmental, or other unique considerations found in Charleston, SC and the Low Country geographical area. If prior experience in Charleston, SC 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 and locations are acceptable to highlight knowledge of the Charleston, SC geographical area or areas of a similar nature. Adjectival Scoring: Offerors that submit relevant projects outside of the Charleston, SC geographical area may be given a lower rating than projects within the Charleston, SC geographical area. Offerors that demonstrate no experience in the geographical area shall be rated not higher than Satisfactory . 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 be evaluated on the expected amount of work versus key personnel to verify the above signatory statement. If less than 50% of work is estimated to be performed by the prime SDVOSB, the Offeror may be given a lower rating. Offerors shall submit qualifications for proposed consultants per other criteria in this solicitation. Firms responding to this announcement by submitting a qualifying SF 330, before the closing date and time, will be considered for initial selection evaluation. Following the initial evaluation of the SF330s; three or more firms that are considered the most highly qualified to provide the type of services required will be selected for interviews. Selected firms will be notified by email of selection and provided further instructions. Selection and evaluation of firms shall be made based on SF 330 submissions and direct responses to the selection criteria identified herein. Failure to address all selection criteria will result in a decreased rating. Evaluating past performance and experience may include information provided by the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, and the Contracting Officer's knowledge of current project performance. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being removed from consideration. Firms that design or prepare specifications in conjunction with this contract are prohibited from participating in any future construction contracts based on those documents. All projects identified on the SF330 must be completed by the office/branch/individual team member performing the work under this contract. Submission Requirements: The SF 330 form may be downloaded from http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/type/SF. Completed SF 330s shall include the primary firms, subcontractor firms, and any consultants expected to be used on the project. Do not submit information incorporating by reference. The following format shall be used: (1) Cover Page with Solicitation Number, Project Title (2) Table of Contents (3) SF 330 s (4) Copy of Current A/E License (5) Copy of current vetBiz.gov SDVOSB certification (6) DUNS Number (7) Cage Code (8) Tax ID number (9) 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 Pamela Moffitt, Contracting Specialist at Pamela.Moffitt@va.gov. Please provide the Pre-Solicitation Number, Project Title, and Firm Name in the 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. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ) *All PPQs are included in the page limit for SF 330 submissions. SECTION 1 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE AND COVER LETTER NCO 7 Contracting Office is considering the Offeror identified above for award of 534-19-105, Correct AHU Deficiencies at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Health Care System, Charleston, SC. Your comments would be appreciated regarding this firm s past performance. The intent of this form is to evaluate the company s ability to perform the work as described in the solicitation. Please verify the accuracy of the information in Section 1 and complete the questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. NCO 7 Contracting may contact you to obtain any additional information regarding a contract award. 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): [State Contract Identifiers] [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 [Project Title]. 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 respondents provide customers with the attached questionnaire. Please complete the questionnaire and submit it by [date required] directly to the NCO 7 Contracting Office Contracting Officer. The requested data MUST be submitted electronically via email to the Government representative identified below. ONLY electronic responses will be accepted. Please send responses to XXXX [Name of Contracting Specialist], Contract Specialist at [EMAIL of Contracting Specialist]. Please note that the maximum file size the VA s email system will allow is 20MB. If submission will require multiple emails, please identify them as x of n . 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, [Insert Company Official Name and Title] AE FIRM INFORMATION AE Firm Name: Telephone: Address: Email Address: City | State | Zip: Point of Contact: Firm Tax ID Number: Firm Cage Code: Firm DUNS Number: Contract Number: Dollar Amount: Period of Performance: Project Title: Description of Project: Description of A-E Firms Responsibilities: The AE Firm was the << Please select one >>: Prime Contractor | Sub-Contractor | Consultant | Team Member Percent of the work performed by the AE: Other (Please describe): EVALUATOR INFORMATION Company or Agency Name: Address: City | State | Zip: Evaluator s Name: Evaluator s Title: Evaluator s Phone: Evaluator s email: SECTION 2 PERFORMANCE INFORMATION ADJECTIVAL RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR S PERFORMANCE *THIS PAGE WILL BE REMOVED FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES AND NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD THE SF330 PAGE COUNT IT IS FOR PPQ COMPLETION PURPOSES ONLY* 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 the Narrative Summary found below. Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory 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. SECTION 3 PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 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 in Section 2. Item FACTORS TO BE RATED Exceptional Very Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory 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 and comments 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. 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 design issues, requests for information, site visits, etc. 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 Number of A/E Design Errors & Omissions on Project: (Please describe any major issues below) Increased Project Cost Due to A/E Design Errors & Omissions (Yes | No): (Please describe any major project impacts below) NARRATIVE SUMMARY (Use this section to explain any rating of marginal or unsatisfactory from the previous page) ITEM COMMENTS Estimated/Target Completion Period: 360 calendar days after Notice of award. Request for Information (RFI): RFIs shall be submitted by the prime contractor, to Pamela Moffitt, Contracting Specialist Pamela.Moffitt@va.gov no later than December 05, 2024, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time. 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.