request for proposals design build services...

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DESIGN BUILD SERVICES

Metropolitan Branch Trail South Segment

VOLUME I

Instructions to Proposers DCKA-2016-R-0044

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Metropolitan Branch Trail RFP

DCKA-2016-R-0044 of 31 District Department of Transportation

Contents

1 Introduction and General Provisions .....................................................................................4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Goals ...................................................................................................................................4 1.2 Documents in the Request for Proposals ........................................................................................4 1.3 General Project Description ............................................................................................................5 1.4 Definitions and Acronyms ...............................................................................................................6 1.5 Procurement Schedule....................................................................................................................6 1.6 General Provisions Regarding Proposals .........................................................................................6 1.7 Project Costs, Funding, and Financing ............................................................................................7 1.8

2 Procurement Process ............................................................................................................8 Procurement Method .....................................................................................................................8 2.1 Receipt of the Request for Proposal Documents, Communications, and Other Information ........8 2.2 Questions and Response Process, and Addenda ............................................................................9 2.3 Reserved ...................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Pre-Proposal Meetings ................................................................................................................. 11 2.5 Ownership of Proposal, Confidentiality and FOIA ........................................................................ 11 2.6 DDOT Studies and Investigations ................................................................................................. 12 2.7 Examination of RFP ...................................................................................................................... 12 2.8 Errors ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2.9

Improper Conduct .................................................................................................................... 1213 2.10 Team Composition Changes ........................................................................................................ 13 2.11

3 Reserved ............................................................................................................................ 14

4 Requirements for Submittal of Proposals and Acceptance of Delivery by DDOT ...................... 15 General Submittal Requirements................................................................................................. 15 4.1 Technical Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Price Proposal .............................................................................................................................. 17 4.3 Proposal Security ......................................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Acceptance of Delivery by DDOT ................................................................................................. 17 4.5 Costs Not Reimbursable ............................................................................................................... 18 4.6

5 Evaluation and Post-Selection Process ................................................................................. 19 Evaluation Process ....................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Evaluation of Technical Proposal by EC ........................................................................................ 20 5.2 CO’s Evaluation of Technical Proposals ....................................................................................... 24 5.3 CO’s Evaluation of Price Proposals ........................................................................................... 2524 5.4 CO Right to Exclude Proposals from Consideration ..................................................................... 25 5.5 Requests for Clarification ............................................................................................................. 25 5.6 Post-Selection Process to finalize the Contract Documents ....................................................... 26 5.7 Post-Selection Deliverables .......................................................................................................... 26 5.8

6 Final Award and Execution; Post-Execution Actions ............................................................. 27 Final Award of DBA ...................................................................................................................... 27 6.1 Debriefings ................................................................................................................................... 28 6.2

Metropolitan Branch Trail RFP


7 Protests ............................................................................................................................. 29 Protests ........................................................................................................................................ 29 7.1

8 Reserved ............................................................................................................................ 30

9 DDOT Disclaimers ............................................................................................................... 31 DDOT Disclaimers ......................................................................................................................... 31 9.1

Exhibits

Exhibit A Definitions and Acronyms

Exhibit B Technical Proposal Instructions

Exhibit C Price Proposal Instructions

Exhibit D Forms

Exhibit E Summary and Order of Proposal Contents

Section 1 - Metropolitan Branch Trail RFP


1 Introduction and General Provisions Introduction 1.1

This Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued by the Office of Contracting and Procurement (OCP) on behalf of the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), an agency of the District of Columbia (the District or DC), to seek competitive proposals (individually, a Proposal and collectively, Proposals) to design and construct the Metropolitan Branch Trail (the Project), as further described in the following paragraphs, and to be evidenced by a Design-Build Agreement (DBA). The DBA is included in Volume II, Book I of the RFP. Proposers must comply with these Instructions to Proposers (ITP) during the procurement and in their responses to the RFP. Proposers shall take the Project goals identified in Section 1.2 into consideration when drafting their Proposals as they will be used as a guide during the evaluation process.

The Proposer that is selected by DDOT in accordance with this ITP will be referred to as the Successful Proposer, and will become the design-build contractor (the DB Contractor) upon execution of the DBA.

All forms identified in this ITP are found in Exhibit D unless otherwise noted. All times in this ITP are Eastern Standard Time (EST) or Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), as applicable. All references to days or Days in this ITP refer to calendar days unless otherwise specified.

Project Goals 1.2The following goals have been developed for the Project:

A. Design and construct a new highly functional, safe and sustainable trail facility from 1500 feet south of Bates Road to the Fort Totten Metro Station and Gallatin St NE

B. Meet all of the needs and requirements of DDOT, DOEE, WMATA, CSX, the DPW Trash Transfer Station, Aggregate Industries, and the National Park Service

C. Minimize impacts and maintain effective operations of the adjoining landowners and facilities identified in item 2 above.

D. Achieve Project Final Completion within 540 days from Notice to Proceed.

Documents in the Request for Proposals 1.3The RFP consists of the following volumes, and any other documents that may be issued by Addendum, and such documents that may be amended and supplemented:

A. Volume I—this ITP (including Exhibits and Forms)

B. Volume II, Book I — DBA (including Exhibits and Forms)

C. Volume II, Book II — Technical Provisions

D. Volume II, Book III – Contract Data and Reports (CDRs)



E. Volume III, Book I — Reference Information Documents (RIDs)

Refer to Volume II, Book I – DBA, for a list of the Contract Documents and their respective orders of precedence. Additional information may subsequently become available and will be distributed to Proposers by Addendum through the Office of Contracting and Procurement Web Site (www.ocp.dc.gov) or (www.dtap.ddot.dc.gov.)

The RIDs are included in the RFP for the purpose of providing information in DDOT’s possession to Proposers. DDOT has not determined whether all the RIDs are accurate or complete. Proposers should not rely solely on the RIDs in preparing their proposals and should independently verify information critical to the development of their Proposals.

General Project Description 1.4 General Description 1.4.1

The Project consists of the construction of a paved pedestrian and bicycle trail adjacent to the CSX tracks and WMATA Red Line, adjacent to Fort Totten Metro Station, and on NPS property in NE, Washington D.C. The trail begins approximately 1500 feet south of Bates Road NE and continues north to the Fort Totten Metro station. The existing trail connection from Gallatin Road NE to the Fort Totten Metro station shall be reconstructed.

Scope of Design-Build Contractor’s Obligations 1.4.2The DB Contractor’s obligations shall include all efforts required to develop, design, and construct the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.

Project Environmental Status 1.4.3An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Metropolitan Branch Trail was completed by DDOT and signed by FHWA in March 2011. Following approval of the EA, a Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) was completed by DDOT and signed by FHWA in July 2013.

Permits and Approvals 1.4.4The table in Section 8 of the Technical Provisions lists the permits required for this Project and the party responsible for initial permit acquisition.

Status of Required Right-of-Way Acquisition 1.4.5DDOT will acquire right-of-way (ROW) as shown in the Geometry and Civil Plan Sheet Exhibit included in the Contract Data and Reports in the time frame reflected in Section 24 of the Technical Provisions.

Required Utility Work 1.4.6DDOT has initiated coordination with Utilities identified in the Potential Utility Conflict Matrix, which is included as a RID. The DB Contractor is responsible for relocation or coordinating relocation of the Utilities in accordance with the Technical Provisions.

http://www.ocp.dc.gov/

http://www.dtap.ddot.dc.gov/



Definitions and Acronyms 1.5Refer to Exhibit A of this ITP for the meaning of various capitalized terms and acronyms used herein. Refer to Exhibit A of the DBA, as applicable, for the meaning of capitalized terms and acronyms used but not defined

herein or in Exhibit A of this ITP. Additional capitalized terms and acronyms are included, and defined, in the

Technical Provisions.

Procurement Schedule 1.6The following represents the anticipated schedule for the procurement. Additional dates for one-on-one meetings may be added in accordance with Section 2.5.

Event Date and Time

Issue date for RFP Issue Date2/3/2017

Pre-Proposal Conference TBD3/2/2017

Last date for Proposer submittal of questions / comments Issue Date + 4 weeks3/8/2017

Release of Final RFP Addendum Issue Date + 5 weeks3/23/2017

Technical and Price Proposal Due Date Issue Date + 6 weeks4/3/2017

Anticipated Notice of Intent to Award Proposal Due Date + 12 weeks5/29/2017

Anticipated date for Execution of Design Build Agreement (DBA) Notice of Intent to Award + 3 weeks 6/19/2017

All dates and times set forth above and elsewhere in the RFP are subject to change, at DDOT’s sole discretion.

Volume II, Book I, Attachment 6 - Davis Bacon wage rates will be updated 10 days prior to the Price Proposal Due Date.

General Provisions Regarding Proposals 1.7 Proposal Contents 1.7.1

As used in this ITP, the term Proposal means a Proposer’s complete response to the RFP, including the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal, and including any Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) requested in accordance with Section 5.1. The instructions and requirements for the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal are set forth in Exhibits B and C, respectively; and a checklist showing the required contents of the entire Proposal is found in Exhibit E. The Proposal shall be organized in the order listed in Exhibit E and shall be clearly indexed. Each Proposal component shall be clearly titled and identified. Any failure to provide all the information and all completed forms (Exhibit D) in the format specified or submittal of a Proposal subject to any reservations, qualifications, conditions, or assumptions may result in DDOT’s rejection of the Proposal.

All blank spaces in the Proposal forms must be filled in as appropriate. No changes may be made in the Proposal



forms.

Inclusion of Proposal in Contract Documents 1.7.2The successful Proposal will become part of the Contract Documents as stated in Section 3.3 (Order of Precedence) of the DBA.

Project Costs, Funding, and Financing 1.8DDOT’s plan of finance contemplates that DDOT, using District and federal funds allocated to the District, will fund the design and construction of the Project. Payments will be made in accordance with the Contract Documents.



2 Procurement Process

Procurement Method 2.1This RFP is issued pursuant to the Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010 (PPRA); DC Official Code section 2-351.01 et seq. as amended; the Procurement Integrity, Transparency, and Accountability Amendment Act of 2016; 27 DCMR section 1600, et seq. as amended; and other applicable federal and District provisions.

If an award will be made, the District will award the DBA in accordance with the process set forth in this ITP.

Receipt of the Request for Proposal Documents, 2.2Communications, and Other Information

The RFP documents will be available on the Procurement Web site viewable by the public. It is the responsibility of the Proposer to check the site regularly for Addenda to this ITP and for other procurement-related information.

Contracting Officer 2.2.1DDOT has designated the following individual to be the Contracting Officer (CO) for the procurement:

Courtney Lattimore Contracting Officer Office of Contracting and Procurement District Department of Transportation 55 M Street SE, 4th Floor – Bid Room Washington D.C. 20003

From time to time during the procurement process or during the term of the DBA, the District may designate

another CO or representative to carry out some or all of the District’s obligations pertaining to the Project.

Contract Administrator 2.2.2The Contract Administrator (CA) will be the person designated in the DBA.

Identification of Proposer Authorized Representative 2.2.3The Proposer’s Authorized Representative shall initially be the person identified in the Proposal as the single point of contact for the Proposer. If Proposer changes its designated representative to receive documents, communications, or notices in connection with the procurement at any time, including subsequent to its submission of its Proposal, the Proposer shall provide the CO with the name and address of the newly designated representative. Failure to identify a designated representative in writing may result in the Proposer failing to receive important communications from the District. The District is not responsible for any such failure.

Rules of Contact 2.2.4



Starting the date this RFP is issued and ending on the earliest of the following: Execution and delivery of the DBA; rejection of all Proposals by the District; or cancellation of the RFP, the rules of contact set forth below shall continue to apply. The rules are designed to promote a fair and impartial procurement process. Contact includes face-to-face, telephone, facsimile, electronic mail (e-mail), social media, instant messages, text messages, or formal written communication. Contact also includes third-party communications on behalf of the Proposer.

1. The specific rules of contact are as follows: No Proposer or any of its team members may communicate with another Proposer or its team members with regard to the RFP or either team’s Proposal, with the exception that the prohibition does not apply to public discussions regarding the RFP at any District-sponsored informational meetings.

2. Each Proposer shall designate one representative responsible for all communications between the Proposer and the District, and such designated representative shall correspond with the District regarding the RFP only through the District’s CO.

3. No Proposer or representative thereof shall have any ex-parte communications regarding the RFP or the procurement described herein with any District staff, advisors, contractors, consultants or subconsultants involved with the procurement or the Project, except for the following:

a. Communications with District consultants who have completed their services for the Project and have been released by the District.

b. Communications expressly permitted by the RFP or except as approved in advance by the District in its sole discretion.

The list of consultants and subconsultants who have assisted the District in the development of the Project has been provided by the CO to the Proposers.

4. The foregoing restriction shall not, however, preclude or restrict communications with regard to matters unrelated to the RFP or participation in public meetings of the DC Council or any public or Proposer workshop related to the RFP. Any Proposer engaging in such prohibited communications may be disqualified at the sole discretion of the District. Any communications judged by the District, in its sole discretion, to be improper may result in disqualification.

5. Any official information regarding the Project will be disseminated from the District’s CO or, on the Secure Site or Procurement Web site.

6. The District will not be responsible for any oral exchange or any other information or exchange that occurs outside the official process specified herein.

The Proposer shall note that no correspondence or information from the District DOT or anyone representing the District regarding this RFP or the Proposal process shall have any effect unless it is in compliance with this Section 2.2.4.

Questions and Response Process, and Addenda 2.3 Questions and Responses Regarding the RFP 2.3.1

Proposers shall be responsible for reviewing the RFP and any Addenda issued by the District before the Technical Proposal Due Date and for requesting written clarification or interpretation of any perceived mistake,



discrepancy, deficiency, ambiguity, error, or omission contained therein, or of any provision that the Proposer fails to understand. Failure of the Proposer to so examine and inform itself shall be at its sole risk, and no relief for error or omission will be provided by the CO.

Proposers shall submit, and the District may respond to, requests for written clarification in accordance with this Section 2.3.1. The District will only consider comments or questions regarding the RFP, including requests for clarification and requests to correct errors, if submitted by a Proposer to the CO.

Such comments or questions may be submitted at any time prior to the applicable last date specified in Section 1.6 or such later date as may be specified in any Addendum and shall:

A. Be sequentially numbered;

B. Identify the document (for example, the DBA, the Technical Provisions)

C. Identify the relevant section number and page number (for example, DBA Section D.2, pages 20-21) or, if it is a general question, indicate so;

D. Not identify the Proposer’s identity in the body of the question; and

E. Not contain proprietary or confidential information.

Clarification requests and questions must be submitted using Form S.

No oral requests will be considered. Proposers are responsible for ensuring that any written communications clearly indicate on the first page or in the subject line, as applicable, that the material relates to the Project. No requests for additional information or clarification submitted to any person other than the CO will be considered. Questions may be submitted only by the Proposer’s Authorized Representative and must include the requestor’s name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail address, and the Proposer he/she represents.

The questions and the District’s responses will be in writing and will be delivered to all Proposers. The District anticipates issuing multiple sets of written responses at different times during the procurement process. The last set of responses will be issued no later than the date specified in Section 1.6.

Responses provided in writing that are not part of an Addendum do not amend the RFP and will not be considered part of the RFP. If the District concludes, in its sole discretion, that its interpretation or clarification requires a change in the RFP, the District will prepare and issue an Addendum.

Addenda 2.3.2The District reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to revise, modify, or change the RFP (including this ITP) and/or the procurement process at any time. Any revisions will be implemented through issuance of Addenda to the RFP. Addenda will be posted on the Procurement Site. If any Addendum significantly affects the RFP, as determined at the District’s sole discretion, the District may change the Technical and / or Price Proposal Due Date. The announcement of the new date will be included in the Addendum. In addition, if the last date for Proposers to submit questions regarding the RFP has occurred or has changed, the Addendum will indicate the latest date for submittal of any clarification requests permitted concerning the Addendum.

The Proposer shall acknowledge in its Proposal Letter (see Form A in Exhibit D) receipt of all Addenda and question responses. Failure to acknowledge such receipt may cause the Proposal to be rejected. The District



reserves the right to hold group meetings with Proposers and/or one-on-one meetings with each Proposer to discuss any Addenda or responses to requests for clarifications. The District does not anticipate issuing any Addenda relating to the Technical Proposal later than 21 days before the Technical Proposal Due Date.

However, if the need arises, the District reserves the right to issue Addenda after such date. If the District finds it necessary to issue an Addendum after such date, any relevant processes or response times necessitated by the Addendum will be set forth in a cover letter to that specific Addendum.

Reserved 2.4

Pre-Proposal Meetings 2.5 Informational Meetings 2.5.1

The District may hold non-confidential joint informational meetings with all Proposers at any time before the Price Proposal Due Date. Informational meetings may be held either in person, by telephone, or virtually. If held by telephone or virtually, the meeting may permit interactive communication between all Proposers and the District. Written notice of any informational meetings will be sent to all Proposers. The notice will inform Proposers of the manner of the meeting.

Each Proposer shall attend informational meetings with appropriate members of its proposed key management personnel, and if required, senior representatives of proposed team members identified by the District.

Statements at Meetings 2.5.2Nothing stated at any pre-Proposal meeting or included in a written record or summary of a meeting will modify this ITP or any other part of the RFP unless it is incorporated in an Addendum issued pursuant to Section 2.3.2.

Ownership of Proposal, Confidentiality and FOIA 2.6 Ownership of Proposal and Applicability of FOIA 2.6.1

The District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), District of Columbia Code (DC Code) § 2-531-539, provides that any person has the right to request access to records. All public bodies of the District government are required to disclose public records, except for those records, or portions of records, that are protected from disclosure by the exemptions found at DC Code § 2-534.

Subject to the exceptions specified in this Section and in the FOIA, all written and electronic correspondence, exhibits, photographs, reports, printed material, tapes, disks, designs, and other graphic and visual aids submitted to DDOT during the procurement process, whether included in the Proposal or otherwise submitted will not be returned to the submitting parties. Proposers should familiarize themselves with the provisions of the FOIA requiring disclosure of public information and exceptions thereto. In no event shall the District of Columbia, DDOT, or any of their agents, representatives, consultants, directors, officers, or employees be liable to a Proposer or Proposer team member for the disclosure of any materials or information submitted in response to the RFP.



Disclosure Waiver 2.6.2Each Proposer, by submitting a Proposal to the District in response to the RFP, consents to the disclosures described in this ITP, including the disclosures in this Section and all other disclosures required by law, and expressly waives any right to contest, impede, prevent, or delay such disclosure, or to initiate any proceeding that may have the effect of impeding, preventing, or delaying such disclosure, under FOIA or any other law relating to the confidentiality or disclosure of information. Under no circumstances will the District be responsible for or liable to a Proposer or any other party as a result of disclosing any such materials. The Proposer further agrees to assist the District in complying with the disclosure requirements if it is the selected Successful Proposer.

Disclosure Process for Requests under FOIA 2.6.3All requests under FOIA for disclosure of the Proposals or information contained therein, shall be processed in accordance with the FOIA.

DDOT Studies and Investigations 2.7To the extent DDOT undertakes any investigative activity before the Technical Proposal Due Date, the information obtained by DDOT from such activities may be made available to Proposers in the CDRs or RIDs, or supplements to the CDRs or RIDs. Specifically, DDOT makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the additional information. Proposers should independently verify any additional information.

Examination of RFP 2.8Each Proposer shall be solely responsible for examining, with appropriate care and diligence, the RFP, including CDRs, RIDs and any Addenda and material posted on the Procurement Web site and for informing itself about any and all conditions that may in any way affect the amount or nature of its Proposal, or the performance of the DB Contractor’s obligations under the DBA with the District. Each Proposer is also responsible for monitoring the Procurement Web site for information concerning this RFP and the procurement. The Proposal Letter (Form A) includes an acknowledgment that the Proposer has received and reviewed all materials posted thereon. Failure of the Proposer to so examine and inform itself shall be at its sole risk, and DDOT will provide no relief for any error or omission.

The submission of a Proposal shall be considered prima facie evidence that the Proposer has made the above-described examination and is satisfied with the conditions to be encountered in performing the Work and with the requirements of the Contract Documents.

Errors 2.9If any Error is identified by a Proposer at any time during the procurement process in any of the documents supplied by the District, the Proposer shall notify the District of the recommended correction or request for clarification in writing in accordance with Section 2.3.1.

Improper Conduct 2.10



Non-Collusion 2.10.1Neither the Proposer nor any of its team members shall undertake any of the prohibited activities identified in the Non-Collusion Affidavit (Form F).

Organizational Conflicts of Interest 2.10.2The provisions of Title 27 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) § 2220 and § 2221 (1987, as amended), and the federal provisions of 23 CFR § 636, regarding organizational conflicts of interest apply to this Project. Proposers are advised that the provisions may preclude certain firms and their subsidiaries and affiliates from participating on a Proposer team.

By submitting its Proposal, each Proposer agrees that, if an organizational conflict of interest (as defined in the rules) is thereafter discovered, the Proposer must make an immediate and full written disclosure to the District that includes a description of the action that the Proposer has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflicts. If an organizational conflict of interest is deemed to exist, the District may, at its sole discretion, cancel the procurement, disqualify the Proposer with a conflict, or take other action as necessary to mitigate the conflict. If Proposer was aware of an organizational conflict of interest before the award of the DBA and did not disclose the conflict to the District, the District may pursue remedies under the DBA, including termination of the DBA, if applicable, for default.

The list of consultants and subconsultants who have assisted DDOT in the development of the Project and are therefore considered to have an organizational conflict of interest includes:

A. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP

B. Toole Design Group

C. Findling, Inc.

Team Composition Changes 2.11The Proposer’s team (including Major Participants, Key Personnel, and Key Subcontractors), as identified in its Technical Proposal, must remain intact for the duration of the procurement process, up to and including execution of the DBA, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer at the Contracting Officer’s sole discretion.



3 Reserved



4 Requirements for Submittal of Proposals and

Acceptance of Delivery by DDOT General Submittal Requirements 4.1

Each Proposal shall include a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal meeting the requirements set forth in Exhibits B and C, respectively. The Proposal shall be submitted in sealed containers or boxes in the format and manner set forth in Sections 4.1.5, 4.2 and 4.3.

Technical and Price Proposal Due Date 4.1.1The completed Technical and Price Proposals shall be delivered no later than the due date and time specified in Section 1.6.

Signatures Required 4.1.2The Proposal Letter (Form A) shall be signed and shall be accompanied by evidence of signatory authorization as specified in Form A.

Consequences of Failure to Follow Requirements 4.1.3Failure to use sealed containers or boxes or to properly identify the Proposal may result in unintended disclosure of information contained in the Proposal and/or disqualification of the Proposal. The Proposer shall be entirely responsible for any consequences, including disqualification of the Proposal, which result from DDOT concluding that the Proposer did not follow the foregoing instructions. It is Proposer’s sole responsibility to see that its Proposal is received as required.

Requirements to Submit Compliant Proposal 4.1.4If the Proposal does not fully comply with the instructions and rules contained in these ITP, including the ITP Exhibits, it may be disqualified.

If a Proposal is deemed unacceptable, the District may disqualify the Proposal from further consideration, in its sole discretion. Such disqualification will not result in the forfeiture of Proposer’s Proposal Security.

Each Proposal must be submitted in the format that is specified by the District in this ITP. The Proposer shall sign the original copy of the Proposal submitted to the District. Multiple or alternate proposals shall not be submitted.

Format 4.1.5The Proposal shall contain concise written material and drawings enabling a clear understanding and evaluation of the capabilities of the Proposer and the characteristics and benefits of the Proposal. Legibility, clarity, and



completeness of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal are essential. The Technical Proposal shall not exceed the page limitation set forth in Exhibit B, Section 2.0. No page limit applies to appendices and exhibits or the Price Proposal; however, the District will not review any information in appendices and exhibits other than those required to be provided, and the Proposal evaluation process will focus on the body of the Proposal and any required appendices and exhibits.

An 8 ½-by-11-inch format is required for typed submissions and an 11-by-17-inch format is required for drawings. Preliminary schedule submissions shall include both a hard copy and the electronic files necessary to view and manipulate the schedule in Primavera P6, Version 8, or latest at time of release of final RFP.

Submittals must be bound, with all pages in a binder sequentially numbered. Printed lines may be single-spaced, with the type font size being no smaller than 12 point, other than in tables and figures, which may be prepared using 10-point font size type. The use of 11-by-17-inch foldouts for tables, graphics, and maps is acceptable in the main body of the Proposal. Each 11-by-17-inch foldout will be considered 1 page. Appendices may be bound separately in a second binder (11x17).

Additional Requirements for Proposal Delivery 4.1.6The Technical Proposal and Price Proposal are to be delivered no later than the date and time specified in Section 1.6 to DDOT at the following address:

Courtney LattimoreSteven Wishod, Contracting Officer Office of Contracting and Procurement District Department of Transportation 55 M Street SE, 4th Floor – Bid Room Washington D.C. 20003

Each binder of the Proposal shall be labeled to indicate its contents and the Proposer. The original Technical and Price Proposals shall be clearly identified as “original”; copies of the Proposals shall be sequentially numbered, labeled, and bound.

Proposal Validity Period 4.1.7Each Proposal shall initially be valid for acceptance by DDOT for a period of 120 days after the Price Proposal Due Date (the “Proposal Validity Period”). If a Proposer is notified of failure to conclude an award to a higher ranked Proposer during the 120-day period in accordance with Section 5.7, the notified Proposer’s Proposal shall be valid for acceptance for a period of 180 days after the Price Proposal Due Date without unilaterally varying or amending its terms and without any member or partner withdrawing or any other change being made in the composition of the partnership/joint venture/limited liability company/consortium on whose behalf the Proposal is submitted, without first obtaining the prior written consent of DDOT, in DDOT’s sole discretion.

Technical Proposal 4.2 General 4.2.1

All of the binders composing the Technical Proposal, together with the electronic copies, shall be labeled “[Proposer Name]: Technical Proposal for the Metropolitan Branch Trail Project.” The Proposer shall provide one signed original with 10 numbered copies of the Technical Proposal. Two electronic copies of the Technical



Proposal shall be provided in pdf format on write-protected USB flash drive with the following exceptions: (a) corporate, partnership, JV, and limited liability company documents (for example, articles of incorporation, bylaws, partnership agreements, JV agreements, and limited liability company operating agreements) may be submitted in hard copy and need not be submitted electronically.

Price Proposal 4.3 General 4.3.1

All of the binders comprising the Price Proposal, together with the electronic copies, shall be labeled “[Proposer Name]: Price Proposal for the Metropolitan Branch Trail Project.” The Proposer shall provide one signed original with 3 numbered copies of the Price Proposal. The original Proposal Security shall be provided in a separately sealed envelope. The Contract Price Details (including electronic copies) shall be provided in a separately sealed envelope. Two electronic copies of the Price Proposal shall be provided in pdf format on write-protected USB flash drive, with the following exceptions: (a) Forms are to be provided in Microsoft Excel format. All required pricing, financial, and cost information shall be provided in U.S. (US$) currency only, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Proposal Security 4.4 General 4.4.1

As a guaranty of its commitment to enter into the DBA in accordance with its commitments under its Proposal if it becomes the Successful Proposer, each Proposer shall submit with the Price Proposal a proposal bond as described in Exhibit C, Section 5.0 (Proposal Security).

Forfeiture of Proposal Security 4.4.2By submitting its Proposal, each Proposer understands and agrees to the conditions for forfeiture of the Proposal Security as described in Form K.

Return of Proposal Security 4.4.3Each Proposal Security will be retained until the earlier of: (i) the end of the Proposal Validity Period, or such date as extended in accordance with Section 4.1.7 as applicable; and (ii) the date the Contract is awarded; after which the Proposal Security for each unsuccessful Proposer, except such Proposal Security that has been forfeited, will be returned to the respective Proposers. The Proposal Security for the Successful Proposer shall be returned at such time as the Proposer has satisfied all conditions of execution and award set forth in ITP Section 6.1. If a Proposer is notified of failure to conclude an award to a higher ranked Proposer during the initial 120-day period, the notified Proposer shall obtain an extension of the Proposal Security for the period until 180 days after the Price Proposal Due Date.

Acceptance of Delivery by DDOT 4.5DDOT will provide a time and date stamped receipt for Proposals delivered to DDOT as specified herein.



Costs Not Reimbursable 4.6The cost of preparing the Proposal and any costs incurred at any time before final award and execution of the DBA, including costs incurred for any meetings shall be borne by the Proposer.



5 Evaluation and Post-Selection Process

Evaluation Process 5.1 Evaluation Process Overview 5.1.1

The District intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation, based on the evaluation criteria specified herein.

The CO will initially determine the basis of award in accordance with 27 DCMR §1632, after evaluation of the proposals, using only the criteria and weightings stated in the RFP. The CO may elect to proceed with any method of negotiations, discussion or award of the contract without negotiations, which is set forth in subsections (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 1632.1.

.

The CO will administer the following process in accordance with 27 DCMR §1600, 23 CFR §636 and the PPRA as follows:

A. Proposals will be logged in at the date and time they are received per Section 4.1.6.

B. The Evaluation Committee (EC) will evaluate the Technical Proposals and assign Technical Proposal scores

based on the criteria set forth in Section 5.2. The EC will provide its recommendation to the CO.

C. The CO will review the EC’s evaluation and scoring of the Technical Proposals. The CO will review the Proposals, recommendations, and supporting information provided by the EC, and may accept the recommendation, reject the recommendation, and cancel the procurement or request the EC to reconsider the recommendation. The CO will complete his own independent review of the Technical Proposals. The CO will assign Technical Proposal scores to each proposal.

D. Following Technical Proposal scoring, the CO will open the Price Proposals and evaluate the Price

Proposals based on the criteria set forth in Section 5.4.1 and assign Price Proposal scores based on the

criteria set forth in Section 5.4.2. Then the CO will calculate the total scores for each Proposal based on the formula set forth in Section 5.1.2 and assign the rankings and identify the apparent Successful Proposer.

E. As noted above, the CO will then determine the basis of award:

a. Subject to 27 DCMR §1633.1 and §1633.2, the CO may award a contract on the basis of the initial proposals without discussions/negotiations. Each initial offer should, therefore, contain the

Proposer’s best terms from a standpoint of cost or price, technical and other factors.

b. The CO may, alternatively, determine to:

c. Establish a competitive range among those proposers with a reasonable chance of being awarded a contract,

i. Negotiate with all proposers in the competitive range, and

ii. Request Best and Final Offers (BAFOs), to address noted deficiencies and/or weaknesses.



iii. The CO will receive revisions to the proposals, if any, in response to the CO’s requests, and distribute the revised technical proposals to the EC.

iv. The EC will evaluate the BAFOs, confirm prior scores or assign revised technical scores reflecting the BAFOs, and provide its recommendations to the CO.

v. The CO will review the recommendations of the EC and complete his own independent review of the BAFOs. The CO will assign technical and price scores for each BAFO.

d. Next, the CO will complete any remaining negotiations with the Proposer whose Proposal is the

highest ranked Proposer based on the total point scores, in accordance with 27 DCMR §1634.

F. The District anticipates awarding one contract to the responsive, responsible Offeror whose offer is most advantageous to the District (i.e. represents the “Best Value”), based upon the evaluation criteria stated in this RFP. Thus, while the points in the evaluation criteria indicate their relative importance, the total scores will not necessarily be determinative of the award. Rather, the total scores will guide the District in making an intelligent award decision based upon the evaluation criteria that consists of a combination of experience and qualifications, pricing, and ability to meet the needs of the District.

G. The CO will provide Notice of Intent to Award to the apparent Successful Proposer. The CO’s decision

regarding award of the DBA shall be final.

Determination of Total Proposal Score 5.1.2The total proposal score will be based on the following formula:

Total Proposal Score (max. 1000 points) = Technical Proposal score (max. 200 points) + Price Proposal score (max. 800 points)

The Technical Proposal score will be calculated based on the evaluation of the Technical Proposal as described in Section 5.2.2.

The Price Proposal score will be based on the formula set forth in Section 5.4.2.

The proposals and scores, including any Best and Final Offer process (if used), will remain confidential until an award is made.

Evaluation of Technical Proposal by EC 5.2The Technical Proposals will be evaluated by the EC based on the Technical Proposal evaluation factors described in this Section.

The Proposer shall respond to each factor in a way that will allow DDOT to evaluate the Proposer’s response. The Proposer shall submit information in a clear, concise, factual and logical manner providing a comprehensive description of its approach to Design and Construction. The Technical Proposal must contain sufficient detail to provide a clear and concise response fully reflecting the manner in which the Proposer would fully meet the Project requirements.

In evaluating the Technical Proposal against the evaluation factors, the EC also will consider the extent to which the Proposal meets the objectives stated below and whether it includes any improvements over the



requirements of the Contract Documents, such as additional benefits and/or value to DDOT and the public.

During the evaluation, each sub-factor as described in Section 5.2.2 will be assigned points by the EC using the sub-factors identified in Table 5.2 through Table 5.4 and applying the technical rating scale set forth in Section 5.2.3. The points for each sub-factor will be added to calculate the Proposer’s score for each of the corresponding Technical Proposal factors.

Technical Proposal – Minimum Requirements 5.2.1The Technical Proposals shall meet the following minimum requirements:

1. The Proposer has submitted the Draft DBE Performance Plan described in Section 3.5.4 of Exhibit B, and as required by Exhibit D, Section 6.a. of the DBA. The Draft DBE Performance Plan shall indicate the Proposer’s commitment and plan to achieve the DBE goals as detailed in Section 9.2.1 of the DBA.

2. The Proposer has submitted a Completion Schedule using Form O that indicates a Project Final Completion on, or prior to, 540 Days of Notice to Proceed. Technical Proposal Evaluation – Scored Evaluation Factors

The maximum possible points for each of the Technical Proposal Evaluation Factors are shown in Table 5-1.

TABLE 5-1 Technical Proposal Scoring Table

Technical Proposal Evaluation Factor Technical Proposal Score (Maximum)

Key Personnel 80

Similar Projects 60

Project Development Plan 60

TOTAL: 200

Refer to Exhibit B for the submittal requirements.

The Technical Proposal evaluation factors will be evaluated and rated using the rating guidelines specified in

Sections 5.2.3, with special attention given to the objectives described within each section, which describe the expectations of DDOT with regard to the Work to be performed and the related information to be submitted in the Project Proposal. Along with the Project goals identified in Section 1.2, the objectives will guide DDOT’s assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors.

Technical Proposal Evaluation Details 5.2.2 Key Personnel (80 points max.) 5.2.2.1

Objectives: Design Build Team shall provide Key Staff with demonstrated experience on projects of similar scope and complexity.



TABLE 5-2 Key Staff

Subfactor

Description

Points Range

Available per Subfactor

Design Build Manager

Design Build

Manager

Extent to which the proposed Key Personnel meets or exceeds the requirements for this position as described in Exhibit B.

0 - 20

Construction Manager

Extent to which the proposed Key Personnel meets or exceeds the requirements for this position as described in Exhibit B.

0 - 15

Design Manager Extent to which the proposed Key Personnel meets or exceeds the requirements for this position as described in Exhibit B.

0 - 15

Trail Engineer Extent to which the proposed Key Personnel meets or exceeds the requirements for this position as described in Exhibit B.

0 - 15

Structures Engineer Extent to which the proposed Key Personnel meets or exceeds the requirements for this position as described in Exhibit B.

0 - 15

Similar Projects (60 points max.) 5.2.2.2Objectives: Design Build Team shall have demonstrated experience on projects of similar size and complexity.

TABLE 5-3 Schedule

Subfactor

Description

Points Range

Available per Subfactor

Projects Executed by Proposer as Constructor Extent to which the Contractor Projects meet or exceed the criteria described in Exhibit B. 0 - 30

Projects Executed by Proposer as Designer Extent to which the Designer Projects meet or exceed the criteria described in Exhibit B. 0 - 30

Project Development Plan (60 Points max.) 5.2.2.3Objectives: Approach to design and construction that effectively responds to and addresses the Project Goals and meets or exceeds the Project requirements.



TABLE 5-4 Project Development Plan

Subfactor

Description

Points Range

Available Per Subfactor

Project Understanding and

Approach

Extent to which Bike and Pedestrian narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project requirements and expertise in bicycle and pedestrian design.

0 - 5

Extent to which Structures narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project requirements and expertise in structures.

0 - 5

Extent to which Construction Staging, Sequencing and Traffic Management narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project requirements and an

expertise in construction staging, sequencing, and traffic management. 0 - 5

Extent to which Drainage, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Storm Water Management narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project

requirements and an expertise in drainage, erosion and sediment control, and storm water management.

0 - 5

Extent to which Environmental Permitting, Mitigation and Impacts narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project requirements and an expertise

in environmental permitting, mitigation, and impacts. 0 - 5

Design Build Project Management Plan

Extent to which the Design Build Project Management Plan narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project management requirements as

to Design Management, Construction Management, Quality Management, Coordination with DDOT, DBE Plan, and Coordination and outreach to third

parties and stakeholders.

0 - 20

Preliminary Project Baseline Schedule

Extent to which the Preliminary Project Baseline Schedule and narrative demonstrates an understanding of the project phasing, permitting,

constraints, and stakeholder input.. 0 - 15

Evaluation Guidelines 5.2.3The EC will review the Technical Proposal with reference to the evaluation factors specified in Section 5.2.2, in accordance with the technical rating scale provided in this Section, and will assign a quantitative rating for each of the evaluation sub-factors.

Technical Rating Scale 5.2.3.1



Numeric

Rating

Adjective

Description

0

Unacceptable

Fails to meet minimum requirements; e.g., no demonstrated capacity, major deficiencies which are not correctable; Proposer did not address the factor.

1 Poor Marginally meets the minimum requirements; major deficiencies which may be correctable.

2 Minimally Acceptable Marginally meets minimum requirements; minor deficiencies which may be correctable.

3 Acceptable Meets requirements; no deficiencies.

4 Good Meets requirements and exceeds some requirements; no deficiencies.

5 Excellent Exceeds most, if not all requirements; no deficiencies.

Application of Technical Rating Scale 5.2.3.2The technical rating is a weighting mechanism that will be applied to the point value for each evaluation factor to determine the Proposer’s score for each factor. The Proposer’s total technical score will be determined by adding the Proposer’s score in each evaluation factor. For example, if an evaluation factor has a point value range of zero (0) to fifty (50) points, using the Technical Rating Scale above, if the District evaluates the Proposer’s response as “Good,” then the score for that evaluation factor is 4/5 of 50, or 40 points.

If subfactors are applied, the Proposer’s total technical score will be determined by adding the Proposer’s score for each subfactor. For example, if an evaluation factor has a point value range of zero (0) to forty (40) points, with two subfactors of twenty (20) points each, using the Technical Rating Scale above, if the District evaluates the Proposer’s response as “Good” for the first subfactor and “Poor” for the second subfactor, then the total score for that evaluation factor is 4/5 of 20 or 16 for the first subfactor plus 1/5 of 20 or 4 for the second subfactor, for a total of 20 for the entire factor.

Technical Proposal – Minimum Scoring Requirements 5.2.3.3The Technical Proposal must meet the following minimum requirements:

A. All Technical Proposal Subfactors must receive a Numeric Rating of at least 2 (Minimally Acceptable).

B. The total Technical Proposal Score must be a minimum of 120.

If a Technical Proposal does not meet the above minimum requirements the Price Proposal will not be evaluated and the Proposal is not eligible for award.

CO’s Evaluation of Technical Proposals 5.3The CO will complete an independent evaluation of the Technical Proposals and consider the recommendations, and supporting information provided by the EC.



CO’s Evaluation of Price Proposals 5.4Following the CO’s evaluation of Technical Proposals, the Price Proposals will be evaluated by the CO based on the Price Proposal evaluation factors described in this Section and for price reasonableness, but the CO will not evaluate the Price Proposal for price realism.. The Price Proposals will initially be reviewed to ensure the minimum requirements, as described in Section 5.4.1, have been met. Price Proposals meeting the minimum requirements will then be assigned a score, as outlined in Section 5.4.2.

Price Proposal – Minimum Requirements 5.4.1The Price Proposal must meet the following minimum requirements:

A. Proposer has provided a letter(s) from an Eligible Surety, meeting the requirements outlined in Exhibit C, Section 3.0.

B. Proposer has delivered Proposal Security in the form of a complete, properly executed proposal bond, meeting the requirements of Exhibit C, Section 5.0.

Price Proposal Score 5.4.2The Proposer with the lowest Contract Price will receive the maximum price score (800 points) in accordance with Section 5.1.2. All other proposals will receive a proportionally lower price score.

The Price Proposal score will be based on the following formula:

Price Proposal Score = 800 − (𝑃𝐶𝑃− 𝐿𝐶𝑃

5000)

Where:

LCP = Lowest Contract Price submitted by any Proposer who meets the minimum Technical Requirements, as indicated on Form M-1

PCP = Proposer’s Contract Price, as indicated on Proposer’s Form M-1

CO Right to Exclude Proposals from Consideration 5.5Proposals that are deemed to be not acceptable may be excluded from further consideration, and the Proposer will be so advised. The CO may also exclude from consideration any Proposer whose Proposal contains a material misrepresentation.

Requests for Clarification 5.6Limited exchanges to clarify or resolve ambiguities, apparent minor mistakes or irregularities shall only be for clarification and not discussion or negotiations.



Proposers shall respond to any such requests within 2 Business Days (or such other time as specified by the CO) from receipt of the request to the person and address listed in Section 4.1.6. The scope, length, and topics to be addressed in clarifications shall be prescribed by, and subject to, the discretion of the CO.

Post-Selection Process to finalize the Contract 5.7Documents

The CO will provide the Successful Proposer with a Notice of Intent to Award and proceed to finalize the Contract Documents.

If a DBA satisfactory to DDOT cannot be finalized with the apparent Successful Proposer, the CO will, formally and in writing, end discussions with that Proposer and begin discussions with the next most highly ranked Proposer to attempt to finalize a DBA with that Proposer. The Proposer that submitted the next most highly ranked Proposal will then be considered the apparent Successful Proposer.

If DDOT elects to start discussions to finalize a DBA with a Proposer, and such Proposer is deemed to have failed to engage in good faith discussions with DDOT, said Proposer shall forfeit its Proposal Security if the Proposer fails to attend and actively participate in reasonably scheduled discussion meetings with DDOT or insists upon terms or conditions for any documents that are inconsistent with the Contract Documents.

Post-Selection Deliverables 5.8 Documents to be Submitted Following Notice of Intent to Award 5.8.1

As a condition precedent to award of the DBA, the Successful Proposer shall deliver the Performance Bonds, Payment Bonds, meeting the requirements set forth in Section 10 of the DBA, and insurance certificates meeting the requirements set forth in Section 11 of the DBA.



6 Final Award and Execution; Post-Execution Actions

Final Award of DBA 6.1The following are conditions precedent to final award of the DBA:

A. receipt by DDOT of all of the documents required to be provided before execution of the DBA, as described in Section 5.8 of the ITP and

B. execution of the DBA by the CO.

Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth above, the CO will deliver four sets of the Contract Documents to the selected Proposer for signature, along with a number of copies as reasonably requested by the Proposer. The selected Proposer shall obtain all required signatures and deliver all of the signed copies to the CO within 7 days of receipt, together with the required documents described in Section 6.1.1. If the DB Contractor is a JV or a partnership, the DBA must be signed by all JV members or general partners, as applicable. Within 15 Days of the CO’s receipt of all required and compliant documents from the Proposer, the CO will sign the agreements, retain four sets of the agreements, and deliver the other signed copies to the selected Proposer. Final award shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery of the signed copies to the selected Proposer.

Documents to be delivered by Proposer with the Signed DBA 6.1.1The Proposer shall deliver the documents listed below to the CO concurrently with the signed DBA as a condition to signature of the DBA by the CO. On or before the date that the CO delivers the copies of the DBA for signature to the Proposer, the CO shall notify the Proposer regarding the number of originals and copies required to be delivered.

A. Evidence of approval of the final form, and of due authorization, execution, delivery, and performance, of the DBA by DB Contractor and, if the DB Contractor is a JV, by its JV members. Such evidence shall be in a

form and substance satisfactory to DDOT. If the DB Contractor is a corporation, such evidence shall be in

the form of a resolution of its governing body certified by an appropriate officer of the corporation. If the

DB Contractor is a partnership, such evidence shall be in the form of a resolution signed by the general partners and appropriate evidence of authorization for each of the general partners, in each case, certified by an appropriate officer of the general partner. If the DB Contractor is a limited liability company, such evidence shall be in the form of one of the following: (i) a resolution of the governing body of the limited liability company, certified by an appropriate officer of the company, (ii) a managing member(s) resolution, certified by an appropriate officer of the managing member(s), or (iii) if there is no managing member, a resolution from each member, certified by an appropriate officer of such member. If the DB Contractor is a JV, such evidence shall be in the form of a resolution of each JV member, certified by an appropriate officer of such JV member.

B. A written opinion from counsel for the Proposer, in the form attached hereto as Form L (with such changes as may be agreed to by the District in its sole option and discretion). Such opinion of counsel with respect to



entity organization, authorization to enter into the DBA, and execution of the DBA shall be provided by an attorney licensed in the state of the formation or organization of the entity (for example, the DB Contractor joint venture, general partnership, corporation, or LLC) for which the opinion is rendered. If, however, the entity is formed or organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, then such opinion of counsel with respect to organization, authorization, and execution shall be issued by (i) an attorney licensed in the District of Columbia, (ii) an in-house counsel of such entity not licensed in the District of Columbia, or (iii) outside counsel to such entity not licensed in the District of Columbia. For all entities, regardless of location of formation or organization, the opinion of counsel as to the qualification to do business in the District of Columbia, and the enforceability of the contractual obligations being entered into, shall be provided only by an attorney licensed in the District of Columbia.

C. Any other requirements reasonably identified by the CO during pre-award period.

Debriefings 6.2All Proposers submitting Proposals will be notified in writing of the identification of the Successful Proposer. Proposers not selected for award may request, in writing to the CO, a debriefing in accordance with Title 27

DCMR §§1647 and 1648.



7 Protests Protests 7.1

Any Proposer who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract, must file with the D.C. Contract Appeals Board (Board) a protest no later than 10 business days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier. A protest based on alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent at the time set for receipt of initial Technical Proposals shall be filed with the Board prior to the time set for receipt of initial Technical Proposals. In procurements in which Technical Proposals are requested, alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation, but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation, must be protested no later than the next closing time for receipt of Technical Proposals following the incorporation. The protest shall be filed in writing, with the Contract Appeals Board, 441 4th Street, N.W., Suite 350 N, Washington, D.C. 20001. The aggrieved person shall also mail a copy of the protest to the CO listed in this ITP.



8 Reserved


9 DDOT Disclaimers

DDOT Disclaimers 9.1The RFP does not commit the District to enter into any contract. The District of Columbia assume no obligations, responsibilities, or liabilities, fiscal or otherwise, to reimburse all or part of the costs incurred or alleged to have been incurred by parties considering a response to and/or responding to the RFP. All of such costs shall be borne solely by each Proposer and Proposer team.

In no event shall the District be bound by, or liable for, any obligations with respect to the Project until such time (if at all) as the Contract Documents, in form and substance satisfactory to the District, have been authorized and signed by the District and, then, only to the extent set forth therein. In submitting a Proposal in response to the RFP, the Proposer is specifically acknowledging these disclaimers.