Size: px
Start display at page:

Download ""

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 New York City Transit (NYCT) DATE: July 19, 2018 CONSTRUCTION/ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING CONTRACT SOLICITATION NOTICE/PROJECT OVERVIEW MTA-NYCT IS NOW ADVERTISING FOR THE FOLLOWING: SSE #: OPENING/DUE DATE: 8/22/18 TYPE OF SOLICITATION: RFP SOLICITATION TITLE: A Design and Construction of ADA Improvements Including the Installation of Elevators at Multiple NYCT Stations DESCRIPTION: NYC Transit seeks to retain the services of multiple Design-Build teams for the design and construction of Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) improvements at multiple NYCT elevated and below ground stations. These station improvements will include full vertical accessibility at the stations through the installation of elevators or ramps, as well as other ADA-required improvements to architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical components. Pursuant to the Fast Forward Plan, NYC Transit has committed to accelerate the pace at which stations are made ADA accessible. Priority stations will be identified through feasibility studies and advanced through preliminary design and preparation of design-build Request for Proposal (RFP) documents whereby NYCT will evaluate technical factors in addition to cost. It is anticipated that approximately ten (10) construction packages will be released for stations in the Capital Program. The cost for each construction package is estimated to be in excess of $10 million. Contract durations from commencement to substantial completion will vary and will be identified in each RFP. Disadvantaged, Minority & Women-owned Business Enterprises (DMWBEs) and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) Participation Goals will be established for each Step 2 RFP depending on the funding source and subcontractable elements. Funding: Capital Note: It is the intention of NYCT to offer a stipend to Proposers submitting detailed technical proposals that are responsive to the RFP requirements. Stipend amounts are anticipated to vary according to the value of each contract package as well as other factors. See attached for additional information. ( ) PRE-BID CONFERENCE LOCATION: N/A DATE: TIME: ( ) SITE TOUR LOCATION: N/A DATE: TIME: FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: PROCUREMENT REPRESENTATIVE: Remy Martin PHONE: REQUIREMENTS TO PARTICIPATE DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) NUMBER: ALL VENDORS MUST HAVE A DUN & BRADSTREET DUNS NUMBER IF THEY WISHTO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCUREMENT. VENDORS WHO DO NOT HAVE A DUNS NUMBER CAN REGISTER ONLINE AT TO OBTAIN ONE FREE OF CHARGE. YOU MUST STATE THAT THE NUMBER IS REQUIRED FOR SAM (SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT) SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM): VENDORS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH SAM, A FEDERAL VENDOR DATABASE USED TO VALIDATE VEDNDOR INFORMATION, BEFORE REQUESTING BID DOCUMENTS. YOU CAN VISIT THEIR WEBSITE AT TO REGISTER. A DUNS NUMBER IS REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION

13 SOLICITATION NOTICE FOR WEBSITE MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT SSE # A Design and Construction of ADA Improvements Including the Installation of Elevators at Multiple NYCT Stations NYC Transit seeks to retain the services of multiple Design-Build teams for the design and construction of Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) improvements at multiple NYCT elevated and below ground stations. These station improvements will include full vertical accessibility at the stations through the installation of elevators or ramps, as well as other ADA-required improvements to architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical components. Pursuant to the Fast Forward Plan, NYC Transit has committed to accelerate the pace at which stations are made ADA accessible. Priority stations will be identified through feasibility studies and advanced through preliminary design and preparation of design-build Request for Proposal (RFP) documents whereby NYCT will evaluate technical factors in addition to cost. It is anticipated that approximately ten (10) construction packages will be released for stations in the Capital Program. The cost for each construction package is estimated to be in excess of $10 million. Contract durations from commencement to substantial completion will vary and will be identified in each RFP. Disadvantaged, Minority & Women-owned Business Enterprises (DMWBEs) and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) Participation Goals will be established for each Step 2 RFP depending on the funding source and subcontractable elements. NYC Transit anticipates that the work required within each station will be substantially similar and so, taking this into consideration, NYCT will be following a two-step RFP process whereby proposers qualified under Step 1 will form a pool of design/build teams that will be eligible to participate in Step 2 and submit proposals for subsequent RFP packages. Based on the frequency of RFPs as well as the capacity and performance of qualified proposers, NYC Transit may also include future opportunities for the evaluation of new or revised proposer teams. Proposers not shortlisted under Step 1 will not be eligible to submit proposals under Step 2. In Step 1, Proposers will be assessed in accordance with evaluation criteria for relevant experience and general responsibility, including record of integrity and business ethics, requisite financial resources and safety record. In Step 2, the pool of selected proposers from Step 1 will be requested to submit comprehensive responses to the RFPs, which will be evaluated in accordance with the specific evaluation criteria set forth below and in the RFPs. Successful proposers will not be precluded from participating in subsequent packages. Engineering and other professional/technical service firm(s) that contribute to the NYCT design, or serve as the program facilitator, or participate as owner representatives for any RFP will be considered ineligible to participate in the related Design-Build construction package due to potential conflicts of interest. Firms, generally limited to subconsultants, may apply for waivers regarding eligibility. The Authority in its sole discretion will make a 1

14 determination as to whether a firm may be eligible to participate in future Design-Build construction packages. The following four firms are currently developing feasibility studies associated with NYCT s initiative to accelerate accessibility. These firms will be considered ineligible to participate as a Primary Design Firm of a Design/Build team for those stations that are selected to proceed to a Step 2 RFP and award, due to their conflicting role as owner representative: HDR Stantec Urbahn Architects WSP USA Note: It is the intention of NYCT to offer a stipend to Proposers submitting detailed technical proposals that are responsive to the RFP requirements. Stipend amounts are anticipated to vary according to the value of each contract package as well as other factors. Primary members of a design-build Proposer team shall mean the Prime Contractor and the Design Firm, either or both of which may be joint ventures. The Design Firm may be an architect or an engineer or an A/E firm. In consideration of the potential conflicts of interest associated with the above firms, and in order to maximize competition to the extent possible, the Prime Contractor may submit two or more design firms (Primary Design Firm, Secondary Design Firm, etc.) for consideration under Step 1. The Proposer team must have experience in either design or construction in rail stations including the installation of elevators. Proposers who desire to be considered for Step 1 evaluation (see further details below) must respond with one (1) ORIGINAL and nine (9) copies of a Qualifications Package containing: Letter of Interest including affirmation of teaming agreement(s) between the Prime Contractor and Primary Design Firm(s) for all RFPs issued to the pool (Sub-consultants and subcontractors are not required to be exclusive to a proposer), SF330 forms to be completed by the Prime Contractor and the Design Firm(s) and/or joint venture partners (Customize as appropriate for the Prime Contractor), Completed NYCT Schedule J Responsibility Questionnaire(s) (to be completed by the Prime Contractor and/or joint venture partners and the Design Firm(s)), Qualification Statement referencing RFP A (maximum of 20 single sided pages, or 10 double sided pages) that describes the Proposer s design-build and other relevant work experience, general responsibility, financial and safety records, as detailed below, Letter from a Surety indicating that Proposer has adequate bonding capacity to bond at least $75 million. In evaluating a Proposer s response to this advertisement, NYCT shall primarily consider the information furnished in the Qualifications Package and information contained on NYCT and sister agencies prior performance evaluation forms, if any. Incomplete packages may be rejected without further consideration. For the purpose of Step 1, the Schedule J and Form SF330 may be obtained free of charge from the NYCT website. NYCT requires all Contractors to refrain from submitting anything other than what has been requested. 2

15 Qualifications Packages must be submitted to: MTA-NYC Transit, Bid Reception Desk, 3 Stone Street, New York, NY 10004, Attn: Remy Martin, Procurement Representative by 12:00 Noon on August 22, 2018, referencing SSE # : A DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADA IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF ELEVATORS AT MULTIPLE NYCT STATIONS. The respondents selected as a result of Step 1 will form a pool of design/build teams that will be invited to submit proposals in response to subsequent RFPs (Step 2), and will be the only teams the Authority will consider eligible to be awarded contracts resulting from the RFPs. ON-GOING RESPONSIBILITY Proposers are reminded that establishing a Proposer s responsibility is an ongoing requirement for award of Authority contracts and that award of Authority contracts may only be made to responsible proposers or bidders. Proposers should be aware that the following criteria are considered threshold criteria that must be met. Proposers found unqualified based on evaluation of any of the following criteria will be eliminated from further consideration: Record regarding integrity and business ethics; Record regarding defaults, debarments, suspensions and non-responsibility determinations; Safety Record The proposal will be evaluated by a Selection Committee composed of Authority personnel experienced in the disciplines necessary to evaluate the proposal submissions. Step 1 will include evaluation of each firm s qualifications utilizing the below listed Evaluation Criteria. STEP 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA All five of the below criteria, which are generally considered of equal importance, will be the basis for a comparative evaluation of Step 1 Proposers by the Authority. 1. Technical Matters: Outline of Proposer s general technical approach toward ADA improvements in belowground stations and elevated stations. Briefly summarize overall plan to undertake projects of this size and complexity, and to meet and accelerate the critical project construction schedule. Proposed project organizational structure and the roles and responsibilities of key personnel to include Prime Contractor and Design Firm(s) personnel. 2. Relevant Experience: The Proposer must satisfactorily demonstrate a successful record in the following areas: Qualifications of the primary members of the Proposer team, including previous experience in design and construction in rail stations with emphasis on ADA improvements. Qualifications of the primary members of the Proposer team, overall and previous history working together on similar rail transit or any design-build projects. It is not a requirement that team members have worked together previously. Record of timely performance within the target budget and schedule on (i) all design-build projects (ii) ADA improvements on rail transit projects and (iii) other relevant construction 3

16 projects completed within the last five years. Provide current client project manager contact information for each project. Qualifications and experience of the proposed Project Manager / Construction Manager, Design Professional, Architect, Safety Manager, Scheduler, elevator installer and other key personnel. 3. General Responsibility to Receive Contract Award and to Successfully and Faithfully Perform the Work: Included in this criterion is the degree to which the Proposer characteristically performs the contract work (including on-site design and construction) using its own forces, types of work which it performs, and satisfactory ratings on performance evaluations: General business experience and stability, including organizational structure, management expertise, and extent and length of time in business. Size, capacity and capability in relation to the work to be performed, as well as Proposer s other concurrent contractual commitments in bar chart form including remaining duration and cost of current and future work as it relates to the performance of future contracts (e.g. management, professional and technical expertise to perform the work, the availability of physical plant and equipment to perform the work). Record of performance on other contracts of the Authority, MTA, other governmental and non-governmental entities, including compliance with safety standards, achievement of DBE/WBE/MBE goals, timely submittal of contractually required certifications and reports, claims loss history, and information on defaults, debarments and non-responsibility determinations. 4. Financial Resources: Proposer is required to have adequate cash flow to pay promptly for all labor and materials as such obligations become due and to avoid the necessity for assignment of any monies payable. A Proposer must demonstrate: Requisite financial resources to timely execute the Work. Adequate bonding capacity. Ability to obtain required insurance. NOTE: A firm in arrears in the payment of amounts due to the Authority or MTA will be required to pay said amounts in full in order to be considered a responsible firm, unless and to the extent that the Authority/MTA, upon satisfactory explanation made by the firm, excuses the firm from the payment thereof or permits further deferment of payment. 5. Safety Record: Proposers must demonstrate an acceptable safety record, including an experience rating for Worker s Compensation Insurance of not more than 1.2. Also, each Proposer must supply such information as to whether, within the past five (5) years, its Commercial General Liability (or equivalent) and/or Builder s Risk, or all risk (or equivalent) insurance policies have been canceled or otherwise discontinued by an insurance carrier, and if so, the background and reasons therefor. Only those teams whose overall qualifications are considered acceptable based on the foregoing criteria in 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, will be deemed eligible to proceed to Step 2 and invited to propose on subsequent RFPs. STEP 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA In Step 2, the Proposers will be evaluated by the Selection Committee utilizing Criterion 1, Technical Approach as well as Other Matters; and Criterion 2, Overall Project Cost, where Criterion 1 will be given greater consideration. Proposers determined to be within the 4

17 competitive range after such evaluation will then be invited to participate in negotiations possibly resulting in a request for Best and Final Offers. Final evaluation for award will be made utilizing Criterion 1, Technical Approach as well as Other Matters, and Criterion 2, Overall Project Cost. In making the determination as to which proposal offers the best value to the Authority, the Authority will review all factors that contribute to the total cost of the proposal, including costs which may be incurred by the Authority as a result of the proposal even if those costs are external to the proposed price. In making the determination as to which proposal is most advantageous and offers the best value to the Authority, the Authority will review the proposals in relation to all evaluation criteria. Accordingly, neither the Proposer with the highest technical ranking, nor the Proposer with the lowest priced proposal, will necessarily receive the award, which will be determined by assessment of the best value to the Authority based upon all the evaluation criteria. Although price is not the most important evaluation criterion for this solicitation, price may become the controlling factor when competing proposals are otherwise determined to be substantially equal. CRITERION 1. Technical Proposal and Approach, as well as Other Technical Matters; Selection Committee members will base their evaluation on the sub-criteria listed below which are listed in their relative order of importance. This Criterion will include but not be limited to the following elements: 1. Design and Construction approach demonstrating Proposer s understanding of the project objectives including phasing and staging plans and identification of key project concerns, risks and mitigation plans. 2. Overall project schedule inclusive of proposed project measures and innovations designed to expedite the work and minimize impacts on the travelling public while still achieving NYC Transit requirements. Identification of elevator related key dates from NTP including, but not limited to, completion of design, material delivery and installation milestones. 3. Proposer s Project Management Plan, Safety and Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plans for both design and construction, proposed plans and methods to ensure M/W/DBE and SDVOB subcontracting goals are achieved under this Contract, and other plans that may be required in the contract. 4. Experience, qualifications and organizational structure of the Proposer Team including key members of the Construction Management team and the Design Management team. This includes Relevant Experience of the Primary Design Firm as identified and evaluated in STEP 1 or any other Design Firm the Prime Contractor may propose as a result of conflicts of interest. 5. Current record of performance on other contracts of the Authority, MTA, other governmental and non-governmental entities. 6. Qualifications and coordination of Subcontractors (excluding the Design Firm) whose work scope value exceeds $2 million (exclusive of suppliers of common materials) or are otherwise identified in the RFP. Percentage and type of work to be performed by the Prime Contractor and designated subcontractors as well as the Design Firm and its design subconsultants. 7. Other relevant matter(s) not expressly covered above, including Evaluation Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 from Step 1; any criteria subsequently released by addenda; and issues raised after the release of the RFP. Proposed exceptions to the RFP and terms and conditions or quality and acceptability of Proposer s Terms and Conditions to be 5

18 incorporated into the proposed agreement, and overall adherence to the requirements of this RFP in terms of quality and completeness, including thoroughness of Technical Proposal and Oral Presentations. To the extent that the information provided in a Proposers Step 1 submission remain unchanged, this criterion should not be mistaken as a request for the resubmission of such information. The following sub-criterion will only apply to MTA-funded RFPs: 8. Proposer s Diversity Practices as determined by the Authority s assessment of Proposer s answers to Schedule E (Proposer Diversity Practices Questionnaire), which is primarily, though not entirely, concerned with Proposer s use of, and programs for, New York State certified Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprises. Proposer s answers to Schedule E will be scored by the Authority at its sole discretion. CRITERION 2. Overall Project Cost; including, but not limited to: Net cost savings and/or additions and/or other benefits resulting from proposed changes to Terms and Conditions, as well as from innovations with respect to the Project Schedule and Staging. Cost implications of proposed use of Authority forces, facilities and materials. In the case of alternate Proposals deemed acceptable by the Selection Committee offering reductions to Substantial Completion, the cost implications and value to the Authority of such schedule improvements will be considered under this criterion. In relation to Overall Project Cost, the Authority may consider whether and to what extent a Proposal, a system, or other matter being offered contains realistic pricing. 6