1234567468ÿ2 ÿ8 4ÿ 85 8ÿ2 ÿ27ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿ"#$%ÿ&!'%ÿ(#)%*#ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ +!$',$#ÿ +-#'%ÿ.ÿ!ÿ/'*'ÿ.ÿ+%-,'$ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 0!#ÿ12ÿ3'%*#ÿ4-'%)'#5ÿ 67ÿ&##*8%9$#'$ÿ19#-ÿ:232ÿ;-'ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 3$*!'#5#ÿ/2+2ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ 5<=<>DECFÿ5GG=ÿ5C>Kÿÿ G?D>C@Dÿ6GNÿBPQRQSPPRRSQÿ ÿ /$ÿ+!$',$#ÿ(#)%*#Tÿ ÿ &-*-$#ÿÿ/2+2ÿ..''$%ÿ+)ÿUV27WXÿWXÿW1Xÿ$#)ÿ#%*)ÿ.ÿ#*')$'#ÿ8ÿ !ÿ+-#'%ÿ.ÿ!ÿ/'*'ÿ.ÿ+%-,'$ÿ'*ÿ$ÿYY*)ÿ.',ÿ.'Z)VY'ÿ#$ÿ.ÿ [7\62ÿ]'!ÿ^;+ÿ_%'$%ÿ$#)ÿ(!$#'$%ÿ+#$*ÿ̀#2ÿÿY9')ÿY$'$%ÿ .ÿY%$,#ÿ$#)ÿ$ÿ$%ÿ.Yÿ"a1+ÿ*8*,ÿY%$,#ÿ$ÿ(2ÿ&%$*$#ÿb'$82ÿÿ !ÿ#$ÿY')ÿ.ÿY.,$#ÿ]'%%ÿÿ.,ÿ!ÿ$]$)ÿ)$ÿ!-5!ÿ#ÿ8$ÿ !$.2ÿÿ ÿ `ÿ%cÿ.]$)ÿÿ!ÿ.$9$%ÿ#*')$'#ÿ.ÿ!'*ÿ#$ÿY'#2ÿÿ1*ÿ$%]$8*ÿ̀ÿ$,ÿ $9$'%$%ÿÿ)'*-**ÿ$#8ÿd-*'#*ÿ8-ÿ,$8ÿ!$9ÿ5$)'#5ÿ!ÿYY*)ÿ#$ÿY'#2ÿÿ ÿ.$'%'$ÿ$ÿ*Y#*ÿÿ$#8ÿd-*'#*ÿY%$*ÿ!$9ÿ8-ÿ*$..ÿ#$ÿ4$$$ÿ0-,Yÿ +! ÿ '.ÿ4-*'#**ÿ..'ÿ$ÿWXÿeeV2ÿÿÿ ;ÿ'#%8ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ^'!$)ÿ^8*Vf$9'%$#ÿ _Z-'9ÿ/'ÿ ÿ _#%*-ÿ Tÿ:8$*!$ÿ;,'!ÿ;$8ÿÿ!ÿ+'8ÿ+-#'%ÿ ÿ GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Office of Contracting and Procurement Pursuant to section 202(c) of the Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-352.02(c), the following contract summary is provided: COUNCIL CONTRACT SUMMARY (Letter Contract) (A) Contract Number: DCPL-2024-C-0042 Proposed Contractor: RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Contract Amount: $1,593,200.00 Unit and Method of Compensation: Progress payments will be made monthly Term of Contract: From the date of award through one year thereafter Type of Contract: Firm fixed price Source Selection Method: Request for Proposal (B) For a contract containing option periods, the contract amount for the base period and for each option period. If the contract amount for one or more of the option periods differs from the amount for the base period, provide an explanation of the reason for the difference: Not applicable. This is a construction contract. (C) The date on which the letter contract or emergency contract was executed: The letter contract was signed by the DC Public Library Chief Procurement Officer on July 15, 2024. (D) The number of times the letter contract or emergency contract has been extended: None 1 (E) The value of the goods and services provided to date under the letter contract or emergency contract, including under each extension of the letter contract or emergency contract: The value of the goods and services provided to date under the letter contract is $175,000.00. (F) The goods or services to be provided, the methods of delivering goods or services, and any significant program changes reflected in the proposed contract: The contractor will perform a partial roof replacement and a total rooftop HVAC system replacement at the Mt. Pleasant Library per the scope of work, drawings, and specifications in the Request for Proposal (RFP). (G) The selection process, including the number of offerors, the evaluation criteria, and the evaluation results, including price, technical or quality, and past performance components: RFP No. DCPL-2024-R-0042 was issued on April 29, 2024, in a set-aside market. The District intends to award a single contract from this solicitation to the responsible Contractor whose offer conforming to the solicitation shall be most advantageous to the District, cost or price, technical, and other factors specified elsewhere in the RFP considered. DSLBD was notified about this solicitation on April 30, 2024, and the RFP was advertised in the Washington Post on May 2, 2024. There were two (2) amendments issued to the solicitation: ¾ Amendment No. 1 was issued on May 6, 2024, to add two new attachments: 1) combined mechanical and plumbing set drawings and 2) a project manual for updated MEP specifications. ¾ Amendment No. 2 was issued on May 22, 2024, to answer vendors’ questions. On the closing date and time, May 28, 2024, at 2:00 PM, the five (5) offerors listed below responded timely to the RFP: 1) HEP Construction 2) JAP Construction, LLC 3) Range Construction, LLC 4) RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 5) Winmar Construction Another offeror, Simon Development and Construction Corporation submitted a late proposal and was deemed non-responsive by the Chief Procurement Officer. 2 The DCPL Office of Procurement sent the Confidentiality Agreement, Disclosure form, Evaluation Plan, Scoresheets, and the five (5) technical proposals to the pre-selected members of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), Jonathan Banks, Keith Gilbert, and Ronald Price. No conflict of interest was found among the TEP members. The TEP was instructed to review the technical proposals in accordance with Section M.2 of the RFP. The technical proposals shall be evaluated using a 95-point scale with point values allocated as follows: ¾ Technical – 1) Technical Approach 20 points 2) Relevant Experience and Past Performance 25 points 3) Key Personnel 20 points 4) Management Plan 30 points ¾ Price – using the following formula: 5 points Lowest Price Proposal --------------------------------------- X 5 Price Proposal being Evaluated ¾ CBE Preference Points pursuant to Section M.5.1 of the RFP 12 points Total Maximum Points 112 points On June 11, 2024, a post-evaluation meeting was held to allow the panel members to discuss their independent evaluation and scores for each proposal. See Table 1 of TEP scores. Table 1 – Technical Evaluation Panel Scores of Offerors’ Technical Proposals Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Average Total Technical Score Score HEP Construction 60 Factor 1 12 15 12 13.0 Factor 2 15 20 18 17.7 Factor 3 12 10 15 12.3 Factor 4 15 20 15 16.7 JAP Construction 38 Factor 1 7 5 10 7.3 Factor 2 10 15 15 13.3 Factor 3 10 7 10 9.0 Factor 4 15 0 10 8.3 Range Construction 17 Factor 1 5 0 5 3.3 Factor 2 5 0 5 3.3 Factor 3 8 0 10 6.0 Factor 4 0 5 8 4.3 3 RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 90 Factor 1 20 20 20 20.0 Factor 2 22 23 23 22.7 Factor 3 18 20 18 18.7 Factor 4 28 30 28 28.7 Winmar Construction 81 Factor 1 17 18 18 17.7 Factor 2 23 20 23 22.0 Factor 3 18 15 18 17.0 Factor 4 24 25 25 24.7 TEP EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR EACH OFFEROR HEP Construction (HEP) HEP provided a technical approach; however, the plan lacked details, and nothing was close to the DCPL project. They submitted three (3) projects; however, only one involved HVAC and all the projects were graded as good or not excellent. HEP submitted incomplete resumes for proposed key personnel. Their management plan did not address any of the requirements in the solicitation. JAP Construction (JAP) JAP technical approach was mainly geared toward their work on green roofs. Nothing was mentioned about crane operations; the permit process and the plan were not specific to the DCPL project. JAP also had limited experience in HVAC, and their relevant projects were not close to the estimated dollar amount for this project. The resumes for key personnel listed the same projects. However, their work history at JAP did not coordinate with the listed projects. The management plan mentioned Procore and Matter port software. In the management plan, JAP did not mention the key personnel, milestone, and critical challenges. Range Construction, LLC (Range) Range did not provide details on the technical approach and appears to not have a complete understanding of the scope of the project. All relevant past performances were for Southland Industries; however, Southland was not mentioned as a partner elsewhere in the proposal. Range appears to have been a subcontractor of Southland and has not acted as Prime Contractor. Resumes were confusing; some were from Southland as project managers, and some were superintended from Range. Range appeared to lack experience managing this size construction project. The management plan did not address any aspects of the requirements outlined in the RFP. 4 RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (RSC) RSC has a clear understanding of the project’s technical approach and has a very detailed plan that covers the project in detail. The listed three (3) relevant projects are all close to the dollar value and complexity of the DCPL project. RSC provided very well-experienced personnel, all with backgrounds in this project's complexity. RSC identified key personnel and their roles in the management plan. The cost control was discussed by the use of Procore. Winmar Construction (Winmar) Winmar provided a well-presented technical approach. The plan addressed most areas but did not provide enough details to determine the various phases of the project. Also, Winmar did not note the specific actions for the tasks of the technical plan. There were no comments to justify the excellent performance ratings in the past. Winmar provided experience and past performance with projects similar to and larger than this DCPL project. The resumes of the key personnel exceed the RFP requirements. There’s no notation if key personnel are full- time or part-time employees. Winmar has a very well-detailed management plan. However, no key challenges, daily inspections, and project schedules were provided. Based on the TEP evaluation and assessment, RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc. is the top-ranked among the five (5) offerors. The Procurement Office tabulated the price proposals as shown below: Table 2 – Price Proposal and Scores Offeror Total Price Proposal Price Score (Max: 5 pts.) Range Construction, LLC $1,350,000.00 5.00 Winmar Construction $1,364,200.00 4.95 HEP Construction $1,488,193.75 4.54 RSC Electrical & Mechanical $1,728,200.00 3.91 JAP Construction, LLC $2,038,230.00 3.31 With the addition of Price Score (Table 2) and Preference Points, RSC received a high score of 103 (see Table 3). Table 3 – Offerors’ Total Scores and Ranking Rank Offeror Technical Price Preference Total Score Score Points Score 1 RSC Electrical and Mechanical 90 4 9 103 2 Winmar Construction 81 5 12 98 3 HEP Construction 60 5 11 76 4 JAP Construction, LLC 38 3 12 53 5 Range Construction, LLC 17 5 12 34 5 With RSC ranked as the highest score, the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) negotiated the price with RSC. On June 24, 2024, RSC submitted its Best and Final Offer, lowering its price proposal from $1,728,200.00 to $1,593,200.00. After reviewing all the TEP evaluations, offerors’ strengths and weaknesses, price, CPO’s independent assessment, and the BAFO, the CPO has determined that the contract shall be awarded to RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc., whose offer is most advantageous to the District, based upon the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation. (H) A description of any bid protest related to the award of the contract, including whether the protest was resolved through litigation, withdrawal of the protest by the protestor, or voluntary corrective action by the District. Include the identity of the protestor, the grounds alleged in the protest, and any deficiencies identified by the District as a result of the protest: Not applicable (I) The background and qualifications of the proposed contractor, including its organization, financial stability, personnel, and performance on past or current government or private sector contracts with requirements similar to those of the proposed contract: RSC Electrical and Mechanical Contractors, Inc. has been successfully operating since it started in 1989. With a network of 133 reliable professionals, RSC was able to complete similar projects for the District, federal government, and other entities within the Metro area. Similar projects include the following: 1) DGS cooling tower replacement in 2022 for $1.2M; 2) Prince George County replacement of HVAC rooftop units and roofing services from 2023 to 2024 in the amount of $934,000; and 3) NIH building piping and roofing upgrade from 2021 to early 2024 in the amount of $1.5M. Their Dun and Bradstreet Business Information Report, dated August 6, 2024, showed that RSC has zero exclusions and violations and registered an annual sale of $21.7M. (J) A summary of the subcontracting plan required under section 2346 of the Small, Local, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Act of 2005, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-218.01 et seq. (“Act”), including a certification that the subcontracting plan meets the minimum requirements of the Act and the dollar volume of the portion of the contract to be subcontracted, expressed both in total dollars and as a percentage of the total contract amount: The contractor is a certified business enterprise and is not required to submit the subcontracting plan required under section 2346 of the Small, Local, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Act of 2005, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-218.01 et seq. (K) Performance standards and the expected outcome of the proposed contract: The contractor shall provide the required goods and services in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in Solicitation No. DCPL-2024-R-0042. The performance standard is 100% delivery of all services to DCPL's satisfaction. 6 (L) The amount and date of any expenditure of funds by the District pursuant to the contract prior to its submission to the Council for approval: DCPL has obligated $175,000 under PO710400 for the letter contract awarded to the Contractor on July 15, 2024. (M) A certification that the proposed contract is within the appropriated budget authority for the agency for the fiscal year and is consistent with the financial plan and budget adopted in accordance with D.C. Official Code §§ 47-392.01 and 47-392.02: A certification by the Agency Fiscal Officer dated August 9, 2024, is attached. (N) A certification that the contract is legally sufficient, including whether the proposed contractor has any pending legal claims against the District: The contract action has been determined to be legally sufficient, and the proposed contractor has no pending legal claims against the District. (O) A certification that Citywide Clean Hands database indicates that the proposed contractor is current with its District taxes. If the Citywide Clean Hands Database indicates that the proposed contractor is not current with its District taxes, either: (1) a certification that the contractor has worked out and is current with a payment schedule approved by the District; or (2) a certification that the contractor will be current with its District taxes after the District recovers any outstanding debt as provided under D.C. Official Code § 2-353.01(b): The Citywide Clean Hands database has issued a certification indicating that the proposed contractor is current with its District taxes. (P) A certification from the proposed contractor that it is current with its federal taxes, or has worked out and is current with a payment schedule approved by the federal government: The proposed contractor self-certified that they are current with federal taxes. (Q) The status of the proposed contractor as a certified local, small, or disadvantaged business enterprise as defined in the Small, Local, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Act of 2005, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-218.01 et seq.: The proposed contractor is a certified small, local, disadvantaged, and resident-owned business enterprise. (R) Other aspects of the proposed contract that the Chief Procurement Officer considers significant: None 7 (S) A statement indicating whether the proposed contractor is currently debarred from providing services or goods to the District or federal government, the dates of the debarment, and the reasons for debarment: The contractor is not debarred or excluded from providing services to the District and federal governments. (T) Any determination and findings issues relating to the contract’s formation, including any determination and findings made under D.C. Official Code § 2-352.05 (privatization contracts): Not applicable (U) Where the contract, and any amendments or modifications, if executed, will be made availa