05. FTQW 251101 A-E RFQ.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

354th fighter wing

14 March 2024

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL AE CONTRACTORS

FROM: 354 CONS/PKA

2310 Central Ave, Building 2258

Eielson AFB, AK 99702

SUBJECT: Request for Qualifications (RFQ), Instructions to Offerors, and Evaluations Factors.

Architect-Engineering (A-E) Services at Eielson AFB, AK. (Project FTQW 25-1101, Repair Fire

Detection System and Finishes (B1146)).

1. This is a RFQ on the capabilities and experience related to efforts necessary to manage and execute a

Title 1 Task Order services for to the Government’s planned project Repair Fire Detection System and Finishes (1146) at Eielson AFB, Alaska. The Government will select the three (3) most highly qualified offers ranked in order by their qualifications applicable to the requirements of the task order. Proposal preparation instructions and proposal due date will be specified in the task order

Request for Proposal (RFP) letter and will be issued to the most highly qualified offeror to perform the required services. If a reasonable negotiated price cannot be attained with the most highly qualified offeror, then an RFP letter will be sent to the next most highly qualified offeror, limited to the three most highly qualified offerors.

Notices to Offerors: This RFQ is a request for information and not to be confused with a request for proposal (RFP). This RFQ is strictly used by the Government to conduct market research for determining the three (3) most highly qualified offerors for this task order.

2. The planned services in this task order include the following:

a. Title I service, include development of Design Documents for use in the Government’s project planning and programming. Refer to the Draft Statement of Work (SOW) for a summary of the

Government’s planned construction project and the Title I services planned for this task order.

b. Other Traditional Architectural-Engineering (A-E) services including Hazardous Material Survey.

3. The Government intends to hold discussions with at least three (3) of the most highly qualified offerors to clarify the contractor’s proposed execution approach for this task order. Offeror responses to discussions will be considered in making the final task order selection decision.

4. IAW FAR 36.6 specifically FAR 36.602-1 Selection Criteria and DFARS 236.602 specifically

DFARS 236.602-1 and PGI 236.602-1 Selection criteria (a)(4), the Government will make the selection decision based on the following Selection Criteria: a) Professional Qualification – Team

Composition (Primary); b) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence (Primary); c) Relevant

Experience/Past Performance (Primary); d) Capacity (Secondary); and e) Knowledge of

Locality/Geographical Proximity (Secondary). Evaluation criteria (a), (b), and (c) are of equal importance; criterion (d) is of lesser importance than criteria (a), (b), and (c) and will be used as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms. Criteria (e) is of least importance than criteria (a), (b), (c), and (d). Interested offerors are requested to provide the below supplementary information to be used in conjunction with the offeror’s most current SF-330 on file.

Interested offerors must provide an RFQ response with the following information to be further evaluated for selection in this task order. Responses to this RFQ are limited to two (2) 8-1/2x11 pages. Any pages submitted in excess of the two (2) pages will neither be reviewed nor considered by the Government.

a. SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPTENENCE

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ Specialized Experience and Technical Competence solely based on review of the project profiles available in the SF-330s on file for each Offeror, including any SF-330 updates or supplements to SF-330s. Do not submit in the 2-page RFQ response any project profiles or other demonstration of specialized experience and technical competence.

In response to this RFQ, the offeror may choose to update the SF-330 on file by sending a SF-330 supplement in addition to the RFQ response. Such supplements will be considered in this evaluation.

Submission of a SF-330 supplement is OPTIONAL and not required for consideration in this evaluation. The SF-330 supplement is limited in length too fifty (50) pages and will be made a permanent addendum to the SF-330 on file, to be used in future evaluations.

1. The following should be included: specialized experience and technical competence in the performance of services similar to those anticipated under this contract in terms of recent and relevant experience with regard to the project examples described below, as well as demonstrated experience with DoD facility design.

2. The evaluation board will be placing emphasis on the following items when evaluating this factor: experience designing DoD facilities in subarctic environments and designing/building DoD

Joint Mobility Centers.

3. EXAMPLE PROJECTS

3a. Submit example design projects in narrative format that highlight the experience factors listed above. Design project examples should not exceed one single page each. All experience factors do not have to be included in a single project. The offeror may submit multiple projects to demonstrate experience in all relevant types of work, however, do not submit more than five projects total.

3b. The narratives of example projects should show contract number, issuing agency, project name, a current point of contact including telephone and email information, project scope, size, design fees, the total number of modifications/change orders issued during performance of project, date of project completion, estimated construction cost, principal design elements and features, complexity of the job, challenges faced, actions taken, and the resolution and results of any challenges faced. In addition, and if known, list the construction contract award price, and the total number of construction contract modifications/change orders and their total value.

3c. All example projects must have been completed within the past seven (7) years from the date of this RFQ. Evaluation will consider the relevancy (design and construction scope, size, and location) of projects identified with emphasis on the following items:

1. Firms that demonstrate experience with fire detection system design with construction valued greater than $500,000 may result in a higher rating and should be addressed accordingly.

2. Cold climate (sub-arctic or arctic*) design experience; Experience with designing building renovations including building envelope, architectural, structural, civil, mechanical (HVAC and plumbing), electrical, life safety upgrades, fire detection systems and associated alarms systems;

3. Experience in surveying existing facilities and sites for hazardous materials and contamination, and design including remediation of such hazards as necessary to complete the work of the project;

4. Experience in designing a rated fire barrier in a facility;

3d. Examples of work submitted that do not meet the requirements specified here will not be evaluated. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified and eliminated from further consideration. Identify any key personnel that worked on the projects and their role. Specialized experience and technical competency will be evaluated for ability to support the range of work required for this contract, as demonstrated by firm’s submitted projects.

4. The Specialized Experience and Technical Competence factor will be evaluated and assigned a

Combined technical/Risk Rating according to Table 4 below.

Table 4. Specialized Experience - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Satisfactory experience on DoD projects, or mix of DoD and non-

DoD projects, similar to 80% or higher of the types of projects described above in Section a2 within the last seven (7) years. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Satisfactory experience on DoD projects, or mix of DoD and non-

DoD projects, similar to 75% of the types of projects described above in Section a2 within the last seven (7) years. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Satisfactory experience on non-DoD projects, similar to many of the types of projects described above in Section d2 within the last seven

(7) years. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Yellow Marginal Experience on projects similar to some, but not all, types of projects described in Section a2 likely to be designed under the contract. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Minimal or no experience with projects similar to those described in

Section a2 Proposal is unacceptable.

Note to Offerors: SF-330 supplements or annual updates received by the Government, including those SF-330 updates received as in response to a separate RFQ, may not yet be available for evaluation on this task order, particularly the SF-330 supplement/updates sent less than 15 business days prior to the due date of this RFQ. To ensure availability for evaluation, previously sent SF-330 supplements/updates may be resubmitted but must be marked COPY in the file title.

b. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS - TEAM COMPOSITION

Provide a teaming plan to describe the team composition that would be proposed if selected for this task order, identifying all participating firms (i.e., prime contractor, JV partner(s), teaming partners, or subcontractors). For each participating firm, describe how that firm will be resourced to support the requirement, including the discipline of architectural-engineering design services or other traditional

A-E services to be performed. Do not submit resumes of individuals. The Government may request further demonstration of professional qualifications in the Discussions process, to include a staffing plan or other demonstration of professional qualifications of the team that would be resourced for this task order.

1. The offeror’s team shall include staff member licensed in the State of Alaska for the following disciplines:

• Fire Protection Engineer

• Architect

2. In addition, offeror’s team shall demonstrate their qualifications for the following:

• Project/Program Management: Experience in managing projects in remote and challenging environments.

• Cost Estimating

• Industrial Hygienist or equivalent certification (HAZMAT surveying and preparing abatement and worker protection specifications)

3. The Professional Qualifications factor will be evaluated and assigned a Combined

Technical/Risk Rating according to table 3 below. Any offeror receiving a rating of Yellow or

Red for any factor will be removed from further consideration.

Table 3. Professional Qualifications - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Blue

Outstanding

Prime consultant or sub-consultants have at least one licensed and accredited professional in each discipline referenced above in b1 and b2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Green

Acceptable

Prime consultant or sub-consultants employ licensed or accredited professionals in each discipline referenced in b1 and b2 but lacks depth (either number of employees, years of experience, or both) in one or two areas. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Prime consultant or sub-consultants employ licensed or credited professionals in each discipline referenced in b1 and b2 but lacks depth (either number of employees, years of experience, or both) in several areas. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Prime consultant or sub-consultants lack depth of either number of employees, years of experience, or both) in a significant number of areas, or entirely lacks licensed professionals in one or more of the required disciplines referenced in b1 or b2. Proposal is unacceptable.

c. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE

SF-330, Part I, Block H. Additional Information. For the example projects provided under SF-330, Part I, Block B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, in a single page narrative form, provide past performance quality information in terms of an offeror’s ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction for each example project submitted under Specialized

Experience and Technical Competence. In addition to past performance information provided, the evaluation may include information available within the DoD, Federal, state, private industry or other sources.

In addition to the narrative described above, forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) of this synopsis, to each project point of contact. Completed PPQ forms shall be submitted as part of the firms’ proposal package. Firms may include any ratings, letters of appreciation or performance, awards etc., for relevant experience; however, Federal database content and PPQs will be evaluated more advantageously. Reponses will be evaluated to determine firms’ ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction.

If an offeror has an evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) for an example project, that offeror should include that assessment in their qualifications package in lieu of a PPQ or other ratings, letters of appreciation or performance, awards etc.

Failure to provide requested data could result in a firm being considered less qualified and eliminated from further consideration.

1. Relevant Experience/Past Performance ratings will be assigned according to Table 5 below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

d. CAPACITY

Confirm, in writing, that the offeror has both adequate capacity to perform this work in this task order and interest in being considered in this evaluation. Capacity is defined as the ability to accomplish the work within 125 day Period of Performance (PoP) planned by the Government. The Discussions will both refine the Government’s estimated PoP and allow opportunity to demonstrate an offeror’s project timeline that exceeds or reduces that PoP. The Government will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following:

• Capacity to perform work in-house and with teaming members;

• Demonstrate active on-going Federal and Non-Federal work (Address current dollar value of work, number of current projects, management approach to your on-going work, and how the team will support the work requirements outlined in this synopsis in addition to current work).

Offeror must not respond to the RFQ with estimated timelines or a task order specific recommendation of a PoP. Such information will be gathered during Discussions only.

1. The Capacity factor will be evaluated and assigned a Combined Technical/Risk rating according to Table 1 below.

Table 1. Capacity – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Blue Outstanding

Offeror’s projected workload indicates ample capacity to devote to Eielson AFB projects and to complete work on time. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good

Offeror indicates a moderate projected workload. Despite the projected workload, there should be little risk of failing to meet Eielson AFB schedules. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Yellow Marginal

Offeror indicates projected workload is high, but states that, despite that workload, Eielson AFB projects will be completed on schedule. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Offeror indicates his projected workload is very high.

Eielson AFB project completion may be delayed due to other commitments. Proposal is unacceptable.

e. GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY

Provide narrative demonstration of adequate geographic proximity at the project location. Such demonstration may include listing of relevant and recent (concluded within the last 7 years) projects performed within 50 miles of Eielson AFB/or a single page narrative description demonstrating knowledge, experience dealing with, the regulatory agencies, logistics, climatic conditions or local design and construction methods of the unique requirements at that locality.

1. Geographic proximity ratings will be assigned according to Table 2 below.

Table 2. Geographic Proximity – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Blue Outstanding The prime and sub-consultants have local offices with all disciplines represented. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good

The prime and/or sub-consultants have local offices with some of the disciplines; the remainder is located in Alaska. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Neither the prime nor sub-consultants have a local office, but all required disciplines are located in Alaska. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal The prime or sub-consultants have an office in Alaska and some of their personnel are located outside of Alaska. Risk of unsuccessful performance is higher.

Red Unacceptable Most or all the primes and sub-consultants’ engineering and architectural employees are located outside Alaska.

5. The Contractors shall indicate their interest in competing for this requirement through submission of the two (2)-page RFQ response (required) and the SF-330 supplement (optional), both saved as separate pdf format files. Deliver via email no later than 2:00pm (Alaska Daylight Time), [28 March

24]. For files larger than 3MB, please send an email, per offeror, to the Contract Specialist, Jessica

Kot, requesting a DoD Safe drop-off at least 5 business days prior to the suspense due date, in response to this requirement. Emailed submissions are acceptable and must be sent to the Contracting

Specialist, SrA Camden Chan, at: camden.chan@us.af.mil and Contract Officer, SSgt Elias Campos at: elias.campos.1@us.af.mil.

6. Once the selection board has evaluated all offerors against the selection criteria, the board will hold discussions with the top three (3) firms. After the discussions are complete, the board will rank the top three firms and request a pricing proposal from the highest ranked firm. If pricing from the most highly qualified firm is determined to be fair and reasonable, a contract will be awarded to that firm. The CO reserves the right to initiate negotiations with firms in order to negotiate specific mailto:elias.campos.1@us.af.mil.

items. Under no circumstances will the CO award a contract to any offeror that has received a

Technical/Risk rating of Yellow or Red or has received a Performance Confidence Rating of

Limited Confidence or No Confidence.

Notice to Offerors: RFQ responses received after the date/time specified will not be considered.

Offerors that do not respond to this RFQ prior to the date/time specified will not be considered.

ELIAS A. CAMPOS

Contracting Officer