1333ND26QNB190164 AE MEP IDIQ Solicitation.pdf

ALL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO SUBMIT IS CONTAINED

HEREIN. THERE IS NO SEPARATE RFP PACKAGE TO DOWNLOAD.

1333ND26QNB190164- Architectural & Engineering (AE) Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing (MEP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract

A. SOLICITATION NOTICE

The Office of Facilities and Property Management (OFPM) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U. S, Department of Commerce, intends to award a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) for Architectural and Engineering (A/E) Services for Mechanical, Electrical, & Plumbing (MEP) Services for Gaithersburg, MD and Montgomery County, MD. Refer to Attachment 2- Statement of Work Section V “Tasks” and Section VII “General Requirements” for intended scope of work.

NIST contemplates multiple awards of up to three (3) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts but reserves the right to award more or less based on the best interest of the Government.

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of responses, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Responses must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements set forth in solicitation.

Offerors who fail to submit all required information in accordance with the instructions may be deemed non-responsive and may not be considered for award. The following instructions will establish the acceptable requirements for the format and contents of responses.

This is a solicitation requesting qualifications from A/E firms. This is not a request to provide Pricing within the qualification response. No official Request for Fee Proposal (RFP) package will be issued until after an evaluation has been conducted on the submitted SF 330s and any other qualifying documentation for Phase One. The most highly qualified firms selected from negotiations based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work described below will receive written notice to submit a fee Proposal in Phase Two.

B. CONTRACT INFORMATION

This is a 100% set-aside for Small Business firms. Small Business firms responding to this solicitation must demonstrate the capability to perform a minimum of 50% of the required work with in-house staff.

NIST will not accept Offers from joint ventures.

The Period of performance shall be one (1) base-year contract plus four (4) one-year ordering periods.

All work and services will be ordered by issuance of individual firm-fixed priced task orders. The total contract ceiling cumulative of all MATOC awards when combined over the entire period of performance shall not exceed $9,800,000. The project tasks range between $75,000.00 and $5,000,000.00 The project tasks values are estimates only and not guaranteed. Individual year task order values may or may not exceed the estimated values. The guaranteed minimum for the life of the Contract for each awarded offeror, is $5,000.00.

NOTE: The North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS) for this acquisition is Architect or Architect/Engineer firms with an approved NAICS code of 541330 Engineering Services, with a small business size standard of $25,500,000.00 in average annual receipts.

All work and services valued at or above the micro-purchase threshold will be ordered by issuance of individual firm-fixed-price (FFP) task orders. Per FAR 16.507(a)(1), NIST will comply with the order level requirement to provide fair opportunity consideration. NIST may issue orders directly to one IDIQ holder to meet the minimum guarantee. Task order awards will follow the Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute (Brooks Act) Procedures outlined in 40 U.S.C Chapter 11.

In accordance with FAR 16.507-6(b), the Government reserves the right to waive the fair opportunity process and award task orders on a sole-source basis when a determination is made that a valid exception applies. Such exceptions may include, but are not limited to, circumstances of unusual and compelling urgency, a logical follow-on to a previously competed task order, or requirements that are unique or highly specialized to a single MATOC holder. For any task order issued under these exceptions, the Contracting Officer will provide the required justification and documentation in the contract file, ensuring all actions remain in full compliance with FAR 16.507-6(d).

Orders shall have limitations on subcontracting as follows - By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. “Similarly situated entity,” as used in this MATOC, means a first-tier subcontractor, including an independent contractor, that has the same small business program status as that which qualified the prime contractor for the award; and is considered small for the NAICS code the prime contractor assigned to the subcontract the subcontractor will perform. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded

Travel for performance under this contract will not be reimbursed unless otherwise stated at the task order level or authorized in advance by the Contracting Officer.

C. ON-RAMPING, OFF RAMPING, AND DORMANCY PROCEDURES

The total number of awarded MEP IDIQ holders may fluctuate. It is in the Government’s best interest that there remain an adequate number of Contractors eligible to compete for task orders to meet the Government’s MEP service requirements. Contractors are hereby notified that utilization of any on-ramping procedure below does not obligate the Government to perform any other on-ramping procedure.

Furthermore, it does not preclude the Government from performing any other on-ramping procedure which may be performed at any time.

C.2 ON-RAMPING - NIST intends to periodically review the total number of contractors participating in the Ordering Process and assess the quality of performance by each IDIQ holder, the number, value and complexity of work awarded to each holder, and the amount of effective competition achieved by the current MATOC awardee pool. Additional reasons include, but are not limited to, significant changes in the marketplace, competition levels, industry consolidation, or general economic conditions.

1. Open Season or Existing Qualified Contractor List: NIST will determine whether it would be in the Government’s best interest to initiate an open season or leverage the list of Contractors who were not selected for award, but determined to be qualified to add additional Contractors to the MEP IDIQ Pool at any time, subject to the following conditions:

a. A notice to the list of Contractors who responded to this solicitation and were determined qualified, but were not selected for award.

b. If a qualified list of Contractors is not available, an open season notice will be published in Sam.Gov in accordance with FAR Part 5, Publicizing Contract Action under current Federal procurement law.

c. The notice will identify the anticipated number of new contracts NIST intends to award.

d. Any Offeror that met the requirements of this solicitation or meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the open season solicitation may submit a response.

e. The terms and conditions of any resulting awards are materially identical to the existing version of the MEP IDIQ holders.

f. The period of performance term for any new awards is concurrent with the existing term for all other Contractors.

On-ramp contractors will be selected from the list of most highly qualified firms as determined during the initial evaluation of offers and awarded an IDIQ contract after negotiations in accordance with the Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute , as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36.202.

On-ramp contractors will be subject to a performance validation review. On-ramped contractor(s) must be active in the System of Award Management (SAM) and otherwise in compliance with the original multiple award solicitation. If found complaint, on-ramp contractors may be offered a bilateral IDIQ contract with the original guaranteed minimum and considered for future task order awards.

Immediately upon on-ramping, the Contractor is eligible to submit a proposal in response to any task order solicitation and receive task order awards with the same rights and obligations as any other Contractor.

C.2 OFF RAMPING - NIST reserves the unilateral right to Off-Ramp non-performing Contractors.

Contractors that are Off-Ramped will have no active task orders under MEP IDIQ Contract at the time of Off-Ramping. Contract holders are expected, in good faith, to participate in task order competition and, if successful, to deliver quality projects on time and on cost, to include management and supervision of subcontractors. If for any reason, a contractor cannot participate in competing for a task order, the contractor shall provide written notice of the reason(s) for non-participation prior to the proposal due date. Off-ramping methods may result from one of the following conditions:

a. Failure to participate or provide written notice for lack of participation

b. A Contractor outgrowing their small business size status under their existing MEP IDIQ

Contract.

c. An overall performance CPAR rating of Marginal or Unsatisfactory may result in the contractor being off-ramped/removed from the MATOC.

d. Permitting the Contractor’s MEP IDIQ Contract term to expire instead of exercising the

Option.

e. After a Contractor is placed in Dormant Status and the Contractor has completed all previously awarded task orders under PRISM.

f. Debarment, Suspension, or Ineligibility as defined in FAR Subpart 9.4.

g. Termination as defined in FAR Part 49.

h. Contractors who fail to meet the standards of performance, deliverables, or compliances.

C.3 DORMANT STATUS - NIST is responsible for ensuring performance and compliance with the terms of the MEP IDIQ and safeguarding the interests of the Government and the American taxpayer in its contractual relationships. Additionally, NIST must ensure that Contractors receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment. Accordingly, if the CO determines that any requirement is not being met a MEP IDIQ Contractor may be placed into Dormant Status. If Dormant Status is activated, the Contractor shall not be eligible to participate or compete in any subsequent task order solicitations while the Contractor is in Dormant Status; however, Contractors placed in Dormant Status shall continue performance on previously awarded and active task orders, including the exercise of options and modifications for the order(s).

Dormant Status is not a Debarment, Suspension, or Ineligibility as defined in FAR Subpart 9.4 or a Termination as defined in FAR Part 49. Dormant Status is a condition that applies to the MEP IDIQ contract only. Grounds for being placed in Dormant Status specifically include, but are not limited to, trends or patterns of behavior associated with the failure to meet the deliverables and compliances specified under Section F. Dormant status will only be imposed after careful consideration of the situation and collaboration with the Contractor to resolve the issues.

To place a Contractor in Dormant Status, the CO must first send a letter, in writing, to the Contractor regarding the poor performance or non-compliance issue. The Contractor shall have reasonable time, at the discretion of the CO, to provide the CO with a remediation plan to correct the deficiencies/issues. If the CO is satisfied with the Contractor’s response, the Contractor will not be placed in Dormant Status. If the CO is not satisfied with the response, or the remediation plan is not effective, the CO may issue a final decision, in writing, placing the Contractor in a Dormant Status.

The CO final decision may be appealed to the GSA AAS Ombudsman under Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR), as defined in FAR Subpart 33.201 and GSAM 533.214. Using ADR does not waive the Contractor’s right to appeal to the Agency Board of Contract Appeals or United States Court of Federal Claims.

D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

All general requirements and specified project tasks information are located in Attachment 2- Statement of Work NIST AE MEP IDIQ.

A. AE Services The AE Contractor shall perform all labor, management, investigations, studies, travel, supplies, equipment, materials to perform the required services, and any other specified services identified in each Task Order. The A/E is responsible for determining what disciplines and skill sets are required for accomplishing the work and forming a team accordingly. The services described or specified within the SOW shall not be deemed to constitute a comprehensive list having the effect of excluding services not specifically mentioned.

B. Project Management and Quality Services

The AE Contractor shall provide services such as but not limited to, responding to questions regarding clarification of project deliverables during controls and review procedures to minimize conflicting errors and omissions and provide for the technical adequacy of design information.

C. Post-Construction-Award Services

The AE Contractor shall Provide technical and administrative services after construction contract award to support NIST in overseeing the construction contractor including, but not limited to, quality management.

E. PROJECT INFORMATION

In summary, the A/E firm shall have proficiency and experience performing multi-disciplined and simultaneous A/E services in support of renovation, repair, modification, alteration and/or new construction of the required specialized experience. Additional services may be identified at the task-order level. Projects may include, but are not limited to the following areas:

• Repair and/or replacement, modification/reconfiguration, and upgrades to NIST facilities (e.g., laboratories/scientific research, office, industrial). Including but not limited to mechanical, controls, electrical, plumbing, communications, fire alarm, and fire protection.

a. Incidental architectural, including historical assessments for preservation/rehabilitation/restoration of historic properties, space planning, interior design, civil, structural, and building enclosure (e.g., roofs, windows, foundations) work may be included.

• Repair and/or replacement, modification/reconfiguration for campus utility systems and supporting underground structures.

a. Incidental architectural, civil, structural work may be included.

• Program of Requirements (POR) development for Design/Build projects. Including meeting with stakeholders and confirming design intent for major systems (e.g., mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, controls, security, fire alarm, etc.)

Design Phase Services (as applicable using AUTODESK AUTOCAD 2025 or latest version in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Standard) include engineering and engineering-related services such as:

• Surveying and investigations. Including hazardous material (e.g. asbestos, mold, lead paint) survey and risk assessment and topographical, boundary, or geotechnical surveying.

• Preparation of studies, reports, basis of design documents, drawings, specifications, cost estimates, calculations, and construction schedules

• Evaluation and feasibility studies to include engineering, modeling and simulation

• Value engineering analysis to achieve design goals while lowering life cycle costs and maintaining the required performance, quality, reliability, and maintainability.

Construction Phase Services include services related to a specific construction project such as:

• Construction schedule analysis

• Construction Quality Management (CQM)

• Commissioning Support Services

• Attending routine and/or issue-specific construction meetings

• Construction quality assurance including on-site inspection of construction

• Record drawing preparation based on received construction as-builts

• Additional services as identified for a specific task order

Commissioning support services (Cx) include, but are not limited to, the following tasks:

• Review Specifications and Drawings

• Review Submittals

• Develop Commissioning Scripts

• Review O&M Manuals

• Witness Testing of Electrical and Mechanical Systems

All A/E services provided under this requirement shall be consistent with applicable policies, guidelines and/or procedures for the design and construction of NIST facilities and infrastructure as well as all applicable Federal Regulations. Any applicable guidelines, policies, and or procedures will be provided at the Order level.

F. SELECTION PROCESS

In accordance with FAR 36.102-2(c), the SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, Part I and Part II will be evaluated by the evaluation board using the evaluation factors identified in this announcement under Phase One. The evaluation board will hold discussions with at least three (3) of the most highly qualified firms (short listed firms) to consider anticipated concepts and compare alternative methods for furnishing services.

Shortlisted firms will be evaluated and ranked by order of preference taking both the SF330 submission and discussions into consideration. Subsequently, the solicitation for Phase Two will be issued to the most highly qualified firms, followed by negotiations.

G. PHASE ONE- SELECTION CRITERIA

The “Prime Contractor” for this requirement may be an architecture firm, an architecture and engineering firm, or an engineering firm. Thus an “A/E” or an “EA” is an acceptable Prime-Subcontractor relationship for this requirement. For the purposes of this requirement, the use “AE” herein shall apply to the Prime contractor - the Government’s professional services contractor responsible for performing Architectural and/or Engineering services by contract.

The term “A/E Team” shall be defined as the Prime Contractor and their subcontractors and specialty Consultants.

Prospective A-E firms will be evaluated based on their demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services required. The Agency will evaluate each potential A/E firm in terms of each of the criteria listed below. Awards will be made to firms that are determined to be most highly qualified.

Go/No-Go Criteria:

Factor 1, Specialized Laboratory Experience

FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED LABORATORY DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Offerors must provide proof of the Firm’s Registration Licenses and at least three, but no more than five, examples for each subfactor with the exception of subfactor 3.d, which requires only one example. One project may address multiple items:

1. Renovations of laboratories (minimum of 2,000 SF) which includes the following:

a. Replacement or new installation of a ducted-exhaust, chemical fume hood

b. Plumbing for laboratory services.

2. Renovations, alterations, and/or upgrades to mechanical, plumbing and/or electrical systems for a laboratory building which include: (2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d).

a. Central air-handling unit, using hydronic or steam utilities for heating and cooling

(minimum 5000 cfm capacity)

b. Electrical systems supporting specialized scientific tools, equipment and instrumentation. Note amperage, phases, and voltages in offer.

c. Specialty plumbing systems supporting specialized laboratory tools, equipment, and instrumentation. System can include, but are not limited to, gasses such as nitrogen, helium, compressed air; pure water; vacuum; secondary cooling.

3. Life safety and code compliance:

a. International Building Code and National Fire Protection Association analyses.

b. Fire alarm systems and device designs.

c. NFPA 13 fire suppression system new or modification designs.

d. Hazardous detection systems (radiological or toxic gas monitoring systems). Note which detection system is being referenced.

Offerors will be evaluated on specialized laboratory design experience in performance of services of relevant projects that are similar to those anticipated under this contract. Relevant projects include new construction and/or repair/renovation in laboratories in commercial facilities, federal or state facilities, hospitals, or college/universities. High school and lower-grade school laboratories will not be considered relevant. Design or project deliverable must have been completed in the past seven (7 years excluding Post Construction Award Services (PCAS).

If the offeror does not meet the criteria in Factor 1, the rest of the response will not be evaluated for subsequent evaluation factors and will not be further considered for award. Projects after number five will not be reviewed for Factor 1. If a past example is before calendar year 2021, the example will be deemed non-responsive.

Offerors must complete all sections of Part I of the SF 330 (Attachment 4), providing three to five (3-5) projects within the past seven (7) years, from the date this notice was released, that best illustrates specialized experience of the proposed firm. Firms must include on the Sf 330 the following information in its entirety:

• Contract period of performance

• Contract award value and final contract value o Explanation for any variance from award value o If the contractor served as a subcontractor on a project, indicate the values of the work performed and the overall project values

• Summary of the work performed demonstrates relevance to the specialized experience o If a project was performed by a joint venture, and not all joint venture partners are on the team proposed for this contract, the Offeror/team should specifically address the work performed by the joint venture partner offering/teaming on this contract, rather than the work performed on the project as a whole o If the Offeror/team member worked as a subcontractor on a project, the description should clearly describe the work performed by the Offeror/team member, rather than the work performed on the project as a whole o If the project description does not clearly delineate the work performed by the team member/team entity on this contract, the project could be eliminated from consideration o For submittal purposes, a Task Order on an IDIQ contract is considered a project. Do not list an IDIQ contract as an example of a completed project. Instead, list relevant completed Task Orders and/or stand-alone contract awards.

In accordance with FAR 36.601-4(b), to be eligible for award, the A-E firm shall be a registered/licensed architectural and/or engineering firm in the designated state the contract to be performed (MD). The firm must provide proof that it is permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering.

Failure to submit the required proof and provide requested information including accessible points of contact could result in a firm being rated lower or not evaluated resulting in a firm’s elimination from consideration. Place all supporting documents in accordance with Attachment 1, Table of Contents NIST

AE MEP IDIQ.

All other Evaluation Factors criteria are listed in descending order of importance and include:

FACTOR 2 – PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

The Government will evaluate Factor 2 by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating (located on Table 1 of Section J- Adjectival Ratings of this document).

1. The Government will review professional qualification for Offeror and its proposed subcontractors and key personnel. If the experience is earlier than calendar year 2019 for personnel that experience will not be considered.

2. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed team and organization chart of proposed team.

3. The Government will review SF 330 Sections C and D for key personnel proposed by the Offeror.

4. The Government will review SF 330 resumes to verify the Offeror has addressed all labor categories in Attachment 2- Statement of Work AE MEP IDIQ, Section “VI- Key Personnel”

5. The Government will review SF 330 key personnel participations in examples.

If Offerors collaborated with team members previously, it will be reviewed more favorably than those who have not collaborated. Offerors shall clearly indicate those required services it intends to self-perform and those it intends to subcontract (Section C and D of the SF 330).

Key personnel are individuals who will have major contract or project management responsibilities and/or will provide unusual or unique expertise. Resumes (Section E of the SF 330) shall be provided for key personnel (including any key personnel to be supported through consultants and subcontractors and annotated as such within the SF 330). Offerors will be evaluated on the qualifications, competence, and experience of the key personnel proposed. One (1) resume must be provided for all the following positions for IDIQ evaluation:

• Project Manager,

• Senior Mechanical (HVAC) Engineer,

• Senior Electrical Engineer,

• Senior Plumbing/Piping Engineer

Failure to provide the requested information could result in a firm being rated lower or not evaluated. All information for Factor 2 should be submitted in Sections A, B, C, D, and E of the SF 330, as well as in accordance with Attachment 1, Table of Contents. The Government WILL NOT consider information submitted by the Offeror in addition to these sections when evaluating Factor 2.

FACTOR 3 – CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK IN THE REQUIRED TIME

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and their subcontractor’s capacity for current work and planned work to respond to specific task requirements in a desired time frame by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating (located in Table 1 of Section J-Adjectival Ratings of this document).

Submissions that demonstrate a firm’s capacity to accomplish multiple simultaneous Task Orders under IDIQ contracts for Government agencies will be rated more favorably. The A-E firm/team must be capable of timely responses and timely deliverables while working on multiple task orders concurrently involving multiple A/E disciplines. Offerors will be evaluated in terms of their ability to plan for and manage work under the contract and capacity to accomplish the work in the required time.

Offerors shall provide a narrative using the SF 330, Part 1 Section H, describing how the firm/team deals with unanticipated increases in workload to ensure continuity of services and availability of additional staff. Small businesses should consider impacts on performance with limitations on subcontracting.

Failure to provide the requested information could result in a firm being rated lower or not evaluated. All information for Factor 3 should be submitted in Section H of the SF 330, as well as in accordance with Attachment 1, Table of Contents. The Government WILL NOT consider information submitted by the Offeror in addition to these sections when evaluating Factor 3.

FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate Factor 4 for the offerors past performance by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating (located on Table 2 of Section J- Adjectival Ratings of this document on the following:

1. Quality of Work.

2. Contract cost control.

3. Compliance with performance schedules.

Evaluating past performance will involve the review of data from the responses to the Attachment 3, A-E MATOC Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), in accordance with FAR 42.1101. The Government may also consider other information available such as Government databases, publicly available sources, either favorable or unfavorable, and may consider credible documentation included in the SF 330. In the case of an incomplete record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the AE firm will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

An AE firm who has performed successfully on projects found to be acceptable projects in the Specialized Laboratory Design Experience criteria will be rated more favorably

For purposes of this evaluation, relevancy is defined as:

Very Relevant: Past Performance effort involved is essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities of this design requirement.

Relevant: Past Performance effort involved similar to the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities of this design requirement

Somewhat Relevant: Past Performance effort involved some of the same scope and magnitude of

Not Relevant: Past Performance effort involved little to none of the same scope and magnitude of

Offerors will be evaluated on their 1) Professional performance and general management of projects;

and 2) Cost control, quality of work and compliance with performance schedules. Place all supporting documents in accordance with Attachment 1, Table of Contents.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring the PPQ is completed by a reference, the Project Owner or knowledgeable equivalent, or that there is a completed CPARS for each project provided in the SF 330, Part 1, Section F. If there is a CPARS record, no PPQ is needed. If there is not a CPARS record, then the Offeror shall complete Part 1 of the PPQ. The Offeror’s references shall complete Part 2 of the PPQ and return the completed form with the Solicitation Number and Title via email to sasha.bradford@nist.gov.

Failure to provide requested information and accessible points of contact could result in a firm being rated lower or not evaluated. All information for Factor 4 should be submitted in accordance with Attachment 1, Table of Contents. The Government WILL NOT consider information submitted by the Offeror in addition to these sections when evaluating Factor 4.

FACTOR 5 – LOCATION OF FIRM

The Government will evaluate Factor 5 by reviewing submission and assigning an adjectival rating (located on Table 3 of Section J- Adjectival Ratings of this document Offerors must provide a printout demonstrating mile radius.

The Government will review the Offeror’s location more favorably if it is within 52 miles of NIST. The method for checking location will be via an internet mapping (driving) program.

The Gaithersburg campus address is: 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

Location will be used as tiebreaker for equivalently evaluated responses. The firm closer to the NIST campus will be given an overall evaluation preference over those that Offerors equivalently evaluated under criteria 1 through 4. “Closer” will be defined as physical mile radius for anticipated presence of key personnel.

Failure to provide the requested information could result in a firm being rated lower or not evaluated. In addition to the required radius printout, all information for Factor 5 should be submitted in Part II of the SF 330, as well as in accordance with Attachment 1, Table of Contents. The Government WILL NOT consider information submitted by the Offeror in addition to these sections when evaluating Factor 5.

H. PHASE TWO- FEE PROPOSAL:

Only those firms selected for award will be invited to provide a fee proposal. The Government will review the Overhead and Billing Rate Table; Offeror’s methodology used in developing their Billing Rate Schedule, audited financial statements as applicable, a narrative statement, safety plan, certificates of insurance and endorsements

In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(b)(1), If the contracting officer is unable to negotiate a fair and reasonable contract with the firm selected by the selection authority, the contracting officer must formally terminate negotiations. The contracting officer shall then proceed to negotiate a fair and reasonable contract with the next most qualified firm. This procedure shall be continued until a fair and reasonable agreement is reached. If negotiations fail with all selected firms, the contracting officer must reject all bids and reissue the solicitation.

mailto:sasha.bradford@nist.gov

I. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Please submit all questions via email to the Acquisition Team by 12:00 PM EDT on Monday, May 18, 2026. Questions shall be submitted via Excel format in Attachment 5, Q&A Template NIST AE MEP IDIQ. NIST will not respond to questions if they are not submitted via Attachment 5, Q&A Template.

All contractors are advised that registration in System for Award Management (SAM) Database is required prior to award of a contract. Representations and Certification must be completed electronically via this site. Failure to register in the SAM Database may render your firm ineligible for award. For more information, check the SAM website: https://www.sam.gov.

Interested firms/teams seeking qualification under this announcement must submit SF 330s and supplemental information in accordance with the Submission Tab Instructions in Attachment 1, Table of Contents to the following Acquisition Team members no later than 12:00 PM EDT on Monday, May 28, 2026:

Sasha Bradford, sasha.bradford@nist.gov

To receive a visitor pass for any meetings or site visit access to the NIST campus, personnel must possess form(s) of identification in accordance with REAL ID Act, please verify your identification is acceptable, more information can be found at https://www.nist.gov/about-nist/visit/campus-access-and-security.

J. SOLICITATION REFERENCE ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment 1- Table of Contents NIST AE MEP IDIQ

2. Attachment 2- Statement of Work NIST AE MEP IDIQ

3. Attachment 3- Past Performance Questionnaire NIST AE MEP IDIQ

4. Attachment 4- SF330 NIST AE MEP IDIQ

5. Attachment 5- QA Template NIST AE MEP IDIQ https://www.sam.gov/ mailto:sasha.bradford@nist.gov https://www.nist.gov/about-nist/visit/campus-access-and-security

K. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

Table 1 - FACTORS 2-3:

Adjectival Rating Description

Excellent (Blue)

The submission demonstrates a superior understanding of the requirements and exceeds all minimum requirements. It includes strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.

No weaknesses or deficiencies identified. There is a high probability of success.

Good (Green)

The submission demonstrates a considerable understanding of the requirements and an approach that includes strengths that will benefit the Government. Any identified weakness has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. There is an above average probability of success

Acceptable (Yellow)

The submission demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets the Governments’ requirements. The submission has no deficiencies but may include some weakness that can potentially cause disruption of schedules or degradation of performance. With corrections, there is average probability of success.

Marginal (Orange)

The submission demonstrates a marginal understanding of the requirements, and fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements. There is a low probability of success.

Unacceptable (Red)

The submission fails to demonstrate a basic understanding of the requirements and/or the approach fails to meet the requirements. There is no probability of success.

TABLE 2 – Factor 4 – Past Performance

Adjectival Rating Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) Performance met and exceeded many contractual requirements. The contractual performance was accomplished with few if any minor problems which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (V) Performance met and exceeded some contractual requirements. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M) Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being evaluated reflects a serious problem. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY

(U)

Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions, if any, were ineffective.

NEUTRAL (N/A) Performance not observed. Indicates neither a favorable nor unfavorable rating.

TABLE 3 – Factor 5 – Location

Adjectival Rating Description ACCEPTABLE (A) The submission meets the stated requirements. The submission is considered complete in terms of providing the requested information to support the Government evaluation.

UNACCEPTABLE (U) The submission either fails to meet the stated requirements, or the response is considered deficient in terms of providing the requested information to support the Government evaluation.