AE23POL Synopsis dated 24 Jun.pdf

*****FA890322R0048 AE23POL MATOC SYNOPSIS****

TITLE: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES FOR PETROLEUM, OIL, & LUBRICANT

FACILITIES MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (MATOC) FOR AFCEC

WORLDWIDE FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE MISSION (AE23POL MATOC)

LOCATION: WORLDWIDE

ISSUE DATE: 24 JUNE 2022

CLOSING DATE/BID OPENING: 25 July 2022, 02:00 p.m. Central Time

ESTIMATED CEILING: NTE $500,000,000

CLASS CODE: C – Architecture and Engineering Service

PSC: C1GC – Construction: Fuel Storage Buildings

NAICS CODE: 541330 – Engineering Services

SET-ASIDE: None, Small Business Reserve for up to five Small Businesses

CONTRACTING POC:

Geoffrey Bender, Capt, Contracting Officer, 240-406-9304, geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil

Ms. Elizabeth Wergin, Contract Specialist, elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. THERE IS NO

SOLICITATION PACKAGE TO DOWNLOAD. ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO

SUBMIT SF330 DOCUMENTS IS CONTAINED HEREIN.

Questions pertaining to this announcement shall be submitted NLT 1400 CT; 8 July 2022 and addressed to the Contracting Officer, Geoffrey Bender, geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil and the

Contract Specialist, Elizabeth Wergin, elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil.

Questions received after this deadline shall not be addressed.

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

The 772 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS) in conjunction with the Air Force Civil Engineer

Center (AFCEC), Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland Air Force Base, TX, desires to contract with Architect-Engineer (A/E) firms in support of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) worldwide fuels infrastructure mission. We anticipate awarding a Multiple Award Task Order

(MATOC) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Architect-Engineer (AE) contract to support the worldwide Department of Defense (DoD) fuels infrastructure mission, to include mailto:geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil mailto:elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil installations supported by the Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air National Guard, allied nations, and others. These Architect-Engineer Services for Petroleum, Oil, & Lubricant Facilities

(AE POL) will provide for Title I, Title II, and associated DoD AE POL services with a total contract ceiling of $500M, to be shared among all contract holders.

The 772 ESS anticipates making awards to approximately 14 firms, including a Small Business

Reserve of five (5) firms. The government reserves the right to award to more firms, fewer firms, or none. The Task Order limitation will be a minimum of $2,500 and maximum of $5M, subject to the conditions of FAR 52.216-19 - Order Limitations.

For purposes of this synopsis, the term "Offeror" refers to the firm or Joint-Venture firm that submits a SF330 as a result of this synopsis.

ORDERING PERIOD AND CONTRACT TYPE: Each basic IDIQ contract within the MATOC will have a single, ten-year ordering period with pre-negotiated fully-burdened labor rates for the

10 year period. The IDIQs will be structured to allow for the issuance of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) negotiated task orders during the ordering period.

INTENT: For this Basic MATOC, the Government does not intend, nor expect, the most highly qualified firms to be able to demonstrate experience and/or knowledge of DoD POL-related A-E

(heretofore: AEPOL) services all over the world; however, more consideration will be given to firms that have greater experience across a broader geographical area. Firms that have experience in a limited geographical area will likely not be considered among the most highly qualified. Further, the

Government also does not intend nor expect the most highly qualified firms to be able to perform every type of DoD AEPOL service described in this synopsis; however, more consideration will be given to firms that have greater experience across a broader range of relevant services. Firms that demonstrate a limited depth of relevant services will likely not be considered the most highly qualified.

Firms of all types and sizes that perform DoD AEPOL services described in this synopsis are encouraged to submit SF 330s. At the Task Order level, a more in-depth evaluation will occur to determine which of the MATOC holders is the most highly qualified for the type of work required by that task order, with specific geographical knowledge of the locality and capacity of the firm to perform that specific task also taken heavily into consideration in the task order selection decision. Offerors shall keep in mind that task orders may require performance in any

US state or country where the US Government has a presence, and thus Small Businesses that focus on a small geographical area may be the most highly qualified for that area at the task order level.

USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: Offerors are also advised that while teaming partners are permitted, they are not encouraged nor desirable. The Government intends to award directly to

DoD AEPOL firms that perform DoD AEPOL services in-house (organically) without extensive use of teaming partners. DoD AEPOL firms that submit SF330s that demonstrate project management, oversight, quality control, or other support tasks that are performed in-house

(organically), but where the technical DoD AEPOL services are performed by teaming partners or subcontractors, will NOT be considered the most highly qualified. The Government intends to award directly to those firms that perform DoD AEPOL services with their own personnel. To emphasize this point, all firms selected as the most highly qualified for this DoD AE POL

MATOC and issued a Request for Proposal will be required to submit and negotiate one composite labor rate per labor category/discipline, to be incorporated into the contract. Teaming partner rates will not be negotiated separately.

AWARD PROCEDURES: This MATOC will be procured in accordance with the Selection of

Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C Sections 1101-1104, previously known as the ‘Brooks Act'), as implemented by FAR 36.6. Firms will be selected for labor rate negotiations based on selection as a Most Highly Qualified firm, in accordance with the selection criteria identified below. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330, which has a size standard of $22,500,000 per the size standards table dated 1 Apr 2022. To receive award, contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Register via the SAM website at http://www.sam.gov. Those firms selected as the most highly qualified will be issued an individual Request for Proposal to negotiate labor rates. This synopsis and any resultant contract awards do not guarantee work to selected firms.

ORDERING PROCEDURES FOR THE MATOC:

Small Business Set Aside Procedures

1) Phase I Planning Studies (Valve to Valve Assessments to identify deficiencies) –

CONUS.

a. The Government intends to set-aside 60% of the annual installation studies for

SB and 40% of these installation studies to be open to all AE23POL IDIQ holders.

2) Phase II Planning Studies (100% Issued for Construction Design Packages) –

CONUS:

a. The firms that execute the Phase I V2V Assessment/deficiency identification will subsequently be selected for the Phase II designs as that firm will have the most extensive experience on the project and will therefore be the Most

Highly Qualified, barring any past gperformance or capacity concerns. See explanation/parameters in the “Sequential Projects” Section below.

b. The result of this evaluation method is that 60% of the annual installation studies will be set aside for SB and 40% of the installation studies will be open to all AE23POL IDIQ holders.

3) Emergent Projects – CONUS: Stand-alone Assessments, Inspections, or Designs that are not part of the routine Planning Study or Centrally Managed Program projections.

a. These projects may include inspections, assessments, or designs as a result of a tank, pipeline, or fuel system failure. CONUS Emergent Designs shall be

100% set aside for SB for any design project where the ECC is $3M or less.

All other CONUS Emergent Inspections or Assessments estimated to be

$300K or less shall be 100% set aside for SB. All other CONUS emergent projects may be open to all AE23POL IDIQ holders.

4) Cathodic Protection (CP) and API 570 Inspections

a. Cathodic Protection and API inspections shall be full and open to all

AE23POL IDIQ holders.

5) API 653 Tank Inspection Task Orders - CONUS:

a. External (In-Service) API 653 Tank Inspections shall be set aside for SB.

b. Internal (Out-of-Service) Tank Inspections shall be full and open competition amongst all AE23POL IDIQ holders.

6) STI Tank Inspections – CONUS

a. For STI Inspections combined with Phase I or Phase II efforts, the Phase I and

Phase II instructions shall be followed.

b. Independent STI Inspections shall be 100% set aside for SB.

7) Title II Services – CONUS

a. Title II Services shall be open to all AE23POL IDIQ holders as the firm selected to perform Title II services will not be able to participate on any other design, inspection, or assessment for that specific geographical area, because it would be a conflict of interest as the Title II contractor will be required to perform design and other submittal reviews associated with all other projects in that geographical area, and thus they cannot provide meaningful reviews of their own work without presenting a conflict of interest.

8) OCONUS Projects including US States (Alaska, Hawaii) and territories (i.e. Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico, etc)

a. All OCONUS projects shall be open to all AE23POL IDIQ holders.

9) Sequential Projects:

a. A firm that previously performed an inspection, assessment, or design of a specific project, and that project needs a “sequential” type of AE service, will automatically be solicited to the firm that executed the previous project, as they will be considered the Most Highly Qualified due to their extensive knowledge of that specific project, so long as the Task Order Contracting

Officer does not conclude that the firm’s past performance was less than satisfactory for that project or any recent and relevant projects, or that the firm does not have the capacity to perform the “sequential” requirement, in which case the requirement will be follow the procedures set above.

b. Examples of Sequential Projects include the following:

i. Performing a Phase II design after a Phase I Assessment.

ii. Performing a higher level of design (i.e. a 65% or 100% issued for

Construction design, after previously only performing a conceptual/35% design).

iii. Performing a “design refresh” of a previously executed design that is outdated and needs to be updated to current codes/specs.

iv. Performing services such as Title II or PCAS (Post Construction

Award Services/aka “Designer of Record Support during

Construction” associated with a previously executed design.

***FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY PRE-AWARD: NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN

THE SOW BUT FOR SYNOPSIS PURPOSES ONLY***

Workload estimates for the categories:

1) CONUS Phase I Planning Studies: 8-10 installations annually

2) CONUS Phase II Planning Studies: 8-10 installations annually

3) CONUS Emergent Project: varies and not forecasted.

4) Cathodic Protection: 125 installations annually, worldwide

5) CONUS API 653 Inspections: 40-50 installations annually for both internal and external inspections

6) CONUS STI Inspections: 8-10 annually. These may be grouped with CONUS

Phase I or II efforts.

7) CONUS Title II Services: one task order that covers Title II onsite and home office support for all CONUS construction, as well as design and design submittal reviews for all other CONUS inpsection, assessment, and design reviews.

8) PACAF Projects: 8-10 projects annually covering tank inspections, facility assessments, and full designs generally covering multiple sites

9) USAFE Projects: 3-5 projects annually covering tank inspections, facility assessments, and full designs.

Selection of the most highly qualified firm at the task order level will be consistent with the procedures in FAR 36.6 and DFARS 236.6. In most cases, experience and qualifications information from all MATOC holders will be gathered through a Request for Qualifications

(RFQ) process as specific project requirements are developed, to ensure the most highly qualified firm is selected at the task order level. The Government may obtain information through programmatic measures across a specific type of work or geographic location, or specific to individual projects. The establishment of the MATOC identified the most highly qualified (MHQ) firms and the RFQ process acts as the discussion portion of the FAR 36.6 process. This does not preclude the contracting office from holding additional discussions either telephonically or through email.

The relative importance of selection criteria may vary among task order requirements, and may include Primary Selection Criteria in accordance with FAR 36.6 and/or Secondary Selection

Criteria in accordance with DFARS 236.6. Firms that do not respond to an RFQ may not be considered. Conversely, when a programmatic RFQ is issued, Requests for Proposals may be issued to multiple firms that are each considered the most highly qualified, to ensure sufficient capacity to perform the work exists across a large program. Given the extent of highly specialized and qualified DoD POL AE firms on this MATOC, in many cases, particular emphasis will be made in selecting firms with knowledge of a specific project’s locality, as well as the firm’s capacity to perform the work. Past Performance of recent AFCEC DoD POL projects may also be considered.

When a task order is contemplated for services that are directly related to a previous project for like/similar services (such as performing a Phase II design after the Phase I effort has been completed, or performing a 100% design after a conceptual design was completed, or performing

PCAS (post construction-award support)), the Government will not likely issue a RFQ, as the original firm selected was already deemed the most highly qualified. The original firm now possesses more experience and familiarity with the second phase of the requirement, improving their already determined MHQ status. If that firm’s performance was satisfactory or better, the

Government will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) directly to that firm, in most cases, without an additional RFQ. However, if past performance represents a concern, or capacity to complete the sequential work is questionable, the Government may issue a RFQ to select the most highly qualified firm.

INTERVIEWS: In making the most highly qualified selection, the evaluation board may conduct interviews with highly qualified firms (by phone, in person, or in writing) during the final selection process.

SUBCONTRACTING PLANS (LB only): Subcontracting Plans are applicable to Large

Businesses only. Large Businesses that are deemed the most highly qualified will be required to submit a subcontracting plan, upon issuance of a Request for Proposal. In accordance with FAR

19.702(b)(3), the subcontracting plan applies only to work performed in the U.S. and its outlying areas. A subcontracting plan is NOT required with submission of the SF330 for this synopsis.

The subcontracting goals/targets for this program are as follows:

Small Business 42% of total subcontracted dollars

Small Disadvantaged Business 23% of total subcontracted dollars

Woman Owned Small Business 1% of total subcontracted dollars

HUBZone Small Business 2% of total subcontracted dollars

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 2% of total subcontracted dollars

RFPs: Those firms that are determined to be the most highly qualified will be issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to submit composite labor rates covering a variety of engineering and engineering support labor categories. Only one rate per labor category will be negotiated. Large

Businesses will also be required to submit a subcontracting plan, which will be reviewed for compliance with the subcontracting goals identified above. Approved subcontracting plans will be incorporated into any resultant award to a Large Business.

QUESTIONS: A pre-proposal (pre-SF330 submission) conference will not be held. Questions and/or comments related to this synopsis must be emailed to the Contracting Officer at geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialist at elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil by 1400 on 8 July 2022. Any questions and/or comments received after this date may not be considered for response. All timely questions and/or comments will be addressed and subsequently posted on the www.sam.gov.

B. DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

This contract will support the award of Architect-Engineer (AE) services specifically for DoD

Petroleum, Oil, and Lubrication (POL) Facilities, as identified in individual Task Orders:

1. General Scope:

This requirement is for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) for AFCEC Worldwide Fuels Infrastructure Mission for the FY23-

FY33 Architect-Engineer Services for DoD Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Facilities (AE23POL).

Task orders shall incorporate Architect-Engineer (A-E) services in support of the DoD fuels infrastructure mission at worldwide locations, which include US installations supported by the

Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air National Guard, allied countries, and others. These

DoD AE Services comprise the renovation of existing facilities, demolition, repair, or replacement of DoD POL Facilities through Title I, Title II, and associated DoD AE POL services necessary to complete individual task order requirements at locations worldwide.

2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to aid in the preparation of your SF 330:

"Project" is defined as work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract or C-Type CONTRACT. An IDIQ type contract, in and of itself, is NOT considered a project. "Project" is also defined as a single, stand alone, site-specific contract. For the purposes of this evaluation a project is a DoD POL AE project (not construction). “Project” is also defined as the design portion of a Design-Build contract or task order that the Prime Contractor (AE firm) submitting the SF330 for this synopsis was the DOR that completed the design package for the design-build project, and the

Government has accepted the 100% design for that design-build project.

"DoD POL facilities" includes Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL or ‘fuels') facilities that are located on a United States Department of Defense installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army, Space Force, or Air Force National Guard, or Reserve bases). It does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or any other federal, commercial, or private facility.

DoD POL facilities include fuel farms, above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, cut-and-cover tanks, hydrant fuel distribution systems including piping, pumps, valves, hydrant and filter separators, oil water separator, bulk storage systems, transfer pump houses, POL control systems, stilling wells, containment areas, fuel pits, and fill stands.

"Relevant Project" is defined as Title I and Title II services for DoD POL facilities, as follows:

Title I Services include services related to a specific construction project and consist of conducting field surveys and investigations to obtain design data and preparing contract plans, specifications, cost estimates, and estimated construction periods of performance. Title I services may include all aspects of design such as preparation and/or review of contract plans, specifications, scheduling, cost estimates, system commissioning services and preparation of operating and design manuals. Title I efforts also encompass those efforts required to support and develop design work, including American Petroleum Institute (API) or Steel Tank Institute

(STI) inspections, planning and programming, program management, project scoping, studies, investigations, evaluations, consultations, conceptual design, value engineering, and operation, monitoring, topographic survey services, and infrastructure systems.

Title II Services include construction support services that encompass a full range of disciplinary expertise and services to support various DoD POL Systems repairs, to include on-site construction oversight assistance, design reviews, quality assurance inspections, adherence to applicable specifications, construction schedule analysis, material submittal reviews, environmental submittal reviews, other standard construction submittal reviews, post-construction award services, and designer of record support.

Examples include A-E services for planning studies ("valve to valve" or "fence to fence"), construction cost estimating, fuel system analysis, tank inspections subject to American

Petroleum Institute (API) 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, tank inspections subject to Steel Tank Institute (STI) SP001, API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspections, API 570 Piping Inspections, cathodic protection inspections, and optimization of fuel systems. It also includes providing technical oversight or design for new, additions to, or upgrades of POL facilities including, above ground storage tanks, NATO cut-and-cover tanks, underground storage tank removal/replacement, hydrant fuel distribution systems including pumps, valves, hydrant and filter separators, bulk storage systems, transfer pump houses, and controls, buildings including pump houses, petroleum operations buildings, fuel truck maintenance buildings, or generator buildings. It also includes infrastructure design for POL facility-related site utilities, refueler truck parking areas, containment areas (pavement and drainage basin design), fuel pits, fill stands, and for POL facility-related special designs including cathodic protection, fire protection, special coatings and paints, and demolition of POL buildings. It also includes programming, studies, investigations, and other services not associated with a specific POL construction project, as well as AE POL Title II (construction support) services that encompass a full range of disciplinary expertise and services to support various DoD POL Systems repairs, to include on-site construction oversight assistance, design reviews, quality assurance inspections, adherence to applicable specifications, construction schedule analysis, material submittal reviews, environmental submittal reviews, and other standard construction submittal reviews.

"Completed projects" are defined as those in which the firm's performance of the task for which it was hired (i.e., design and/or construction support services) were completed within the past five (5) years from the date this synopsis was posted.

C. SELECTION CRITERIA:

SELECTION CRITERIA ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE:

SF 330s will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firms. Evaluating Past

Performance may include information provided by the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, and/or publicly available sources. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers may result in a firm being considered less qualified. All projects provided in the SF 330 must be completed by the office/branch/individual team member actually performing the work under this contract. Projects not performed by the office/branch/individual team member will be excluded from evaluation consideration.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND

TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

NOTE: NEITHER LEAK DETECTION SERVICES NOR PIPELINE INTEGRITY TESTING

SERVICES WILL BE A MAJOR PART OF THE WORK UNDER THIS MATOC.

THEREFORE, PROJECTS SUBMITTED FOR THESE TYPES OF SERVICES WILL NOT BE

CONSIDERED.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall submit minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) descriptions of relevant and completed projects (see definitions above). If more than five projects are submitted, only five will be evaluated, starting with the most recently completed and working backwards chronologically.

For each project, Offerors must identify the workload distribution (disciplines and percent of work performed in-house (organically) versus those completed by a teaming partner/sub-consultant). Joint-Venture Offerors are considered a single entity and thus projects submitted that were performed in-house by either firm, or in-house by the JV entity, are considered performed

"in-house." Offerors must identify how long (in months) the teaming arrangement has been in existence for each teaming partner.

Offerors are encouraged to review the evaluation method below to ensure submitted project descriptions provide enough information for the Government to determine the extent of the

Offeror's experience, and use of in-house (organic) resources for technical engineering services

(not project management/oversight/quality control).

EVALUATION METHOD:

More consideration may be given to Offerors that provide the following:

a. a greater extent and breadth of experience in a variety of relevant projects;

b. Offerors that demonstrate experience performing A/E Title I services where the resultant construction value exceeds $1,000,000 and is for new construction or repairs of DoD petroleum fuel storage facilities, such as fuel tank(s), fuel handling and distribution systems (pipes, pumps, stilling wells, Automatic Tank Gauging, and valves), associated designs for electrical power, cathodic protection, and/or POL communication/control systems;

c. Offerors that demonstrate Title I services associated with Aviation Fuel Systems (rather than

Military Service Stations) may be evaluated more favorably;

d. Offerors that demonstrate performing DoD POL A-E services in-house (organically, rather than with or by a teaming partner/sub-consultant) will be evaluated more favorably. Joint-

Venture Offerors are considered a single entity and thus projects submitted that were performed in-house by either firm, or in-house by the JV entity, will be evaluated more favorably than those performed by a teaming partner/sub-consultant. While self-performance is most favorable, the evaluation will also consider current and former relationships between the Offeror and its proposed teaming partners/sub-consultants, with more consideration given to longer/stronger relationships.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D & E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL

QUALIFICATIONS

Provide the data for Section E of each proposed key person. Each resume shall include a maximum of five (5) specific, relevant and completed projects (see definitions above) that best illustrate the individual member's qualifications for the position for which the key member is being proposed. Section E for each key person shall include all elements: the individual's employer(s), role proposed, the number of years engaged in the discipline, and any professional licensure held. While not every position is required, any elements of Section E that are blank will be interpreted as the key person not having that component.

In the SF 330, Part 1, Section D, provide an organizational chart identifying the members of the program team, to include the key personnel. Indicate the branch office location of each team member.

The individuals filling the role of each of the following primary disciplines are key personnel:

a. Lead DoD POL Project Manager

b. Lead DoD POL Mechanical Engineer

c. Lead DoD POL Civil Engineer

d. Lead DoD POL Electrical Engineer

e. Lead DoD POL Structural Engineer

f. Lead DoD POL Construction Inspector (Title II)

It is expected that these individuals will provide program level quality control and oversight of the task orders resulting from this acquisition. Any changes to the proposed key team members after submission of qualifications MUST be approved by the Corporate Contracting Officer.

The evaluation will consider the extent and breadth of relevant experience, professional licensure, and longevity with their firm, for each key person, with more consideration given to key personnel employed by the Offeror and more positions filled organically by the Offeror. For teaming partner/sub-consultant key personnel, the evaluation will consider current and former relationships with the Offeror, with more consideration given to working projects relevant to this solicitation and longer/stronger relationships. Resumes that include relevant projects submitted in Criterion (1) may be evaluated more favorably. Resumes submitted where the key member has performed in the role proposed for this contract may also be evaluated more favorably.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, CRITERION (3) PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall provide current and valid customer points of contact (name, position/role, email, and phone numbers) for each project submitted in Criterion (1). Also submit ACASS/CPARS evaluations for each project submitted in Criterion (1). Firms are encouraged to contact the appropriate government Project Managers, Contracting Officers, or Contracting Officer's

Representatives to ensure ACASS/CPARS evaluations have been submitted on completed government projects, particularly for those projects submitted under Criterion (1). If an

ACASS/CPARS evaluation has not yet been finalized, offerors may submit a Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ is included as Attachment 1 to this synopsis. PPQs shall be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Elizabeth Wergin, via email at elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil and the Contracting Officer, Capt Geoffrey Bender at geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil prior to SF330 due date.

In addition to information submitted by the Offeror, the Government may consider information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and any other sources deemed necessary by the Government, for any relevant project (as defined above) completed by the Offeror, within the past five years from the date this synopsis was issued. This may include contacting the customers submitted with this Criterion.

Evaluation Method: The Government may evaluate all available past performance information for projects deemed relevant (and completed within the past five years from the date this synopsis was issued) to assess performance, with more consideration given to past performance of projects submitted in Criterion (1).

SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (4) CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK

The offeror shall demonstrate capacity by providing the following:

a. The number of simultaneous DoD POL Title I projects with an engineering services value of at least $300,000, the Offeror can perform in a given 12-month period; and

b. The number of simultaneous DoD POL Title II projects that require one (1) full time on-site

Title II DoD POL inspector with a six (6) month field construction duration, the Offeror can perform in a 12-month period.

Offerors are not required to perform both Title I and Title II services; however, evaluation will occur as follows:

a. Offerors that demonstrate capacity for a greater number of Title I projects that can be performed in a 12-month period, will be evaluated more favorably.

b. Offerors that demonstrate capacity for greater number of Title II projects that can be performed in a 12-month period, will be evaluated more favorably.

SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (5) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY

Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror's knowledge of DoD POL A-E projects within the

USA and other regions worldwide. The narrative shall identify the number of US States in which the Offeror has performed DoD POL A-E projects and the number of regions outside the USA

(defined as Europe, Japan, Korea, Guam, and Wake Island). .

The Government will consider any information that may be pertinent to this criterion.

Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate experience working DoD

POL A-E projects within the US and experience working DoD POL projects in Europe, Japan, Korea, Guam, and Wake Island. with more consideration given to knowledge and experience by the Offeror (rather than a teaming partner/sub-consultant). Offerors are not required to have worked in multiple regions; however, demonstrated experience working in a greater number of locations and/or multiple regions may be evaluated more favorably under this criterion.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Cover Letter: A Cover letter must be submitted to accompany the SF330 that clearly identifies the submitting firms' size status (for NAICS 541330 with a size standard of the current size standard $22.5M) and in which pool of competition they would like to compete. Large

Businesses may only compete in the Unrestricted pool.

The SF330 evaluations will be divided into two pools of competition, an "Unrestricted Pool" and a "Small Business Reserve Pool." Firms must clearly state in which pool they would like to compete. If this preference is omitted, the firm will be placed in the "Unrestricted Pool." If proposing in both pools of competition, a separate proposal package need NOT be submitted.

The Small Business Reserve Pool will be evaluated first. Any Small Business firms that are eliminated during the pre-selection phase of the evaluation will be automatically placed in the

Unrestricted Pool of competition to compete among those firms.

Teaming/Joint Venture Agreements: Each contractor may only receive a maximum of one prime contract award per MATOC. A contractor may not receive a prime contract award and a JV award. Further, a firm may not serve as both a Prime Contractor AND a Teaming Partner with another firm. Additionally, a firm may not serve as a Teaming Partner to more than one Prime

Contractor.

The prime firm shall provide a statement in the cover letter confirming executed teaming agreements are in place for all team members as part of the SF330 submittal. The statement shall also list all team members. Contractor teaming arrangements are defined as (1) a partnership or joint venture between two or more companies or (2) an agreement for a specific Government opportunity between a potential prime contractor and one or more companies that are potential subcontractors.

Ombudsman: An Ombudsman has been appointed to hear concerns from potential firms during the submittal development phase of this acquisition. The purpose of the Ombudsman is not to diminish the authority of the Program Director or Contracting Officer, but to communicate contractor concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations to the appropriate Government personnel. When requested, the Ombudsman will maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The Ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of AE submittals or elsewhere in the acquisition process. Interested parties are invited to contact the appointed

Ombudsman, The Director, Air Force Installation

Contracting Agency AFICA/KP, 1940 Allbrook Dr., Building 1, Door 24, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433,

(937) 257-5529.

General Submission Requirements:

The SF 330 Part 1 is limited to 30, 8.5" x 11" pages, not including Past Performance

Questionnaires/CPARS/ACASS reports, cover page, tabs/page dividers or table of contents. For the organizational chart, one 11” x 17” page may be used in lieu of an 8.5" x 11".

SF330 Part II is limited to one page for the prime (Joint Ventures may have one page per company), and one page per teaming partner. Additional pages beyond the maximum stated may not be evaluated. Minimum font size is 10.

Submit the following:

One (1) original SF 330 utilizing the PIEE Solicitation system, including a completed Part II for the firm and teaming partners. Please note that a separate SF330, Part I, is not required for each sub-consultant. IF the system is not functional, a request to set up a DoD SAFE drop shall be completed no later than 1200 CST on 24 July 2022, in order to send out the appropriate invites.

OFFERORS SHALL REQUEST A DELIVERY RECEIPT UPON SENDING THE FILES

THROUGH PIEE OR DODSAFE AND SHALL FOLLOW UP WITHIN 24 HOURS IF NO

RESPONSE IS PROVIDED BY EITHER OF THE BELOW PERSONNEL:

Geoffrey Bender, Capt, Contracting Officer, geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil

Ms. Elizabeth Wergin, Contract Specialist, elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil

LATE SUBMISSION OF SF-330s WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Personal visits and/or requests for discussion regarding this announcement WILL NOT BE

ENTERTAINED.