AEGUAM_IDIQ_DRAFT Synopsis-070224.pdf

02 July 2024

DRAFT – DRAFT – DRAFT

TITLE: Multiple Award Task Order Contract for Architect-Engineering (A/E) Services for FSRM and MILCON Title I and Title II projects at Andersen AFB (AE25GUAM)

CONTRACTING POINTS-OF-CONTACT (POC):

Name of POC Organization Role Email

Brindle Summers

722 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS)/PKA

Contracting Officer brindle.summers@us.af.mil

Brian Bosworth

772 ESS/PKA Contract Specialist brian.bosworth.3@us.af.mil

Jean Stevens

772 ESS/PKA Contract Specialist jean.stevens@us.af.mil

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT SYNOPSIS AND NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP).

There is no solicitation package to download. All information required to submit SF330 documents is contained herein. THE FORMAL SYNOPSIS WILL LIKELY BE (RE)-POSTED IN THE

AUGUST 2024 TIMEFRAME. QUESTIONS FROM POTENTIAL OFFERORS REMAIN DUE

ON 17 JULY 2024, AS STATED IN THE PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY BELOW.

Submit questions that pertain to this announcement no later than 1400 Central Time; Wednesday, 17 July 2024, to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialists identified below, using the Attachment 1, Questions and Answers spreadsheet. The Government will provide a response to all questions and any associated synopsis updates via amendment, but will not address questions received after this deadline.

The SF 330 submission date and time will be provided upon (re)-issuance of the formal synopsis and will incorporate responses received from questions that are due 17 July 2024. The SF330 response time is expected to be 30 days from the new synopsis posting date. No further questions will be accepted. SF330 submissions will be required to be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Brindle T. Summers at brindle.summers@us.af.mil and the Support Contracting Officer, Mr.

Brian Bosworth, brian.bosworth.3@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialist, Ms. Jean Stevens at jean.stevens.1@us.af.mil. THE OFFEROR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING THAT THEIR

SF330 WAS RECEIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Air Force Installation Contracting Center (AFICC)/772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (772 ESS) in conjunction with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland Air Force Base, TX, desires to contract with Small Business (SB) Architect-Engineer (A-E) firms to support Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Maintenance (FSRM) and MILCON Title I and Title II projects primarily located at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, as well as other locations within Joint Region Marianas. The 772 ESS anticipates award of an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) contract for A-E services to support these A-E Services for Title I and Title II services for FSRM and MILCON planning and design, with a total contract ceiling of $930M, shared among all contract holders. The 772 ESS anticipates making awards to approximately six (6) Small Business 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 $10M, 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 response to this synopsis.

In making the Most Highly Qualified selection, the Evaluation Board may conduct interviews with Highly Qualified Offerors (by phone, in person, or in writing) to move forward with the final selection process.

FAR 52.219-14 Limitations of Subcontracting (OCT 2022) applies to any resultant contract. If a portion or all of this contract synopsis/solicitation is set aside for Small Business, similarly-situated entities (i.e., other Small Businesses) can team with the SB Prime Offeror to ensure the 50% threshold is met. NOTE:

Joint Venture (JV) entities are considered PRIME Contractors, and therefore any experience performed by the JV Firm or any of its JV entities are considered to be executed by the “Prime” – this arrangement is NOT considered a Prime-to-Sub Teaming partner arrangement. If the JV Prime entity itself is a SB, then all work to be executed by that JV entity will also count toward the 50% threshold required by FAR

52.219-14 (OCT 2022).

ORDERING PERIOD AND CONTRACT TYPE: Each basic IDIQ contract within the MATOC will have an ordering period of ten years comprised of One (1) three-year base period, with One (1) three-year option period and Two (2) two-year option periods. This MATOC allows for the issuance of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) negotiated task orders during the ordering period. The basic contract will include negotiated burdened labor rates for engineering and associated labor categories and a negotiated General and Administrative (G&A) rate (if applicable), to be applicable to all task orders. The basic contract’s burdened labor rates will be a composite rate between the Prime contractor and any teaming partner rates.

The composite rates include both prime and teaming partner base labor, fringe, overhead, and G&A (if applicable). The basic contract’s negotiated composite labor rates will not include profit. Level of effort (labor hours) and all other costs, to include direct costs, subcontracting costs, and profit will be negotiated with each individual task order.

Task order pricing will be negotiated based on level of effort and types of disciplines required to perform the services, using the rates established in the basic contracts.

INTENT: Small Business firms that perform the A-E services described in this synopsis must submit an SF330 to be considered for award. At the Task Order level, a more in-depth evaluation will occur to determine the Most Highly Qualified (MHQ) firm for each project, with specific experience with the type of work and/or capacity of the firm to perform that specific task taken heavily into consideration in the task order selection decision. Secondary selection criteria in accordance with DFARS PGI 236.602-1, such as equitable distribution of work, may also be considered at the Task Order level.

PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: THIS PARAGRAPH

APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING DISCIPLINES/FIRM TYPES ONLY: Project Management, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering, Architectural, Structural Engineering, and Title II Construction Inspection Services. A Firm specializing in and proposing to perform any of these disciplines on this resultant contract shall propose a maximum of TWO (2) times – a Firm can either serve as a Prime Offeror (either on its own or as part of a JV‐Prime

Offeror) and as a Teaming Partner to ONE other Prime Offeror, OR a firm may propose as a Teaming Partner to no more than TWO (2) Prime Offerors (but cannot then also submit as a Prime Offeror).

The Government may exclude a SF330 from this competition without evaluating it against the selection criteria below if an initial assessment of the SF330 shows it to be non-compliant. Non-compliant SF330s are SF330s that fail to address essential requirements of this synopsis, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory synopsis requirements, or in some other manner, do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the synopsis.

Firms selected as MHQ for this AE Guam MATOC and issued a Task Order Request for Proposal will be required to submit and negotiate one (1) composite labor rate per labor category/discipline, to be incorporated into the contract. The Government will not separately negotiate teaming partner rates.

If Teaming Partners are used for the primary disciplines identified in the SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D and E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS submission of formal teaming arrangements, will ONLY be required for the Construction Inspector (Title II) and Primary *ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING* Disciplines (Project Management, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Structural Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer). Submission of formal teaming arrangements will be requested with the Request for Proposal to the MHQ Firms.

Formal teaming arrangements are not required with the SF330 submission.

AWARD PROCEDURES: This MATOC will be procured in accordance with the Selection of Architect-Engineers Act (40 USC Sections 1101-1104, previously known as the “Brooks Act”), as implemented by FAR 36.6. Firms will be selected as a MHQ 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 $25,500,000, applies to this MATOC. To receive award, contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) website at http://www.sam.gov. This synopsis and any resultant contract awards do not guarantee work to selected firms. However, the minimum guarantee of $2,500 will be awarded as the first Task Order against this MATOC (concurrently with the basic contract award) and will require each awardee to attend a ½ day Post-Award conference, which is likely to be virtual but could also occur in Guam or San Antonio, TX.

A. DESCRIPTION OF WORK: This contract will support the award of A-E Title I and Title II

Services primarily for Andersen AFB, Guam, but could also be for other locations within Joint Region Marianas, as identified in individual Task Orders.

1. General Scope:

This requirement (AE25GUAM) is for a MATOC for A-E Title I and Title II Services for FSRM and MILCON projects for DoD Facilities, primarily at Andersen AFB Guam, but also includes other locations within Joint Region Marianas. Task Orders will provide A-E Title I and Title II design services for the renovation of existing facilities, demolition, repair, or replacement of DoD facilities, as well A-E services to support MILCON planning and design of new facilities.

2. Definitions:

The following definitions aid in the preparation of the Offeror’s SF 330.

"Project" defines work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER of an IDIQ type contract or a stand-alone C-Type contract. This definition does not consider an IDIQ type of basic contract, in and of itself, as a project. A single, stand alone, site-specific contract for Title I and/or Title II services (for single or multiple site-specific locations) represents another definition for "Project." For the purposes of this evaluation, a “project” means a Department of Defense (DoD) facility A-E project (not construction).

“Project” also denotes the design portion of a Design-Build (DB) construction contract or task order where the Offeror (A-E firm) for this synopsis served as the designer of record (DOR) for the design package in the DB project where the Government accepted the 100% design in that DB effort.

"Department of Defense (DoD) facilities" includes all facilities located on a United States DoD installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air National Guard, or Air Force Reserve bases). This definition does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or other federal, commercial, or private facility.

"Relevant Project" includes Title I and Title II services for facilities meeting the definition of “project” above. The specific definitions of Title I and Title II services are as follows:

“Title I Services” include engineering 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 review of contract plans, specifications, scheduling, cost estimates, Building Information Modeling (BIM), design-build conceptual designs, interior design for fixed furniture and equipment (FF&E), energy modeling and Life Cycle Cost Analyses, seismic retrofit design, system commissioning services, and the preparation of operating and design manuals.

Title I efforts also encompass other A-E Services required to support and develop design work, planning and programming, program management, project scoping, studies, investigations, evaluations, consultations, conceptual design, value engineering, operation services, monitoring services, topographic survey services, and infrastructure systems.

“Title II Services” include services related to a specific construction project and consist of supervision and inspection of construction activities. Title II services may include all aspects of construction quality assurance and oversight of facility and infrastructure construction/ renovation projects and may include oversight of incidental environmental projects associated with primary requirements. Title II Services include construction phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services that encompass a full range of disciplinary expertise and services 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, claim reviews, post-construction award services, and designer of record support, and other standard construction submittal reviews.

"Completed projects" means the firm performed and finished the A-E contract or task order for design and/or Title II construction support services within the past ten years from the date this synopsis was posted. “Completed Project” also defines the design portion of a Design-Build contract or task order that the Prime Contractor (AE firm) submitting the SF330 for this synopsis served as the DOR that completed the design package for the DB project, and the Government accepted the 100% design for that DB project. Further, “Completed Project” represents the completed Title II services of one or more construction projects under one contract. Accordingly, where a single Title II contract or Task Order covers multiple construction projects, at least one of those construction projects must have been completed.

B. SELECTION CRITERIA:

SELECTION CRITERIA ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE:

The Government will evaluate SF 330s to determine the most highly qualified firms. All projects identified in the SF 330 must have been performed by the office/branch/individual team member performing the work under this contract. The evaluation will exclude projects not performed by the proposed office/branch/individual team member.

The following lists the Selection Criteria in descending order of importance, with Capacity to Accomplish the Work and Past Performance to be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis:

1. Criterion 1: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

2. Criterion 2: Professional Qualifications

3. Criterion 3: Knowledge/Experience of the Locality

4. Criterion 4: Capacity to Accomplish the Work

5. Criterion 5: Past Performance

Rating Definitions for the Acceptable/Unacceptable Criteria of “Capacity to Accomplish the Work” and “Past Performance” are included in the Evaluation Methods of those Criteria.

Rating Definitions for Criterion (1) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence and Criterion (2) Professional Qualifications, are as follows:

Outstanding: Minimum requirements met. SF330 demonstrates an exceptional level of relevant Title I experience specific to projects for Reinforced Concrete, Tropical Saltwater Environments, MEC, SCIF, SCADA, and Historical Facilities. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are well-developed.

Very Good: Minimum requirements met. SF330 demonstrates substantial relevant Title I experience specific to projects for Reinforced Concrete, Tropical Saltwater Environments, MEC, SCIF, SCADA, and Historical Facilities. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably well-developed.

Good: Minimum requirements met. SF330 demonstrates a limited level of Title I relevant experience specific to projects for Reinforced Concrete, Tropical Saltwater Environments, MEC, SCIF, SCADA, and Historical Facilities. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably developed.

Satisfactory: Demonstrates the minimum level of relevant Title I experience identified in the synopsis. If teaming partners are used, business relationships exist.

Unacceptable: Submission fails to meet one or more minimum requirements of the synopsis.

Rating Definition For Criterion (3), Knowledge of Locality

Outstanding: Overall exceptional knowledge of locality. Demonstrates exceptional Title I experience in Guam. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are well-developed.

Very Good: Overall substantial knowledge of locality. Demonstrates some Title I experience in Guam, and some Title I experience in JRM. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably well-developed, or better.

Good: Overall limited knowledge of locality. Demonstrates limited Title I experience in Guam, with limited Title I experience in JRM, and/or saltwater environments within 30 degrees North and 30 degrees south of the equator. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably developed, or better.

Satisfactory: Overall minimal knowledge of locality. Demonstrates at least one Title I project in Guam, JRM, or saltwater environments within 30 degrees North and 30 degrees south of the equator. If teaming partners are used, business relationships exist.

Unacceptable: Overall unacceptable knowledge of locality. Submission fails to provide Title I projects in Guam, JRM, or saltwater environments within 30 degrees North and 30 degrees south of the equator.

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

TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Proposed Team (1 page): In one page or less, the Offeror shall identify their proposed team, inclusive of the Prime Contractor and any teaming partners required to perform work under the resultant contract. For each of the following Disciplines, identify the name of the firm that is proposed to perform those services:

Project Management, Construction Inspection (On-site Title II), Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Architectural, Structural Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering, Construction Cost Estimating, and Construction Schedule Development/Analysis. This narrative will not be ‘evaluated’ but will be used by the Evaluation Board for organizational purposes to gain a better understanding of the proposed teaming arrangements.

Project Experience (1 page per project): Offerors shall submit a minimum of seven and up to ten Title I and Title II project descriptions of relevant and completed projects (see definitions above), not to exceed one page per project, by the Prime Offeror or its Proposed Teaming Partners. Each Offeror shall submit at least six projects for Title I services and at least one project for Title II services. At least two Title I projects shall be for FSRM Design, and at least four Title I projects shall be for MILCON planning or design. Note the evaluation method below and ensure the project descriptions are detailed enough for the Government to understand the project’s scope, size, and extent of engineering required. Ensure that either the Estimated Cost of Construction (at time of design completion) or the Actual Construction Cost (at time of construction award) is included in each project description.

For each project submitted, Offerors shall specify the scope of work (engineering disciplines) accomplished by the Prime and individual teaming partners. For Joint Venture Offerors, engineering disciplines performed by either entity of the Joint Venture or the JV itself are considered the Prime and are not considered “teaming partners.”

Business Relationships (1 page): The Prime Contractor is accountable for all work products. Therefore, it is crucial that the MHQ Firms demonstrate strong business relationships, whether the work elements are executed in-house by the Prime or by a teaming partner. The Offeror must submit a narrative, limited to one page, that outlines the Prime Offeror’s business relationship with the entities of its JV Partners (if applicable) and any teaming partners. The narrative should illustrate examples of the extent of relationships in previous contracts involving proposed team members (both Prime/JV Partners working together and any teaming partners working with the Prime), as applicable. Outline past experiences collaborating with proposed team members and expound on the history of these working relationships, inclusive of joint venture partners and teaming partners, as applicable. (Note that the business relationship portion of this narrative will be used in the evaluation of Criterion 1 – 3 below).

EVALUATION METHOD: The Government encourages Offerors to review the evaluation method below to ensure project submissions and narratives provide enough information for the Government to determine the extent of the Offeror's experience and business relationships.

Sub-sections a through g below are listed in descending order of importance, with more consideration given to a greater extent/number of relevant Title I projects submitted, and more consideration given to a greater extent of types of facilities designed, (i.e. Hangars, Admin Facilities, CDCs, Dorms, SCIF, Operations Buildings, Air Traffic Control towers, Horizontal/Civil/Electrical projects)

a. REINFORCED CONCRETE: Highest consideration will be given to Title I project experience designing Reinforced Concrete Structures, with additional consideration for Pre-Tension or Post- Tension Reinforcement, and particularly if these structures were designed in a remote tropical salt-water environment subject to the conditions in paragraph b. immediately below. The greater the extent of design experience with these structures, inclusive of the conditions in para b. below, the higher the rating that may be assigned. The intent of this category is to understand experience designing the primary structure itself, and not the ancillary facility support systems.

b. TROPICAL SALT-WATER ENVIRONMENT: Significant consideration will be given to Offerors that demonstrate A-E Title I project experience in a remote tropical environment, demonstrating design experience with any of the following types of conditions, in no particular order of importance, noting that the greater the extent of experience in these areas overall, the higher the rating that may be assigned:

Title 1 Design of facilities utilizing UFC 1-300-02 and the Corrosion Prevention and Control

(CPC) Checklist Tool (https://www.wbdg.org/additional-resources/tools/cpc-checklists) for corrosive Tropical Salt-Water Environments. (See definition above, noting locations between the Latitudes of 30 degrees North and 30 degrees South.)

Title I Designs to sustain seismic and high velocity wind loads (exceeding 165 mph) in accordance with UFC 1-300-02 “General Building Requirements” and UFC 3-301-01 “Structural Engineering, With Change 1” utilizing the Structural Load Data Tool For UFC 3-301-01 (https://wbdg.org/additional-resources/tools/structural-load-data-tool-ufc-3-301-01).

Title I Design of facilities in austere or remote island locations, where the design demonstrates innovative solutions to challenging logistics, where the Design Firm incorporates the most readily available materials, fabrication technology, construction techniques, and/or other solutions to minimize logistics challenges and delays that would otherwise be encountered by the construction firm completing the project.

The Government will also consider the extent of facility types completed, as well as the complexity (extent of engineering disciplines required) of those designs.

c. MEC/UXO: Additional consideration may be given to Title I projects that required procedures for dealing with and mitigating potential encounters with Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) during various design phases, to include Munitions and Explosives of Concerns (MEC) procedures/mitigation in Guam and/or similar situations in other locations where UXO may be present.

d. SCIF: Additional consideration may be given to Title I projects that include design of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) designed in accordance with UFC 4-010-05 and ICD- 705, particularly in Tropical Salt-Water Environments.

e. SCADA: Additional consideration may be given to Title I projects that demonstrate use of SCADA systems, with more consideration given to a greater extent of SCADA system types (Fire Alarm, HVAC, Waterlines, Sewerlines, etc) particularly in Tropical Salt-Water Environments.

f. HISTORICAL FACILITIES: Additional consideration may be given to projects that demonstrate experience designing projects and repairs to facilities that are listed on the National Historic Register.

g. TITLE II: Title II projects will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To receive an Acceptable Rating, the offeror must demonstrate at least one Title II project where the Offeror provided construction-phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services during performance, to include both on-site construction oversight, and Engineering reviews of construction administrative and technical submittals.

The following applies to each Title I project submitted:

1) The higher the value of the project, the more consideration that may be given.

2) The greater the complexity (i.e. extent of disciplines involved in a project), the higher the rating that may be assigned. Disciplines include architecture, civil engineering, communications systems design, cost estimating services, electrical engineering, fire protection engineering, mechanical engineering, scheduling services, structural engineering, SCADA systems.

The project experience demonstrated by the Offeror in this criterion will form the basis of the initial rating assigned. The Government will then consider the strength of the Offeror’s response to the Criterion 1 “Business Relationships” when determining the final rating for this criterion. Where an Offeror’s narrative demonstrates a history of strong business relationships between the Prime and its teaming partners, if applicable, the initial rating will remain the same. However, a lower rating may be assigned where the business relationships between the Prime and its teaming partners are less developed.

Note that the Government considers that the larger the number of teaming partners used, the higher the risk of unsuccessful control and coordination by the Prime.

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

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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 qualifications of the individual member for the position the Offeror proposes for the key member.

Ensure all key personnel include at least TWO completed DoD projects. Section E for each key person shall include the following elements: the individual's employer(s), role proposed, the number of years engaged in the discipline, any professional licensures held, and years with the company. Proposed key personnel shall be current active “certified payroll” employees of their respective firm (Prime or Teaming Partner) and “contract, zero hour, and consulting” staff will not be considered to meet the current Key Personnel requirement. The Government will use a combination of criteria below to determine the ability of the staff to contribute to the successful completion of project task orders. An individual may perform more than one role if they hold the appropriate qualifications for those roles.

After award, if the contractor needs to replace a key person identified in their originally submitted SF330, the contractor must replace that individual with someone of equal or greater experience and qualifications, for approval by the Contracting Officer.

In the SF 330, Part 1, Section D, provide an organizational chart that identifies 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 positions are considered key personnel and must be assigned to each task order for their respective positions:

a. Lead Project Manager

b. Lead Construction Inspector (Title II)

c. Lead Weapons Safety Expert

d. Lead Communications/IT Engineer

The following individuals must be Professionally licensed in their respective disciplines:

e. Lead Architect

f. Lead Mechanical Engineer

g. Lead Electrical Engineer

h. Lead Civil Engineer

i. Lead Structural Engineer

j. Lead Fire Protection Engineer

The Government expects these individuals will provide program level quality control and oversight of the task orders that result from this acquisition. The Government’s Corporate Contracting Officer (CCO) MUST approve any changes to the proposed key team members after submission of qualifications.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will first evaluate each key person to ensure their qualifications meet the following minimum requirements: All engineering disciplines stated above must have professional licensure. Each key person must have at least 10 years of experience in their respective discipline, with the exception of the Lead Project Manager who can demonstrate this experience as a Project Manager or as an Engineer, and the Construction Inspector (Title II), who must demonstrate at least 10 years of experience in the construction industry, to include 3 years of experience performing construction as an on-site Quality Control Manager, onsite Construction Manager, or an onsite Project Engineer. The Prime must employ the Lead Project Manager. Each Key Person must also demonstrate at least one year of employment with their current employer (the Prime or a proposed Teaming Partner). Each key person must also have at least two DoD projects on their resume. If the proposed Key Person is employed by a Teaming Partner, the Government will also evaluate the Business Relationship narrative from Criterion (1) with that Teaming Partner and will consider the Key Person minimally acceptable if that Teaming Partner has at least two-years of active experience (within the last 5 years) performing at least two projects with the Prime during that timeframe. Ensure every position has a person proposed. The Government will interpret any blank elements of Section E as the key person not possessing that experience.

Upon ensuring all key personnel meet the minimum qualification requirements stated above, the Government will then consider the extent of relevant experience to assign an initial rating. Resumes that include a greater experience of Title I project types (and for the Construction Inspector, Title II project types) in the evaluation areas listed in Criterion (1) (e.g. Reinforced concrete, tropical salt-water environment, MEC/UXO, etc.), will be evaluated more favorably.

The project experience demonstrated by the key personnel in this criterion will form the basis of the initial rating assigned. Where the Offeror proposes to use a Teaming Partner for their key personnel, the rating assigned may be adjusted based on the strength of relationships demonstrated in the narrative submission from Criterion 1, “Business Relationships”.

SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (3) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY

The Offeror shall furnish a logical narrative, not to exceed pages, that describes the Offeror's (or Teaming Partner’s) experience performing Title I design services in Guam, other Joint Region Marianas (JRM) locations, and/or in saltwater environments within 30 degrees North latitude and 30 degrees South latitude of the equator, in that order of importance. Clearly identify whether the described experience/knowledge is that of the Prime or a Teaming Partner (and identify the Teaming Parter(s) in the narrative, if applicable). The Government will consider any information provided that may be pertinent to this criterion.

EVALUATION METHOD:

This criterion evaluates Offerors on the extent of geographical experience/knowledge in Guam, other JRM locations, and/or in saltwater environments within 30 degrees North latitude and 30 degrees South latitude of the equator. Experience in Guam will be of greatest consideration, with other JRM locations of secondary importance, and lastly, other locations in saltwater environments within 30 degrees North latitude and 30 degrees South latitude of the equator.

Where the Offeror proposes teaming partners to demonstrate knowledge of locality, the rating assigned for Knowledge of Capacity may be adjusted based on the strength of relationships demonstrated in the narrative submission from Criterion 1, “Business Relationships”.

SF 330, PART II, BLOCK 9, CRITERION (4) CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK.

Submission Requirement: In the SF330, Part II, block 9 a, b, c, the Offeror shall provide the number of employees for each discipline identified below:

TABLE 1 - AE Disciplines:

Code Description Acceptable Number 06 Architect Five (5) 12 Civil Engineer Five (5) 13 Communications Engineer Two (2) 15 Construction Inspector Five (5) 17 Corrosion Engineer Two (2) 18 Cost Engineer/Estimator Two (2) 21 Electrical Engineer Five (5) 23 Environmental Engineer Three (3) 25 Fire Protection Engineer Two (2) 29 Geographic Information System Specialist Two (2) 32 Hydraulic Engineer Two (2) 42 Mechanical Engineer Five (5) 54 Security Specialist Three (3) 57 Structural Engineer Three (3) 60 Transportation Engineer Two (3)

EVALUATION METHOD:

The government will assign an Acceptable rating when the offeror demonstrates at least the number of people in each applicable A-E discipline listed in Table 1 above. If the Offeror proposes to use a Teaming Partner for any of the disciplines stated, that Teaming Partner's Block 9 must indicate at least the number of people in each applicable A-E discipline, to be considered acceptable. If the Offeror cannot provide at least the number of people in each applicable A-E discipline listed in Table 1 above, this criterion will be considered unacceptable and may render the entire SF330 Unacceptable.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, CRITERION (5) 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 CPARS evaluations for each project submitted in Criterion (1). The Government encourages firms to contact the appropriate government Project Managers, Contracting Officers (CO), or Contracting Officer's Representatives (COR) to ensure CPARS evaluations submitted on completed government projects, particularly for those projects submitted under Criterion (1). If a finalized CPARS evaluation is not available, Offerors may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for completed design work. In addition to stand alone design contracts/task orders, “completed design work” includes designs completed on a DB contract, even if the construction portion is not yet completed. However, the PPQ shall only address the completed design portion and the quality of that design work, if known. The PPQ is Attachment 2 to this synopsis. Submit PPQs to the Contract Specialist (CS), Brian Bosworth and Jean Stevens, via email at brian.bosworth.3@us.af.mil and jean.stevens.1@us.af.mil and the CO, Ms. Brindle Summers at, brindle.summers@us.af.mil prior to SF330 due date.

Contractors may use previously completed PPQs for contracts still in progress. For those PPQs, please ask the current Government Representative on the contract of the PPQ verify currency and accuracy of the PPQ information and send email correspondence to the 772 ESS CO and CS listed above. Please request submission of the email prior to the SF330 due date.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government will evaluate the CPARS or PPQ’s provided for projects in Criterion (1) and will assign an Acceptable rating if the history of performance on the relevant projects from Criterion (1) demonstrate a low risk of poor performance. An Unacceptable rating may be assigned if the history of performance on the relevant projects from Criterion (1) demonstrate a high risk of poor performance.