AEGUAM_IDIQ_Synopsis-DRAFT.pdf

26 NOV 2025

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

Samuel

Mendez

722 Enterprise Sourcing

Squadron (ESS)/PKA

Contracting

Officer samuel.mendez@us.af.mil

Joyce

Cavin

772 ESS/PKA Contract

Specialist joyce.cavin@us.af.mil

Jean

Stevens

772 ESS/PKA Contract

Specialist jean.stevens@us.af.mil

Submit questions to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialists identified below, using Attachment

1, Questions and Answers spreadsheet, no later than 10 December 2025 at 5:00 PM Central Time.

Responses to all timely submitted inquiries will be provided at the time of the final synopsis /solicitation issuance.

THIS SYNOPSIS IS EXPECTED TO BE A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE WITH A

HUBZONE RESERVE OF TWO (2) FIRMS. THE AIR FORCE WILL ONLY ACCEPT SF330’S,

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS, FROM FIRMS THAT ARE CERTIFIED AS A

SMALL BUSINESS FOR NAICS 541330, WITH A SIZE STANDARD OF $25,500,000.

SF330 DUE DATE: The Due Date for SF330 submissions will be 25 January 2026 by 5:00 PM

Central Standard Time. SF330 submissions shall be submitted via Procurement Integrated Enterprise

Environment (PIEE). 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 Modernization (FSRM) and Military Construction

(MILCON) Title I and Title II projects primarily located at Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB), Guam, as well as other locations within Joint Region Marianas (JRM). 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.

mailto:samuel.mendez@us.af.mil mailto:joyce.cavin@us.af.mil mailto:jean.stevens@us.af.mil

For purposes of this synopsis, the term "Offeror" refers to the firm or Joint-Venture (JV) firm that submits an SF330 as a response to this synopsis.

In making the Most Highly Qualified (MHQ) 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. One hundred percent of this contract synopsis/solicitation is set aside for SB (including a HUBZone Reserve of (2)

Firms), and thus similarly-situated entities (e.g., other SBs, or for HUBZone Prime Offerors, other

HUBZone Businesses) can team with the SB or HUBZone 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. The JV Prime entity itself must be a SB, and therefore all work to be executed by that JV entity will also count toward the 50% threshold required by FAR 52.219-14 (OCT 2022). Also, note that for JV entities in a Mentor-Protégé arrangement, per 13 CFR Section 125.9(4), a mentor that has more than one protégé cannot submit competing offers (SF330s) in response to a solicitation (synopsis) for a specific procurement through separate joint ventures with different protégés.

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. Opportunities for On-Ramping may become available during contract performance, if the Contracting Officer determines it to be in the Government’s best interest. Selection

Criteria would mirror the final selection criteria in this announcement, unless overcome by statute or policy.

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 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 (1) 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 an 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 AE25Guam MATOC and issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) 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 RFP 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 Government intends to award to approximately six (6) SB Firms, including a Reserve for two (2) HUBZone Firms; however, the Government reserves the right to award to more or fewer overall firms.

HUBZone Prime Offerors shall identify in their cover letter that they are a HUBZone Prime Offeror.

Evaluation of the HUBZone Prime Offerors will occur first, and the two MHQ HUBZone Prime Offerors will be selected to fill the two HUBZone Reserves based on the selection criteria defined below. Any remaining HUBZone Offerors will then compete with the remaining SB Offerors based on the same selection criteria defined below. The Government’s intent is to select approximately six of the MHQ firms overall (including the top two HUBZone Offerors under the Reserves), with the right to award to fewer or more firms.

At the Task Order level, all MHQ firms selected for award of the MATOC, whether selected as part of the

Reserve or otherwise, will be eligible to compete for each Task Order, unless a socio-economic set-aside or exception to Fair Opportunity IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2) is issued.

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 http://www.sam.gov/ 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 (AAFB), Guam, but could also be for other locations within

Joint Region Marianas (JRM), 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 DoW Facilities, primarily at AAFB Guam, but also includes other locations within

JRM. Task Orders will provide A-E Title I and Title II design services for the renovation of existing facilities, demolition, repair, or replacement of DoW facilities, as well as 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. For the purposes of this evaluation, a “project” means A-E services for a

Department of Defense (DoW) facility or facilities (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 (DoW) facilities" includes all facilities located on a United States DoW 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, unless the Title I Projects followed UFC design criteria. Projects where facilities are located outside of the United States (e.g. for our allied nations), are acceptable ONLY if the project design followed DoW UFC Design Criteria. Project narratives need to be clear as to what design standards were utilized.”

"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” are A-E services related to a construction project or projects and consists of supervision and inspection of construction activities. A relevant Title II project must include periodic or full-time on-site construction inspection activities by the Firm’s on-site Construction Inspector (Title

II/QA Manager). 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. "Construction phase" means A-E services to provide Quality Assurance support (on the Government's behalf) for a separate construction project/contract, to include on-site inspection and oversight of construction activities to ensure adherence to technical specifications. "Credentialed A-E support services" are services conducted by Professional Architects/Engineers to review technical construction submittals (Div 01

Submittals, material submittals, shop-drawings, As-builts, accuracy of design calculations, etc.)

"Completed projects" means the firm performed and finished the A-E contract or task order for Title I design and/or Title II construction support services within the past ten (10) 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 (A-E 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, and the narrative shall ONLY describe the completed portion of the work. Similarly, where a single Task Order or Contract covers multiple Title I designs (e.g. for multiple facilities), at least one of those facility designs must have been completed and the narrative shall ONLY describe the completed portion of the work. Further, where a Task Order or contract includes both Title I and Title II services, the firm can submit the Title I portion if it is complete, even if the Title II is not yet complete, but shall only describe the completed Title I portion in the narrative.

“Joint Region Marianas (JRM)” includes the following: the Island of Guam, 14 islands of the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), 607 islands of the Federated States of

Micronesia (FSM), and 340 islands of the Republic of Palau (ROP)

B. SELECTION CRITERIA:

SELECTION CRITERIA ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE:

COVER LETTER: As an introduction to the SF330, the Prime Offeror shall submit a Cover Letter that includes the Prime Offeror’s name, address, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), point of contact information including phone and email, person authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Prime Offeror, and the Small

Business category(ies) to which the Prime is certified (General Small Business, 8(a), HUBZone SB, WOSB, or SDVOSB0. Note that HUBZone firms will be evaluated first, with the two MHQ HUBZone firms selected for the HUBZone Reserve, and the remaining HUBZone firms will compete with the remaining SF330 submissions.

The Government will evaluate SF 330s to determine the MHQ firms. All projects identified in the SF 330 must have been performed by the office/branch/individual team members 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. Note that any

Criterion rated Unacceptable may not render the entire proposal Unacceptable, but will be a consideration in the MHQ selection

Criterion 1: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

Criterion 2: Professional Qualifications

Criterion 3: Knowledge/Experience of the Locality

Criterion 4: Capacity to Accomplish the Work

Criterion 5: Past Performance

Rating Definitions for the Acceptable/Unacceptable Criteria of (4) Capacity to Accomplish the

Work and (5) 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/qualifications specific to projects for Reinforced Concrete, Tropical Saltwater Environments, Munitions and Explosion Concerns (MEC), Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and Historical Facilities. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are well-established.

Very Good: Minimum requirements met. SF330 demonstrates substantial relevant Title I experience/qualifications 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-established.

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

Satisfactory: Demonstrates the minimum level of relevant Title I experience/qualifications 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, and some Title I experience at other JRM locations as well. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are well-established. The Prime or its Small Business Teaming Partner has an established office in Guam.

Very Good: Overall substantial knowledge of locality. Demonstrates exceptional Title I experience in

Guam with no Title I experience at other JRM locations OR has some Title I experience in Guam and some Title I experience in other JRM locations as well. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably well-established. The Prime or any Teaming Partner have an established office in Guam

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 established. The

Prime may or may not have an established office in Guam.

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.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

All SF330 submissions shall be drafted on 8 ½ x 11 page size, but submitted in digital, pdf format.

For all submission requirements below, adhere to the page count identified within each specific

Criterion. Any pages submitted beyond the page limit identified will not be evaluated. Ensure a minimum font size of Times New Roman 11 or greater for all narratives. Charts and tables, if used, can use a smaller font size, but must be readable. Organizational charts can exceed the 8 ½ x 11 page size. Combine SF330 Parts I and II into a single pdf document.

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.

ONLY include the following Disciplines, and identify the name of the firm that is proposed to perform those services: Project Management (must be the Prime Offeror), Construction Inspection (On-site Title

II), Controls Engineer, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Architectural, Structural Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering, Ordnance Specialist services, and

IT/Communications Engineering. 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.

Ensure all disciplines noted in this paragraph are clearly identified with the proposed firm that will execute the work for that discipline. These disciplines can be performed by the Prime, a Teaming Partner, or both.

Offerors are not required to propose teaming partners; however, Offerors are advised that the firm proposed to perform each discipline (whether the Prime Offeror or a Teaming Partner, or both) must be used during performance of task orders for that discipline. If the Prime chooses to both self-perform a discipline AND utilize a teaming partner for the same discipline, then both the Prime and the Teaming

Partner must demonstrate relevant experience in the SF330 submissions. Each engineering discipline and the associated firm that will execute that work, will be identified on the contract award and must be used during task order performance. Accordingly, offerors are advised that their SF330 proposal submission must clearly articulate projects performed by each of the proposed teaming partners. If a prime offeror intends to use a teaming partner for the same disciplines that the Prime will perform in-house, the project experience submitted must demonstrate relevant experience for both the prime and its teaming partner in those disciplines.

Example of language in the Contract Award: Task Orders must be accomplished using the following members of this Contract:

Project Management: Prime Offeror

On-Site Construction Inspection: Prime Offeror and/or Teaming Partner A

Mechanical Engineering: Teaming Partner B

Electrical Engineering: Prime Offeror and/or Teaming Partner C

Strucural Engineering: Teaming Partner D

Etc….for all Disciplines identified above

Project Experience (1 page per project): Offerors shall submit a minimum of seven (7) and up to ten

(10) 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 (6) projects for Title I services and at least one (1) 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. At least one project must demonstrate where the design team (Prime or Teaming

Partner) were required to follow MEC procedures when performing the Title I 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 identified above) accomplished by the Prime and any proposed 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

(1) one page, that outlines the Prime Offeror’s business relationship with the entities of its JV Partners (if applicable) and any teaming partners (if applicable). 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. Include the number of projects worked between the Prime and each Teaming Partner over the last 10 years, and how many total years the Prime and each Teaming Partner have worked together (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, (e.g. 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. MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIONS OF CONCERNS (MEC)/UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE

(UXO): Offerors must demonstrate at least one project where the design team (Prime or Teaming

Partner) were required to follow MEC procedures when performing the Title I design. Additional consideration may be given to a greater extent of Title I projects that required procedures for dealing with and mitigating potential encounters with UXO during various design phases, to include MEC procedures/mitigation in Guam and/or similar situations in other locations where UXO may be present. Experience can also include Military Munitions Response (MMR) Services projects where

MEC activities are performed in accordance with current DoW policies, including DoW Explosive

Safety Board (DDESB) guidance.

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

e. SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA): Additional consideration may be given to Title I projects that demonstrate use of SCADA systems, with more consideration http://www.wbdg.org/additional-resources/tools/cpc-checklists) 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 engineering support services during performance on one specific task order or C-contract, 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 Estimated or Actual Cost of the design’s resultant Construction project, the more consideration that may be given.

2) The greater the complexity (e.g. 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.

3) Projects submitted by the Prime Small Business Offeror or a Small Business Teaming Partner will be given greater consideration than projects submitted by an Other-Than-Small (Large

Business) Teaming Partner. The Business Relationship evaluation identified below will still apply.

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 established.

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 person. Limit submission to two (2) pages per Key Person.

Ensure all key personnel include at least TWO completed DoW 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 (sub-paragraphs a through i) are considered programmatic key personnel that provide oversight and internal quality control of design efforts for their associated disciplines for all Task Orders:

a. Lead Project Manager

b. Lead Construction Inspector (Title II / Quality Assurance Manager)

c. Lead Controls Engineer

The following individuals serving in Architect/Engineer roles must be Professionally licensed in their respective disciplines:

d. Lead Architect

e. Lead Mechanical Engineer

f. Lead Electrical Engineer

g. Lead Civil Engineer

h. Lead Structural Engineer

i. 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 Controls Engineer, whose minimum requirements are in the paragraphs below, 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 DoW projects on their resume. If the proposed Key Person is employed by the Prime or a Small Business

Teaming Partner, greater consideration will be given than Key Personnel submitted by an Other-Than-

Small (Large Business) Teaming Partner. The Government will also evaluate the Business Relationship narrative from Criterion (1) with that Teaming Partner and will consider the Key Person satisfactory if that Teaming Partner has completed at least two projects with the Prime during the last 10 years, with more consideration given to a Prime to Teaming Partner relationship that has a greater number of projects or years of experience working together. 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.

The Lead Controls Engineer must have a minimum of 5 years experience integrating control systems into their designs, to include two years of experience directly with SCADA. This licensed engineer will be responsible for implementation and analysis of control systems for the purpose of integrating new

SCADA devices with existing systems and devices.

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 two (2) pages, that describes the Offeror's (or

Teaming Partner’s) experience performing Title I design services in Guam, other 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). Identify if the Prime or its Teaming Partners have an established office in Guam.

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. Prime Offerors and/or their Small Business Teaming

Partners that have an established office in Guam will receive additional consideration. A Large Business

Teaming partner with an office in Guam will be considered as well but will not be as highly rated as a

Small Business Prime or Teaming partner.

Where demonstration of knowledge of locality is provided by the Prime or a Small Business Teaming

Partner, a higher rating will be assigned as opposed to knowledge demonstrated through an Other-Than-

Small (Large Business) Teaming Partner. The rating assigned for Knowledge of Locality may then 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 – A-E Disciplines:

Code Description Acceptable Number

06 Architect Five (5)

12 Civil Engineer Five (5)

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 Two (2)

57 Structural Engineer Three (3)

60 Transportation Engineer Two (2) Controls Engineer Two (2)

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 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 Contracting Officer, Mr. Samuel Mendez at samuel.mendez@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialists, Ms. Jean Stevens at jean.stevens.1@us.af.mil and

Ms. Joyce Cavin at joyce.cavin@us.af.mil prior to SF330 due date.

Contractors may use previously completed PPQs for contracts still in constuction, but must be 80% complete. For those PPQs, please ask the current Government Representative on the contract of the PPQ verify currency and accuracy of mailto:samuel.mendez@us.af.mil mailto:jean.stevens.1@us.af.mil 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.

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.