Attachment 4 - Section M 8 Sep 26.docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

86TH AIRLIFT WING (USAFE)

FA561326R0004

--- SECTION M ---

--- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ---

ATTENTION: A-E FIRM MUST BE LOCATED IN GERMANY OR HAVE A BRANCH IN GERMANY IN ORDER TO BE ELLIGIBLE FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION OVERVIEW

1. This is not a request for proposals (RFP). This is a request for qualifications and those selected will then be requested to submit a pricing proposal. Firms interested in being considered for this acquisition must submit a complete qualification package, in accordance with this solicitation and its attachments.

2. All interested firms are required to have current registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) database prior to contract award. Failure to register in the SAM Database will render your firm ineligible for award. For more information, check the SAM Website: https://www.sam.gov.

3. The Government intends to award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to no more than eight (8) firms sharing a total estimated program ceiling of $59M. If, during the selection process, Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that awarding more or fewer contracts is in the best interest of the Government, the PCO may adjust the number of awarded contracts accordingly or, potentially, award no contracts at all. Contract award is anticipated no earlier than May 2027.

4. Any IDIQs awarded under this procurement will be Firm-Fixed-Price with a 5-year continuous ordering period and one option ordering period of five (5) years, with a total of all ordering periods not to exceed 10 years.

5. The selection process will be conducted in accordance with The Selection of Architects and Engineers Statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 11), Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Subpart 36.2 and Revolutionary Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS) Subpart 236.2. The Source Selection Authority will be the Deputy of the 86th Civil Engineer Group.

6. After evaluating and ranking the qualified offerors, the PCO will issue Requests for Price Proposals (RFPPs) to the top eight (8) most highly qualified firms with acceptable past performance.

7. The Government is under no obligation to exercise an option and may elect not to do so if exercising the option is determined not to be in the Governments best interest. If the government decides to exercise an option, approximately 120 calendar days prior to the expiration of the first ordering period, option period fully burdened labor rates for the subsequent five (5) years will be negotiated with all active contractors in the vendor pool demonstrating acceptable past performance. These negotiations are projected to be finalized no later than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration of the first ordering period. If mutually agreeable rates cannot be established orif a contractor's past performance is unacceptable, the Government reserves the right to decline the exercise of the option for that firm. See solicitation section H, Special Contract Requirements, for more information.

8. Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to utilize on-ramping procedures during the life of the IDIQ. More details can be found in Section H of the solicitation.

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION FACTORS

ATTENTION: THE GOVERNMENT WILL ONLY EVALUATE FIRMS WHO ARE LOCATED IN GERMANY OR HAVE A BRANCH IN GERMANY

PHASE I PROCEDURES

Primary Selection Criteria

Each firm’s SF330 submittal package will be evaluated in accordance with RFO 36.202 procedures. The selection criteria and points of each criterion is as follows:

1. Professional Qualifications - 30 Points

2. Recent Specialized Experience/Technical Competence - 35 Points

3. Capacity - 25 Points

4. Location and Knowledge of the Locality - 10 Points

5. Past Performance – Acceptable/Unacceptable

Total possible points—100

Evaluation of Primary Selection Criteria:

1. Professional Qualifications

Qualifications for satisfactory performance of required A-E key personnel and proposed team.

a. Experience of key personnel* (10 Points Maximum) (1 point per 3 years of experience calculated from SF330, Part I Section E. i.e. 30+yrs = 10p, 27yrs = 9p, 24yrs=8p, 21yrs=7p, 18yrs=6p, 15yrs=5p, 12yrs = 4p, 9yrs=3p, 6yrs=2p, 3yrs=1p, <3yrs=0p

b. Registration (licensing) of key personnel* (8 Points Maximum) (1 point per each of the indicated (*) specialties on section 1.3 of the SOW)

c. Credential of key personnel* (6 Points Maximum) (≥75% = 6p, ≥50% = 4p, ≥25% = 2p, <25% = 0p)

d. Training of key personnel* (6 Points Maximum) (≥75% = 6p, ≥50% = 4p, ≥25% = 2p, <25% = 0p)

* Key personnel are defined as Project Manager and all individual discipline leads as per SF330 Section E and SOW para 1.3 with an asterisk.

2. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

Offerors will submit five (5) interdisciplinary projects completed within the past three (3) years that clearly demonstrate the firm’s experience and technical competence across multiple relevant disciplines. The Government will evaluate each project based on the breadth and depth of disciplines represented. Projects that substantively incorporate a greater number of the identified disciplines will be considered stronger and will receive higher ratings. Relevant disciplines include: architecture, civil engineering, electrical engineering, environmental engineering, fire protection engineering, security engineering, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, and cybersecurity. Relevant projects supporting DoD requirements will be evaluated more favorably than non-DoD projects of similar complexity (up to 4 points per project = 20 points Maximum)

Firms will include, in SF330 Section E, “Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed For This Contract”, the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for heading the project design team. (SF330, section E, block 12)

Identify if your firm was a prime contractor or subcontractor and include the percentage of work performed. (SF330, section F, block 24)

For each professional that worked on the project(s), provide names and roles (SF330, section G).

For all five (5) project examples include disciplines involved, the size, cost of construction, building features and the construction company that built the project. (SF330, section F, block 24)

The Firms with more relevant experiences demonstrated in total in Part II, No. 10, Section B, will be evaluated more favorably (up to 5 Points Maximum)

Proposed Teams with demonstrated experience working together will be evaluated more favorably (up to 5 Points Maximum)

Experience in U.S. military specific requirements, ie. ICD705, bunkers, AT/FP, Cybersecurity, HEMP etc. shown in Section H (up to 5 Points Maximum)

3. Capacity

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capacity to accomplish the required work within the prescribed timeframes. This assessment will consider the firm’s staffing levels, availability of key disciplines, and the organizational ability to manage multiple concurrent projects:

a. Size (number of employees) of the A-E firm’s local office IAW SF330 Part II No. 9, Sec. C (10 Points Maximum) Up to 4 Employees (E)=1p, 5-8E = 3p, 9-12E = 6p, 13-16 E= 8p, 17 or more E= 10p

b. Average number of employees of the subcontractor(s) IAW SF330 Part II No. 9, Sec. C (10 Points Maximum) Up to 4 Employees (E)=1p, 5-8E = 3p, 9-12E = 6p, 13-16 E= 8p, 17 or more E= 10p

c. A Team (Firm/Subcontractor relationship) covers all key disciplines of the indicated (*) specialties on section 1.3 of the SOW IAW SF330 Part I Section E (5 Points Maximum) (-1 Point per missing key discipline)

4. Location Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

a. Firms and/or branch and all subcontractors located in Germany and within a 400 km radius of Ramstein AB will be evaluated more favorably than firms outside that distance, or firms with subcontractors outside that distance. (5 points Maximum) Located within 400km of Ramstein AB = 5p, Located more than 400km away from = 0p

b. Firms and/or branch and all subcontractors experienced in design and construction regulations of State of Rheinland-Pfalz will be evaluated more favorably than others. (5 Points Maximum) Yes= 5p, No=0p

ICD 705 Exception: In case where firm, branch or subcontractors are located outside Germany while performing work that involves ICD 705 secure-space requirements, their location will be evaluated favorably under the point-based assessment system. Note: Only certain Germany based project require U.S. ICD 705 standards. The location criterion is designed to measure logistical proximity and organizational cohesion rather than mandate ICD 705 applicability.

5. Past Performance The Government will evaluate Past Performance to assess recently performed work, relevant to the types of projects anticipated under the resultant contract. In accordance with RFO 42.1101(b), the Government will use the information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) as the official and primary source of information to indicate your firm’s ability to perform under a resultant contract. The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

a. Screening Criteria:

The Government will evaluate past performance on contracts in terms of cost control, quality of work, compliance with performance schedules, and stakeholder/customer satisfaction, based on the following screening criteria:

i. Recent Screening: Recent is defined as performance occurring within five (5) years of the date of this solicitation, except that ongoing projects must have begun no less than one (1) year prior to the issuance of this solicitation.

ii. Relevancy Screening: Relevancy is defined as performance of work on projects that are similar in scope to the types of projects anticipated under the resultant contracts in accordance with the SOW.

b. Primary Data Source (CPARS):

The Government will evaluate past performance primarily utilizing CPARS. Offerors are not required to submit CPARS evaluation reports with their proposal. The Government will retrieve and review CPARS records associated with the CAGE codes and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) numbers provided in the offeror's SF330 submission.

c. Alternate Data Source: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs):

i. For every project submitted under Section F of the SF330 that does not reside within the CPARS database (such as commercial, state, local, or foreign government contracts), the Government must receive a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) directly from the referenced client. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the timely submission of PPQs. Projects for which a PPQ is not received by the deadline may not be considered in the past performance evaluation, which could adversely affect the offeror's rating.

ii. Offeror Responsibilities: Firms will complete Section 1 (Contract and Program Identification) and Section 2 (Rater Information) of the PPQ. The offeror is responsible for emailing the PPQ to all Point of Contacts (POCs) identified in the SF330, Section F, Block 23.

iii. Respondent Submissions: The client POC(s) will complete the remainder of the PPQ and send it directly to the Government representatives (700 CONS/PKC) identified in the PPQ via email no later than the proposal due date.

iv. Follow-up & Confidentiality: Offerors will follow up with respondents to ensure they have completed the PPQ and sent it to 700 CONS/PKC. Once submitted to the Government, the information contained therein will be considered sensitive and will not be released to the offeror.

d. Evaluation Ratings:

a. Acceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see 'Absence of Past Performance' below). To receive an 'Acceptable' rating, the majority of the offeror's recent and relevant CPARS/PPQ ratings must be 'Satisfactory' or higher (e.g., Satisfactory, Very Good, Exceptional), with no systemic or unresolved performance or safety issues.

b. Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. An 'Unacceptable' rating may be assigned if the offeror has 'Marginal' or 'Unsatisfactory' CPARS/PPQ ratings, or a pattern of systemic, unresolved failures in quality of work, cost control, scheduling, or safety management, unless the offeror has demonstrated sufficient, documented corrective actions.

e. Absence of Past Performance:

Firms with no previous past performance history will explicitly state so when addressing this evaluation criteria. Firms with no relevant past performance history, or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will be rated "Neutral" and will be considered acceptable.

f. Additional Government Sources:

The Government reserves the right to obtain and utilize past performance information from any source available, including but not limited to CPARS, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), other government databases, and interviews with Program Managers or Contracting Officers.

Secondary Selection Criteria

If a tie remains after the primary evaluation, equally qualified firms will be ranked using a post-scoring tie-breaker based on the Volume of Federal Work (SF330, Part II, Block 11). Using this criteria, firms will be selected based on who has the highest volume of Federal Revenue in the last three (3) years. Firms with more Federal Work revenue over this period will be ranked higher to establish the final rank order.

PHASE II PROCEDURES

After evaluating and ranking the qualified offerors, the PCO will issue Requests for Price Proposals (RFPPs) to the top eight (8) most highly qualified firms with acceptable past performance. Selected firms must submit their firm-fixed-price fully burdened labor rates for the five-year basic ordering period within 10 business days of the RFPP date. The PCO will conduct individual negotiations with these top eight (8) most highly qualified firms to establish fair and reasonable pricing for each contract. If mutually satisfactory contract terms cannot be negotiated with a selected firm, negotiations with that firm will be terminated and the PCO will initiate negotiations with the next highest-ranking firm on the final selection list. This process will continue, in order of qualifications, until contracts have been successfully negotiated with eight (8) firms or the final selection list has been exhausted. The resulting awardee pool is not anticipated to exceed eight (8) firms.

image1.png