Attch 5 - Selection Criteria and Process.pdf

FA700021R0001

RFQ Attachment 5

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)

FOR

PLANNING AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (A-E) SERVICES

A-E SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS

Selection Procedures. In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.601-3(b), selection of sources for contracts for Architect-Engineer (A-E) services are conducted utilizing the procedures in FAR subpart 36.6 rather than source selection procedures prescribed in FAR Parts 13, 14 and 15. The primary factor in A-E selection is the determination of the most highly qualified firm. This is based on the demonstrated competence and qualifications of prospective contractors to perform the services at fair and reasonable prices, as stated in FAR 36.6 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Procedures, Guidance, and Instruction (PGI) 236.602-1, both of which implement 40 United States Code (USC) 1101, The Selection of Architects and Engineers Act, formerly known as the Brooks Act. This is a competitive procedure IAW FAR 36.601-2. The United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) will convene an Initial Selection Board and a Final Selection Board, each consisting of government representatives. All evaluation factors and criteria are significantly more important than price, as price is not being evaluated at this time. The selection process shall proceed as follows.

Qualifications Submissions. The government will review all Qualifications Submissions (SF 330 and attachments) for timeliness and completeness. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the RFQ. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Qualifications Submission. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

The government reserves the right to award one or more contracts or no contract at all, depending on the quality of submissions received. Each submission must meet the requirements of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Failure to meet the requirements may result in the offeror being determined ineligible for award and eliminated from further consideration. Failure to provide requested data, accessible/current points of contact, or valid phone numbers could impact the overall number of points assessed by the Selection Board and may result in a firm being considered less qualified.

Initial Selection Board. Selection of the most highly qualified A-E firms will be based on offeror submissions in the SF 330 and Past Performance Form (Attachment 2), and evaluated per the criteria detailed below. Each government evaluator assigned to the initial selection board will subjectively evaluate each proposal against each criterion based upon the merits of the information provided by the offeror. When all individual selection board evaluators have completed the initial criteria evaluations for a given offeror, the points assigned in each criterion will be totaled for that criterion and the total will be divided by the number of evaluations conducted that contributed to the scores. This will result in the offeror's Criterion Score. All Criterion Scores will be totaled for a given offeror, resulting in each offeror's Initial Selection Board Score (maximum of 100 points possible). Offerors will be ranked in order, from highest Initial Selection Board Score to lowest Initial Selection Board Score. The initial selection board will determine the most highly qualified firms based on the logical break to enable ease and efficiency of the government evaluation process, which is anticipated to be around three (3) firms.

This may result in the most highly qualified firms being asked to respond to the Final Selection Board process described later in this Attachment. The government reserves the right to conduct only an Initial Selection Board and enter directly into discussions and negotiations if determined to be in the best interest of the government.

SF 330 Codes. The desired profile code numbers from the SF 330 for the type of work required include but are not limited to the following:

Function Code Discipline

06 Architect 08 CADD Technician 12 Civil Engineer 23 Environmental Engineer 37 Interior Designer 39 Landscape Architect 47 Planner: Urban/Regional 48 Project Manager

Profile Code Experience Categories A06 Airports; Terminals and Hangars; Freight Handling A09 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection A11 Auditoriums & Theaters B01 Barracks; Dormitories C05 Child Care/Development Facilities C08 Codes; Standards; Ordinances C10 Commercial Building (low rise); Shopping Centers C14 Conservation and Resource Management C18 Cost Estimating; Cost Engineering and Analysis; Parametric Costing; Forecasting D04 Design-Build - Preparation of Requests for Proposals D07 Dining Halls; Clubs; Restaurants E02 Educational Facilities; Classrooms E09 Environmental Impact Studies, Assessments or Statements E11 Environmental Planning F06 Forestry & Forest products G04 Geographic Information System Services: Development, Analysis, and Data Collection G06 Graphic Design H07 Highways; Streets; Airfield Paving; Parking Lots H08 Historical Preservation H11 Housing (Residential, Multi-Family; Apartments; Condominiums) I01 Industrial Buildings; Manufacturing Plants I05 Interior Design; Space Planning L03 Landscape Architecture L04 Libraries; Museums; Galleries Q01 Office Buildings; Industrial Parks R04 Recreation Facilities (Parks, Marinas, Etc.)

R08 Research Facilities S11 Sustainable Design T03 Traffic & Transportation Engineering U02 Urban Renewals; Community Development

V01 Value Analysis; Life-Cycle Costing Z01 Zoning; Land Use Studies

Initial Selection Criteria. Per FAR 36.602-1, agencies will evaluate each potential contractor in terms of its professional qualifications, specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, capacity to accomplish the work in the required time, past performance in terms of cost control, quality, and compliance with performance schedules, location in general geographical area of the project and knowledge of project locality, and other appropriate evaluation criteria. DFARS Acquisition Selection Criteria requires the primary selection factor to be the most highly qualified firm (DFARS PGI 236.602-1). Location is a secondary factor. All criteria listed will be utilized for this acquisition. All evaluation criteria are significantly more important than price, as price is not being evaluated at this time.

The relative importance of each criteria is indicated by the points available for each criteria. The Initial Selection Board will rate offerors based on a 100-point scale:

a. Professional qualifications (30 points available for overall team qualifications)

b. Specialized experience and technical competence (30 points available for overall team experience and technical competence)

c. Capacity (10 points available for overall team capacity)

d. Consistency (10 points available for overall team consistency)

e. Past performance of the prime consultant (15 points available for prime’s past performance)

f. Location (5 points available for team location)

a) Professional Qualifications (30 points available for overall team qualifications). Offerors shall provide overall team (including prime and sub-consultants) professional qualifications in the SF 330 Section E and a narrative in Section H of no more than 10 pages. The Qualifications narrative should list any professional affiliations, memberships, and regulatory registrations/licenses that demonstrate qualification necessary for the satisfactory performance of the required services for this acquisition, plus a section delineating roles and responsibilities between the prime contractor and each sub-consultant. The organizational chart in SF 330, Section D supports the delineation narrative. The Qualifications narrative is to be supported by resumes of key individuals, and will address the following specific job categories and disciplines:

Project Principal

Project Manager

Project Architect

Project Planner

Project Engineer(s) - Civil/Transportation and Environmental

Project Designer

Spatial analytics

Higher education trends and requirements

Experiential technology, visitor experience

Airfield planning

Scoring. Up to 30 points for the Professional Qualifications criterion will be awarded by the Selection Board members based on the demonstrated professional qualifications of each offeror necessary to satisfactorily perform the required, specialized A-E services.

b) Specialized Experience and Technical Competence (30 points available for overall team experience and technical competence). Offerors will utilize Section F of the SF 330 to provide evidence of their Specialized Experience, no more than ten (10) pages in length, plus an additional

Specialized Experience and Technical Competence narrative in Section H of no more than ten (10) pages in length. Offerors will clearly demonstrate the Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of the prime offeror and of the offeror team in the required disciplines, as detailed below.

Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of the Prime. The Prime Consultant is required to have all campus planning, spatial analytics, and conceptualization/visualization services available in-house. This represents the majority of the work that will be required on this contract as specified in the sub-bullets below. Prime offerors will describe their experience and technical competence in the following specialized areas of planning and conceptual design:

• Campus master planning at the university undergraduate/graduate/research level;

• Space analytics, including diverse facilities typical of a university setting, including a description of methods used and software if applicable;

• Academic needs assessments, including a description of methods used and software if applicable;

• NCAA Division I facilities planning, including diverse facilities typical of a university setting

(academic, athletic, housing, dining, support services, etc.);

• Conceptual design and visualization, including demonstrated expertise in International Style

Architecture and the ability to work within a contextually constrained environment.

Specialized Experience and Technical Competence of the Team. All other required disciplines may be provided by the prime consultant or their sub-consultant team. Offerors will describe their team's experience and technical competence in the following specialized areas of planning and conceptual design:

• Campus sustainability including, but not limited to:

Reduction of use of non-renewable resources in building design and campus operations Energy Waste / Recycling Light pollution Storm water Transportation American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) standards Procurement policies

• Transportation planning

• Cost estimating (conceptual design level)

• Airfield planning

• Visitor/student/staff experience, wayfinding, memorialization (donor funded projects, experiential/immersive design, storyline development, exhibits)

Scoring. Up to 30 points for the Specialized Experience and Technical Competence criterion will be awarded by the Selection Board members based on the demonstrated specialized experience and technical competence in the areas listed. In order to preclude a pass-through contract and to ensure that prime offerors have adequate experience in the specialized services needed, prime offerors who do not demonstrate in-house experience in all of the primary services specified in the “Specialized

Experience and Technical Competence of the Prime” described above, will be awarded zero (0) points for the Specialized Experience and Technical Competence criterion.

c) Capacity (10 points available for overall team capacity). Offerors will submit a narrative response in Section H of the SF 330, of no more than one (1) page in length, clearly titled “CAPACITY" to the following question regarding offeror Capacity:

"USAFA is looking for consistency and stability in its planning work. Given that this effort has the potential for up to a ten-year ordering period under this contract that will have ebbs and flows in workload, and given that personnel changes on your team are inevitable, clearly demonstrate how you will ensure that the team assigned to USAFA task orders is (and will remain) adequately staffed to respond in the time required to multiple, simultaneous task orders."

Scoring. The Selection Board members will award up to 10 points for the Capacity criterion, based on each offeror's demonstrated capacity to complete work in the time required as well as the quality and feasibility of their plan to maintain capacity over the full contract term.

d) Consistency (10 points available for overall team consistency). Offerors will submit a narrative response in Section H of the SF 330, of no more than one (1) page in length, clearly titled "CONSISTENCY" to the following question regarding Consistency:

"USAFA is looking for consistency and stability in its planning work. Given that this has a potential ten-year ordering period and contract that will have ebbs and flows in workload, and given that personnel changes on your team are inevitable, clearly demonstrate how you will ensure a continuing exchange of detailed knowledge about USAFA programs, standards, plans, and past planning work at USAFA by your team? Describe the educational/continuity program you will use to bring people up to speed."

Scoring. The Selection Board members will award up to 10 points for the Consistency criterion, based on the quality and feasibility of each offeror's program for Consistency.

e) Past performance of the prime consultant (15 points available for prime’s past performance).

Past Performance Form (Attachment 2). Offerors shall provide examples of past performance showing experience in higher education master planning work at five (5) other universities completed within the last 60 months. Offerors shall utilize the attached Past Performance Forms to list five (5) projects, with client contact information for each project.

Past Performance Narrative. At the end of the Past Performance form, each offeror will add a narrative addressing their approach to customer interaction, quality assurance, and innovation. The narrative, no more than five (5) pages in length, will respond to the questions shown on the form (also listed below), citing examples from the five (5) projects listed on the Past Performance Form:

1. How have you effectively approached integrating the customer into your planning efforts?

2. How did you ensure campus constituencies and the institution as a whole were pleased with your work?

3. What are three lessons learned from your past work?

4. Institutions of higher education are complex and differences of opinion are inevitable between various campus groups. As the planner, how have you approached conflict resolution in your past work?

5. What innovative approaches or processes have you implemented in your past work?

References. The Selection Board members will contact each offeror-provided reference from the Past Performance Form by telephone and/or email to interview them regarding the offeror's performance on the project. The questions for each reference will be:

1. [OFFEROR] master planning firm has proposed on a contract at the Air Force Academy and they have listed you as a reference. Can you please give us an idea of the scope of master planning work they have done for your institution?

2. Did [OFFEROR] have the planning expertise that you expected?

3. How well did they interact with campus constituencies? Were there any conflicts and, if so, were they resolved to your satisfaction?

4. Did [OFFEROR] bring any innovative processes or ideas?

5. Was their work completed on schedule and within budget?

6. Were you satisfied with the quality of their work?

7. Would you chose [OFFEROR] again for future master planning related work?

Other sources of information. The government will make reasonable efforts to contact each offeror-provided reference. The government reserves the right to utilize any available sources of information in their evaluation of Past Performance, either in addition to the references or in place of them, including but not limited to: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), System for Award Management, information provided by the offeror (SF 330), customer inquiries, and publicly available sources.

Scoring. The Selection Board members will award up to 15 points for the Past Performance criterion, based on each offeror's demonstrated performance in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules.

f) Location (5 points available for overall team location). Location is a secondary criterion, considerably less important than all other criteria. This contract will involve site visits for data collection, meetings, and other contract activities. It is in the government's interest to select a firm that will do the majority of the work within easy commuting distance to USAFA, in order to minimize schedule delays and travel costs. In the SF 330, Part II, prime offerors will provide the address of the office where the Project Principal is located and the majority of the work defined as in-house for the prime consultant will be performed. That office location will be evaluated for the Location criterion.

Scoring. The government will use an internet mapping tool such as Google Maps to calculate the distance from the offeror's location to USAFA's North Gate entrance using shortest-route driving distance. The same mapping tool will be used for all offerors. The Selection Board members will award five (5) points for the Location criterion to offerors whose office is equal to or less than 100 miles from USAFA. The Selection Board members will award zero (0) points for the Location criterion to offerors whose office is more than 100 miles from USAFA.

Notifications. Following initial selection board evaluations, all offerors not in the most highly qualified Finalist selection list will receive an unsuccessful offeror letter. The most highly qualified A-E firms will be issued a notification of their status as a Finalist. Each Finalist will be provided detailed instructions and a Final Selection Board Agenda to begin preparing their presentation.

Final Selection Board. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines it is in the government’s best interest, evaluations conducted by the Final Selection Board will be based on oral presentations, limited to 60 minutes, with two (2) factors to be evaluated: Questions and Hypothetical Problem. Three (3) questions worth up to 20 additional points each and one (1) hypothetical problem scenario worth up to 40 additional points will be provided to “Most Highly Qualified” firms (referred to as “Finalists”), in the Final Selection Board Agenda. Finalists will have approximately two (2) weeks to prepare for the Final Selection Board. Finalists will present answers to the questions and their approach to the hypothetical problem scenario to the Final Selection Board. The presentations may be made in person at USAFA if permitted under current COVID-19 restrictions on base at that time. Alternatively, offerors may present via video teleconference (VTC). Detailed instructions will be provided upon Finalist notifications.

Scoring the Questions. The Final Selection Board will subjectively award each finalist offeror up to 20 additional points for each question based on the offeror's qualifications and capacity to perform the required A-E services, as demonstrated in their response to each question.

Scoring the Hypothetical. The government will not ask finalist offerors to present a fully developed solution to the hypothetical scenario, but rather offerors will present their process and approach to undertake successful planning for the scenario. The Final Selection Board will award up to 40 additional points based on the quality and feasibility of each offeror's approach to addressing the hypothetical problem, as well as the offeror's understanding of the primary, secondary and tertiary effects of this type of scenario at a university.

Discussions. IAW FAR 36.602-1(c), discussions will be held with each finalist immediately following their presentation. The scope and extent of the discussions will be determined by the presentations and any specific questions arising from the Initial Selection Board's review of the SF 330's.

Final Selection. When all presentations are complete, each offeror's points in each of the two (2) factors will be totaled, and the total will be divided by the number of evaluators who contributed scores, producing the offeror's final selection board score. Each offeror’s final selection board score will be added to their initial selection board score, producing each offeror's Final Score (maximum of 200 points possible). Offerors will be ranked in order, from highest Final Score to lowest Final Score. IAW FAR 36.602-3(d) the Final Selection Board will prepare a selection report for the designated selection authority recommending, based on Final Scores, at least three firms that are considered to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. The report shall include a description of the discussions and evaluation conducted by the board to allow the selection authority to review the considerations upon which the recommendations are based. IAW FAR 36.602-4(b), the selection authority will review the recommendations of the Final Selection Board and will, with the advice of appropriate technical and staff representatives, make the final selection. This final selection will be a listing, in order of preference, of the firms considered most highly qualified to perform the work. If the firm listed as the most preferred is not the firm recommended as the most highly qualified by the Final Selection Board, the selection authority will provide for the contract file a written explanation of the reason for the preference. All firms on the selection authority’s final selection list are considered “selected firms” with which the contracting officer may negotiate in accordance with FAR 36.606.

Notifications. Once the final selection list is made, the firm selected as the most preferred offeror will receive a letter notifying them of their status. All other offerors will receive a letter stating that they were not selected as the most preferred, so a price proposal is not being requested at that time, but may be requested in the event of unsuccessful negotiation with the most preferred firm.

Negotiations. IAW FAR 36.606(a), final selection authorizes the contracting officer to begin negotiations. Negotiations will be conducted IAW FAR Part 15, DFARS Part 215, AFFARS Part 5315 and other applicable regulations. The offeror selected as the most preferred offeror will receive a Request for Price Proposal (RFPP) and negotiations will be conducted. If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated, the contracting officer will obtain a written final proposal revision from the offeror, and notify the offeror that negotiations have been terminated. If negotiations must be terminated with an offeror, an RFPP will be sent to the next firm on the selection list which has not yet received an RFPP.

The contracting officer shall then initiate negotiations with that firm. This procedure continues until a mutually satisfactory contract has been negotiated and awarded or negotiations have been terminated with all selected offerors.

Responsibility. In accordance with FAR 9.103, the government will only consider making an award to a responsible offeror.