DRAFT HILL225HANGAR SATOC SYNOPSIS - 010425.pdf

Synopsis DRAFT- 01 April 2025

TITLE: Single Award Task Order Contract for Architect-Engineer Title I and Title II Services for Aircraft Hangar 225 Renovation at Hill AFB (HILL HANGAR-AE-SATOC)

CONTRACTING POINTS-OF-CONTACT (POC):

NAME OF POC ORGANIZATION ROLE E-MAIL

Brindle Summers 772 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS)/PKA

Contracting Officer brindle.summers@us.af.mil

Laura Koog 772 ESS/PKA Contract Specialist laura.koog@us.af.mil

Ciarra Oxford 772 ESS/PKA Contract Specialist ciarra.oxford@us.af.mil

PLEASE NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A DRAFT AND IS NOT THE OFFICIAL 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 FINAL SYNOPSIS WILL BE POSTED AFTER THE FORMAL

SYNOPSIS IS APPROVED ON OR ABOUT MID-APRIL 2025.

THE OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS WILL BE A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE. THE AIR FORCE WILL

ONLY ACCEPT SF330’S FROM FIRMS THAT ARE CERTIFIED AS A SMALL BUSINESS FOR NAICS

541330, WITH A SIZE STANDARD OF $25,500,000.

QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME. We anticipate that the official synopsis will not include significant changes from this draft synopsis. We will allow at least one week from the posting of the final synopsis to submit questions. Attachment 1 entitled, “Attachment 1 -QnA” will be included with the official synopsis and is also provided herein for your preparation.

SF330 DUE DATE: The Due Date for SF330 submissions will be identified in the Official Synopsis. SF330 submissions shall be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Brindle T. Summers at brindle.summers@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialists, Ms. Laura Koog at laura.koog@us.af.mil and Ms. Ciarra Oxford at ciarra.oxford@us.af.mil. Firms are reminded to be mindful of the file size of the electronic submission. The Government’s firewall may reject any email size over 10MB. For any submissions greater than 10MB, please request a DoD SAFE Drop from the Contract Specialists referenced in this paragraph. 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 a Small Business (SB) Architect-Engineer (A-E) firm to support Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) Title I and Title II projects associated with the Historic Hill AFB Hangar 225. The 772 ESS anticipates award of an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for A-E Title I and Title II services for FSRM planning and design, with a total contract ceiling of $35M. The 772 ESS anticipates making awards to one Small Business firm. 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.

After receipt of SF330’s and to assist in making the Most Highly Qualified (MHQ) selection, the Evaluation Board may request presentations be provided 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. 100% of this contract synopsis/solicitation is set aside for Small Business, and thus similarly situated entities (e.g., 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. 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 125.9, 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: The basic SATOC will have an ordering period of ten years, comprised of One (1) five-year base period and One (1) five-year option period. This SATOC allows for the issuance of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) negotiated task orders during the ordering period. The first task order 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 under this SATOC. 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.

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.

The Firm selected as MHQ for this Hill AFB Hangar 225 SATOC 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.

PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS:

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 following Lead Positions: Construction Inspector (Title II), Scheduler, Architect, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Civil 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 SATOC 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. A single Small Business firm will be selected as the MHQ firm in accordance with the selection criteria identified below.

The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330 (size standard - $25,500,000) applies to this SATOC. 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 award do not guarantee work to the selected firm.

However, the minimum guarantee of $2,500 will be satisfied through award of the first Project Task Order, for a Planning Charette Report (PCR). The initial PCR TO, which will exceed the minimum guaranteed amount, will be negotiated and awarded concurrently with the basic contract award.

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

225 located at Hill AFB, Utah.

1. General Scope:

This Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) provides Architecture-Engineering (A-E) Title I and Title II Services for Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) projects at the Historic 225 Hangar located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The scope of Task Orders under this contract encompasses A-E design services for the demolition, repair, renovation, or replacement of various components of Hangar 225. The specific components include but are not limited to:

- Replacement of roofing elements

- Demolition and reconstruction of internal office structures

- Seismic Structural upgrades to the hangar

- General facility service repairs and upgrades (i.e. plumbing, electrical, and HVAC)

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 AE services for a facility or facilities (not construction). “Project” also refers to 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. Note the selection criteria specifics as it relates to whether or not the project must be on a DoD installation.

"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, 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 DoD 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 years from the initial 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, 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.

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, 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 SDVOSB.

The Government will evaluate SF 330s to determine the most highly qualified firm. 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. Note that any Criterion rated Unacceptable may not render the entire proposal Unacceptable, but will be a consideration in the Most Highly Qualified selection:

1. Criterion 1: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

2. Criterion 2: Professional Qualifications

3. Criterion 3: Geographic Proximity and Knowledge of 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/qualifications specific to Hangar Renovations, Structural Seismic Retrofit Projects, Multi-Floor Office Space Designs, BIM for Clash Detection, and Phased-Multi-Step Designs. 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 Hangar Renovations, Structural Seismic Retrofit Projects, Multi-Floor Office Space Designs, BIM for Clash Detection, and Phased-Multi-Step Designs. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably well-established.

Good: Minimum requirements met. SF330 demonstrates an elevated level of Title I relevant experience/qualifications specific to Hangar Renovations, Structural Seismic Retrofit Projects, Multi-Floor Office Space Designs, BIM for Clash Detection, and Phased-Multi-Step Designs. 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), Geographic Proximity and Knowledge of Locality

Outstanding: Overall exceptional knowledge of locality. Demonstrates exceptional Title I experience working at Hill AFB and has a local office at or near Hill AFB. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are well-established.

Very Good: Overall substantial knowledge of locality. Demonstrates exceptional Title I experience working at Hill AFB and has a local office at or near Hill AFB. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably well-established.

Good: Overall elevated knowledge of locality. Demonstrates elevated Title I experience at Hill AFB and may have a local office at or near Hill AFB. If teaming partners are used, business relationships are reasonably established.

Satisfactory: Overall minimal knowledge of locality. Demonstrates at least one Title I project at Hill AFB. If teaming partners are used, business relationships exist.

Unacceptable: Overall unacceptable knowledge of locality. Submission fails to provide Title I projects in at Hill AFB.

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. 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 Manager (must be the Prime Offeror), Construction Inspection (On-site Title II), Scheduler, Architect, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, and Fire Protection Engineering. This narrative will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis (with a pass rating as the minimum requirement) and 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: Engineering disciplines required for execution of Task Orders shall exclusively involve the members identified in the SF330, as follows:

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 Etc….for all Disciplines identified above

Project Experience (1 page per project): Offerors shall submit one to three Title I Hangar Renovation Design projects demonstrating Seismic Structural Repairs (can be DoD or Non-DoD Hangars, however, see the order of importance in the evaluation method below). Project descriptions of relevant and completed projects (see definitions above) are not to exceed one page per project, by the Prime Offeror or its Proposed Teaming Partners. Each Offeror shall also submit at least one project to demonstrate design of multi-floor office space, one project to demonstrate Title II services, and one project to demonstrate design of a historical facility, in accordance with the evaluation method below. 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.

To further clarify, offerors shall submit between 4 and 6 project descriptions, aligning to the above narrative:

1 – 3 projects – Title I Hangar Renovation Design projects demonstrating Seismic Structural Repairs 1 project - demonstrate design of vertical multi-floor office space 1 project - demonstrate Title II services 1 project - demonstrate design of a historical facility

For each project submitted, Offerors shall specify the scope of work (engineering disciplines) 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 Firm demonstrates 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 (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 you’ve 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.

Minimum Requirements:

The Air Force will first evaluate the SF330 to ensure the following minimum requirements are met:

1) The proposed team narrative includes all disciplines identified in the submission requirements for the “Proposed Team” and clearly identifies the proposed firm (Prime or Teaming Partner) that will execute the work for each discipline. The Project Manager must be employed by the Prime Offeror.

2) The proposed project experience:

a. At least one project must demonstrate Title I Hangar Renovation Design efforts that include Seismic Structural Repairs. Do not provide new construction examples as new construction is not applicable.

b. At least one project must include the design of a DoD Vertical (multi-floor) Office Space Facility renovation or repair. Do not provide new construction examples as new construction is not applicable

c. At least one project must include Title II services where the Offeror provided construction-phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services during performance of one specific construction task order or C-contract of at least $50M in VERTICAL construction/repair. The Title II services must have included regular and recurring on-site construction oversight as well as Engineering reviews of construction administrative and technical submittals.

d. At least one project must include design of a Historical facility that demonstrated experience designing repairs to a facility or facilities that are listed on the National Historic Register.

Upon evaluating the minimum requirements noted above, the Air Force will then evaluate all projects submitted (except for the Title II and Historical Facility Title I projects) and will evaluate the Offeror’s overall experience as noted below.

Sub-sections a through e below are listed in descending order of importance, with more consideration given to a greater extent/number of relevant Title I projects submitted, and where the higher the resultant construction value, the more consideration that may be given, and the greater the complexity of work (extent of engineering effort/engineering disciplines required), the more consideration that may be given. Projects on a DoD installation may receive more consideration than projects for a commercial or non-DoD facility.

a. HANGAR RENOVATION DESIGN PROJECTS: Highest consideration will be given to Title I project experience designing Seismic Structural Upgrades for DoD Hangars, with non-DoD Hangars considered of lesser importance. The greater the extent of design experience with these structures, 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. STRUCTURAL SEISMIC RETROFITTING: Of significant consideration will be the design of projects for vertical facilities that required structural seismic retrofitting. The greater the extent of design experience with these structures, the higher the rating that may be assigned.

c. VERTICAL MULTI-FLOOR OFFICE SPACES: Notable consideration will be given to Title I project experience designing multi-disciplinary, multi-floored office spaces that must include design unifications to previously constructed office spaces. For example, if a design was completed that tied an old office space to a newly constructed office space providing a final product that users could not differentiate between the two construction efforts, the higher the rating that may be assigned. This design experience does not need to be for multi-floor office space within a hangar. The design experience can be for a stand-alone facility or within another type of facility, so long as the design of the multi-floor office space was integrated with existing office space. The greater the extent and complexity of design experience with these structures, the higher the rating that may be assigned.

d. BIM FOR CLASH DETECTION: Additional consideration may be given to firms that provide project experience using Building Information Modeling for clash detection of future designs. The greater the extent and complexity of use of BIM for clash detection, the higher the rating that may be assigned.

e. PHASED MULTI-STEP DESIGNS: Additional consideration may be given to firms that provide project experience that demonstrate experience developing innovative phased/multi-step designs that allow for continued operations within the facility, with continuity of aircraft maintenance operations, heavy equipment maintenance operations, or other complex operations being considered (in descending order of importance). The greater the extent, complexity, and innovation of the phased/multi-step designs, the higher the rating that may be assigned.

f. TITLE II PROJECT AND HISTORICAL FACILITY TITLE I PROJECTS: Will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis only (as minimum requirements) and will not be evaluated further.

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 “Business Relationships” submission requirement 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:

Complete Section E of the SF330 for 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. Limit submission to TWO (2) Pages per Key Person.

Ensure all key personnel include at least TWO completed DoD projects, as part of the five maximum projects described above. 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 Corporate 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 key personnel that provide daily project oversight, internal quality control of design efforts and final design approvals (stamping the drawings) for their associated disciplines for all Task Orders:

a. Lead Project Manager

b. Lead Construction Inspector (Title II)

c. Lead Scheduler

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 project 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. In addition to the elements outlined below, each key person must have at least 10 years of experience in their respective discipline, except for the Lead Scheduler, whose requirements are described below.

Minimum Requirements:

The Lead Project Manager must demonstrate their experience as a Project Manager or as an Engineer. Also, the Prime must employ the Lead Project Manager.

Construction Inspector (Title II) 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.

Lead Scheduler must have 5 years of scheduling experience of construction projects of similar size and complexity to this contract.

All engineering disciplines stated above must have professional licensure.

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.

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. “Relevant experience" refers to the knowledge, skills, and work history that directly align with the specific project experience requirements described above within Criterion 1.

Resumés 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), will be evaluated more favorably (excluding Electrical Engineering experience with regards to Structural Seismic Retrofitting; this experience is not relevant or required).

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 and 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 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) GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY AND KNOWLEDGE OF LOCALITY

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall furnish a logical narrative, not to exceed TWO pages, that describes the Offeror's (and/or Teaming Partner’s) experience performing Title I design services at Hill AFB. The narrative shall focus on topics such as experience with base facility standards, experience coordinating with installation stakeholders, and experience with architectural, seismic, climate, and historical conditions. Identify office locations of the Prime and/or its Teaming Partners near the Hill AFB. 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 narrative should aid the Air Force in understanding how your experience at this location would make you the most highly qualified firm.

EVALUATION METHOD:

This criterion evaluates Offerors extent of their geographical knowledge of Hill AFB. The offeror’s proximity to the installation will also be of consideration. Further, the greater the extent of experience designing vertical facilities at Hill AFB or other DoD installations within Utah (in that order of preference), the more consideration that may be given. The more significant your experience with base facility standards, experience coordinating with installation stakeholders, and experience with architectural, seismic, climate, and historical conditions, that help the Air Force understand how your involvement at this location would make you the most highly qualified firm, the more consideration that may be given.

The Offeror’s demonstrated geographical proximity and knowledge of locality will form the basis of the initial rating assigned. Where the Offeror demonstrates this knowledge through a Teaming Partner, the rating assigned 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 identify the number of employees they have on staff for each discipline identified below.

TABLE 1 - AE Disciplines:

CODE DESCRIPTION

6 Architect 12 Civil Engineer 15 Construction Inspector (Title II) 17 Corrosion Engineer 18 Cost Engineer / Estimator 21 Electrical Engineer 23 Environmental Engineer 25 Fire Protection Engineer 8 CADD Technician 42 Mechanical Engineer 53 Scheduler 57 Structural Engineer

EVALUATION METHOD:

The government will assign an Acceptable rating when the offeror identifies at least two (2) employees for each applicable A-E discipline listed in Table 1 above. Failure to provide at least two individuals for each applicable A-E discipline listed in Table 1 above will result in this criterion being rated as Unacceptable.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, CRITERION (5) PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

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 Design-Build 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 CO, Ms. Brindle Summers, and to Contract Specialists (CS) Ms. Laura Koog, and Ms. Ciarra Oxford using the contact information above 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 to verify currency and accuracy of the PPQ information, and send email correspondence to the 772 ESS CO and CS’s 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.