Attach_2_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Evaluation Factors Architect-Engineering Services for Investigation and Design of FTQW 14-1002, Repair Structural Columns at the Thunder Dome (B1140)

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Submissions of completed Standard Form 330 (SF 330) received in response to this notice will be evaluated by a government evaluation board in accordance with The Brooks Act, Public Law 92-582, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36, and DoD Source Selection Procedures to determine the most highly qualified firms. In addition, recent and relevant performance in designing facility structural repair projects in sub-arctic and arctic climate zones with construction valued between $500K and $1.5M may result in a higher rating and should be addressed accordingly. Evaluation of past performance and experience may include information provided by the offeror, customer inquiries, government databases, and publicly available sources. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified. Offerors are responsible for collecting and submitting past performance questionnaires with their final packages to 354 CONS/LGCA before the closing date of this synopsis.

2. Selection Criteria: Each firm must demonstrate their (including subcontractors’) qualifications with respect to the selection criteria listed below. Evaluation criteria (a), (b) and (d) are of equal importance; criterion (e) is of lesser importance than criteria (a), (b) and (d); criterion (c) being of least importance which will be used as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms. SF-330s will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firm/team based on submitted SF-330 responses. Failure to provide requested data or comply with the instructions in this synopsis and SF-330 instructions could result in a firm considered being less qualified or eliminated from consideration. Specific evaluation criteria include:

a. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services;

b. Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including where appropriate, experience in energy conservation;

c. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time;

d. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules;

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

3. Selection Criteria Evaluation Factors:

a. Professional Qualifications: SF-330, Part I, Block E. The Air Force will consider any information, which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following:

proposed key personnel (reference primary discipline list below), professional registration, and competence, related experiences to accomplish this work, education, and years with the company. Key personnel shall be permanent employees of the prime firm/team rather than temporary “contract” employee arrangements.

Failure to provide a balanced workforce in the disciplines listed could result in the firm being considered not qualified. The combination of criteria below will be used to determine the ability of the staff to contribute to the successful completion of project requirements. Firms with greater breadth of in-house expertise will be rated higher than those needing to hire sub-consultants.

a.1. The offeror’s team shall include staff members licensed in the State of Alaska in the following disciplines:

Structural Engineer a.2. In addition, offerors shall demonstrate their qualification for the following:

Project/Program Manager Environmental Engineer (hazmat) Industrial Hygienist (certified) Cost Estimator b . Specialized Experience and Technical Competence: SF-330, Part I, Section F.

The Air Force will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following: specialized experience and technical competence in the performance of services similar to those anticipated under this contract in terms of recent and relevant experience with regard to the project examples described below, as well as demonstrated experience with DoD facility design.

b.1. The evaluation board will be placing emphasis on the following items when evaluating this factor: Cold climate (sub-arctic or arctic*) design experience;

experience with designing facility structural support repairs (more specifically repairing concrete support columns) including experience in surveying existing facilities and sites for hazardous materials and contamination, and design including remediation of such hazards as necessary to complete the work of the project. Experience in design of projects that include the above elements and whose design fees were $95,000 or higher will be considered very advantageous.

*Definition of “sub-arctic” shall be near the Arctic Circle where the permafrost is broken and discontinuous (in Alaska this shall be the interior of Alaska, north of the Alaska Range where the permafrost is broken and discontinuous). The definition of “arctic” shall be north of the Arctic Circle. Comparable latitudes world-wide and Antarctic experience shall be considered equivalent.

b.2. Example Projects:

b.2.a. Submit example design projects in narrative format that highlight the experience factors listed above. Design project examples should not exceed two pages each. All experience factors do not have to be included in a single project. The offeror may submit multiple projects to demonstrate experience in all relevant types of work, however, do not submit more than five projects total. For submittal purposes, if a completed ID/IQ task order is submitted, the completed task order would be considered a “project”. Do not list an ID/IQ contract as an example of a completed “project”. Instead, list the relevant completed task order(s) or single/stand-alone contract.

b.2.b. The narratives of example projects should show contract number, issuing agency, project name, a current point of contact including telephone and email information, project scope, size, location, design fees, the total number of modifications / change orders issued during performance of project, date of project completion, estimate of construction cost, principal design elements and features, complexity of the job, challenges faced, actions taken, and the resolution and results of any challenges faced. In addition, and if known, list the construction contract award price and the total number of construction contract modifications/change orders and their total value.

b.2.c. Example projects may be from the private or public sector however, DoD projects may be rated higher. Projects completed more recently will be evaluated more advantageously. The design of all example projects must have been completed within the past seven (7) years (prior to the SF-330 due date for this solicitation).

The evaluation will consider the relevancy (design and construction scope, size and location) of projects identified.

b.2.d. Examples of work submitted that do not meet the requirements specified here will not be evaluated. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified and eliminated from further consideration. Identify any key personnel in SF-330, Part I, Section G that worked on the projects and their role. Specialized experience and technical competency will be evaluated for ability to support the range of work required for this contract, as demonstrated by firm’s submitted projects.

c. Capacity: SF-330, Part I, Block H. Demonstrate how the firm(s) will manage, coordinate and administer the work within the prime and among any teaming partners. Teaming partners to be included by the prime firm in their response should be clearly identified as such for evaluation purposes and will later be agreed to during negotiations of any resultant contract. SF-330, Part II, Block 11 will also be evaluated to assist in determining this factor. SF-330 Part I Blocks C, D, F and SF-330, Part II will also be evaluated to support this criterion. The Air Force will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following:

Capacity to perform work in-house and with teaming members;

Demonstrate active on-going Federal and Non-Federal work (Address current dollar value of work, number of current projects, management approach to your on-going work, and how the team will support the work requirements outlined in this synopsis in addition to current work). Quantify the A-E teams reserve capacity (percent of available capacity or man hours available or number of man hours available).

d. Past Performance: SF-330, Block H. For the example projects provided under Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, in a single page narrative form provide past performance in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules for each example project submitted under Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. In addition to past performance information provided, the evaluation will include information available within the DoD, Federal, state, private industry or other sources. In addition to the narrative described above, forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) of this synopsis, to each project point of contact. Completed PPQ forms shall be submitted as part of the firms’ proposal package. Firms may include any ratings, letters of appreciation or performance, awards etc., for relevant experience; however, Federal database content and PPQs will be evaluated more advantageously. Reponses will be evaluated to determine firms’ ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction.

e. Geographic proximity: Geographic proximity to the general area of the requiring activity as well as knowledge of the area of Eielson AFB, Alaska. SF-330, Part I, Block H. In single page narrative form demonstrate firm’s familiarity with local conditions to include knowledge of, and experience dealing with, the regulatory agencies, geological features, logistics, climatic conditions and local design and construction methods.

4. EVALUATIONS

The following adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate the documentation submitted:

Outstanding Submittal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Submittal contains multiple strengths and no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Submittal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Submittal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Acceptable Submittal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Submittal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Marginal Submittal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Submittal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

5. Once the selection board has evaluated firms against the selection criteria, the board will hold discussions with at least the top three (3) firms determined most qualified. After the discussions are complete, the board will rank the top firms and request a pricing proposal from only the highest ranked firm. If pricing from the most highly qualified firm is determined to be fair and reasonable, a contract will be awarded to that firm. The CO reserves the right to initiate negotiations with firms in order to negotiate specific items. Under no circumstances will the CO award a contract to any offeror that has received a Marginal or Unacceptable integrated assessment rating.