Attach_2_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Attachment 2 - Evaluation Factors

Architect-Engineering Services for

3439858, API Standard 653 In-Service Inspections of Tanks BLR1 and BLR2

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 accomplishing API Standard 653 inspections of field constructed atmospheric fuel tanks in sub-arctic and arctic climate zones 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/PKA 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) and criterion (c) is of least importance and 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, certifications 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 task orders. 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:

Engineer (who is also an API Std 653 authorized inspector)*

*Shall submit proof of current status as an API Std 653 authorized inspector. If the inspection team will include (an) additional inspector(s) he/she/they shall also submit their current certification (API Std 653 authorized inspector).

a.2. In addition, the offeror’s team shall include staff members in the following disciplines and shall demonstrate their qualification:

Project/Program Manager (it is not mandatory that the project/program manager be a separate person from the inspector, but this person shall be a State of Alaska registered engineer / API Std 653 certified inspector) 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 inspection examples described below.

b.1. The A-E must show at least five (5) years of experience in accomplishing AP I S t d 65 3 t a n k i ns pec t i o ns of field constructed atmospheric fuel tanks. The A-E must have accomplished at least seven (7) c on t r ac t s ( o r d e l i ve r y o rd e r s ) for AP I S t d 65 3 t a n k i ns pec t i o n of field constructed atmospheric fuel tanks (list the locations and dates).

b.2. The evaluation board will be placing emphasis on the following items when evaluating this factor: Experience with ac co mp l i s h i n g AP I S t d 65 3 t an k i nsp ec t i on s of field constructed atmospheric fuel tanks in a sub-arctic* or arctic* climate, on DoD facilities and within the State of Alaska.

*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 and south of the Arctic Circle 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 to sub-arctic and arctic experience in Alaska.

b.3. Example Projects:

b.3.a. Submit example inspection projects in narrative format that highlight the experience factors listed above. 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 inspection projects to demonstrate experience in all relevant types of work, however, do not submit more than three (3) detailed inspection project examples total. For submittal purposes, if a completed

ID/IQ task order is submitted, the completed task order would be considered an “inspection project”. Do not list an ID/IQ contract as an example of a completed “inspection project”.

Instead, list the relevant completed task order(s) or single/stand-alone contracts.

b.3.b. The narratives of example inspection projects should show contract number, issuing agency, project name, a current point of contact including telephone and email information, inspection scope / size (type, capacity and quantity of tanks), location, inspection fees and date of inspection project completion.

b.3.c. Example inspection projects may be from the private or public sector however, DoD tank inspections may be rated higher. Inspections completed more recently will be evaluated more advantageously. The example inspection projects must have been completed within the past seven (7) years (prior to the SF-330 due date for this solicitation). T h e e valuation will consider t h e relevancy ( t o the above criteria) of the inspection projects identified.

b.3.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 (if applicable);

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. F or t he e x amp l e i n s p e c t i o n p r o j e c t s p r o v i d e d u n d e r S pe c i a l i ze d E x p e r i en c e an d T ec h n i ca l Co mp e t e n c e , i n 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. Firms may include any ratings, letters of appreciation or performance, awards etc., for relevant experience; however, Federal database content (CPARS) ratings will be evaluated more advantageously.

Firms will be evaluated to determine their 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, logistics, costs and climatic conditions.

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 all offerors against the selection criteria, the board will hold discussions with the top three firms. If fewer than three firms have submitted qualification packages, the board will hold discussions with each submitting firm. After the discussions are complete, the board will rank the top three firms (or top firms, if fewer than three qualification packages have been received) and request a pricing proposal from the highest ranked firm. If pricing from the most highly qualified firm is determined to be f a i r a n d reasonable, a contract will be awarded to that firm. T he 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 rating of Unacceptable for ANY of the five evaluation criteria. If all offerors have earned a rating of Marginal for ANY of the five evaluation criteria, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract to any of the offerors.