Attach_2_-_Steam_Trap_A-E_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Evaluation Factors

Architect-Engineering Services for Investigation

FTQW 18-1024, Repair Base Steam Traps

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. 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 ensuring the submission of past performance questionnaires 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 being 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;

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. Adjectival Ratings: Each selection criteria will use adjectival ratings to determine firm’s overall selection rating. Recent projects include most or all project performance completed within the last seven (7) years. Example projects submitted that are not considered recent will not be included in evaluation for this project. Adjectival ratings include:

A. Relevancy: Relevant work includes experience with cold climate (sub-arctic or arctic*) design; experience with designing mechanical steam utility systems; experience with utilidor systems; experience with steam trap components to include evaluation and design; experience mapping using GIS; experience with DoD facility design and DoD projects; experience with working in confined spaces and sites with hazardous materials/conditions. Experience in design of projects that include the above elements and whose design fees were between $100,000 and $250,000 and construction value between $500,000 and $1 Million.

*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.

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved most or all of the listed areas of experience in Para 3.A above, scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this project requires.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved many of the listed areas of experience in Para 3.A above, scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this project requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the listed areas of experience in Para 3.A above, scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this project requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved none of the listed areas of experience in Para 3.A above, scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this project requires.

B. Technical/Performance Rating:

Adjectival

Rating Description

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, may have a few weaknesses, but has no deficiencies.

Acceptable

Submittal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Submittal has no strengths, does have weaknesses, but has no deficiencies.

Marginal

Submittal does not clearly meet requirements and has multiple or significant weaknesses, but has no deficiencies.

Unacceptable

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

C. Confidence Rating:

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant and rated performance record and specialized experience, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and rated performance record and specialized experience the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent, relevant, and rated performance record and specialized experience is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent, relevant, and rated performance record and specialized experience, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully performance the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent, relevant, and rated performance record and specialized experience, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. 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 work. Firms with greater breadth of in-house expertise will be rated higher than those needing to hire sub-consultants. The offeror’s team shall include staff members licensed in the

State of Alaska in the following disciplines:

1) Mechanical Engineer

2) Civil Engineer

3) Land Surveyor

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

1) Project/Program Manager

2) Industrial Hygienist (certified) (hazmat surveying and preparing abatement and worker protection specifications)

3) Cost Estimator

Professional Qualifications will be evaluated on the technical/performance adjectival ratings shown in paragraph 3-B.

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 recency and relevancy as defined above.

1) Example Projects: 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 areas of work as defined in paragraph 3-A, however, do not submit more than five projects total, any projects submitted after the first five projects will not be included in the evaluation. 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 task order that includes the relevant work as defined in paragraph 3-A or a single/stand-alone contract.

a) 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. 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. 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.

b) Example projects evaluation will consider recency at defined in paragraph 3, the relevancy as defined in paragraph 3-A, and will give greater weight to those projects deemed most similar to the project for which the design team is being rated.

Specialized Experience and Technical Competance shall meet recency as defined in paragraph 3 and each project will be evaluated for relevancy as defined in paragraph 3-A. The relevancy ratings for each project will be combined with the project’s given performance ratings in order to establish the firm’s confidence rating as defined in paragraph 3-C.

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:

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

2) 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).

3) Greater weight will be given to offerors who provide quantitative data to support an assertion of sufficient work-load capacity.

Capacity will be evaluated on the technical/performance adjectival ratings shown in paragraph 3-C.

D. Past Performance: Forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) of this synopsis, to each example project’s point of contact. Completed PPQ forms can be submitted by the person completing the form directly to the 354 CONS point of contact listed on the form or with the firm’s SF 330 package, and will become a permanent part of the firms' proposal package. Offerors are responsible for ensuring past performance questionnaires they wish to be considered as part of the Government evaluation are submitted before the closing date of this synopsis. In addition to past performance information provided, the Government’s evaluation may include information available within the DoD, Federal, state, private industry or other sources.

Firms may provide additional PPQs, additional ratings, letters of appreciation, or performance awards etc., for relevant experience; however, Federal database content and PPQs will be given greater weight in the evaluation. Reponses will be evaluated to determine firms’ ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction.

Past performance shall meet recency as defined in paragraph 3 and each project will be evaluated for relevancy as defined in paragraph 3-A. The relevancy ratings for each project will be combined with the project’s given performance ratings in order to establish the firm’s confidence rating as defined in paragraph 3-C.

E. Geographic proximity and knowledge of locality: SF-330, Part I, Block H. In single page narrative form demonstrate firm’s knowledge of locality to include local conditions knowledge of, and experience dealing with, the regulatory agencies, geological features, logistics, climatic conditions, namely subarctic conditions as defined above and local design and construction methods as well as knowledge of the area of Eielson AFB, AK. Firm’s physical geographic proximity to the general area of the requiring activity (firms in Alaska) will be rated higher than firms not in the physical geographic proximity to the general area of the requiring activity (firms outside of Alaska). Physical geographic proximity will not be weighed as high as knowledge of locality.

Geographic proximity and knowledge of locality will be evaluated on the technical/performance adjectival ratings shown in paragraph 3-B.

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 and will evaluate a maximum of two additional firms SF 330s that have similar project work experience from the architect-engineer qualifications data file maintained in accordance with FAR 36.603 and will contact these firms to establish firm’s interest in the project. After the discussions are complete, the board will rank the top three firms and request a pricing proposal from the board’s final selected firm. If pricing from the final selected firm is determined to be fair and reasonable, a contract will be awarded to that firm.

The Contracting Officer (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 evaluation criteria. If all offerors have earned a rating of Marginal, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence for ANY of the five evaluation criteria, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract to any of the offerors.