AE24DORMS Synopsis - 031524.pdf

AMENDMENT 03 – The purpose of this Amendment 03 is to incorporate the a ached Ques ons and

Answers, dated 031524, resul ng from the original synopsis pos ng, and provide the associated, applicable updates to the synopsis, as highlighted in yellow in this document. The original pos ng included in the body of the SAM synopsis is deleted to ensure there is no discrepancy of informa on.

The full, revised synopsis is included below. As part of your SF330 submission, please be sure to

ACKNOWLEDGE ALL AMENDMENTS. Note that the due date and me for the SF330 submission remains

Monday, 25 March 2024 at 1400 Central Time.

AMENDMENT 02 ‐ AMENDMENT 02 ‐ Offerors are advised that responses to Contractor ques ons and the revised synopsis will be provided no later than 15 March 2024. There will be no significant changes to the selec on criteria ‐ only clarifica ons of submission expecta ons. The SF330 due date is extended to

March 25, 2024 by 2:00 pm Central (San Antonio, TX) Time. This amendment also corrects the Contract

Specialist's email address. Note the correct email address for Joyce Cavin is joyce.cavin@us.af.mil

AMENDMENT 01 ‐ PLEASE USE ATTACHMENT 2 "Ques on & Answer" Spreadsheet to consolidate all ques ons and submit to the contacts noted in the synopsis below, by the due date and me stated. NOTE:

If you have already submi ed ques ons via email, please add those ques ons to A achment 2 in a single, consolidated response. Please also note that a new Contract Specialist has been added to the

AE24DORMS Team. As such, please ensure all correspondence for this synopsis also includes Ms. Joyce

Cavin at joyce.cavin@us.af.mil (also updated in the contacts list below).

TITLE: Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) Worldwide Architect‐Engineering (A‐E) Title I, Title II and

Other A‐E Services for Dormitory Facili es (AE24DORMS) Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quan ty (IDIQ)

Mul ple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP). There is no solicita on package to download. All informa on required to submit SF330 documents is contained herein.

In accordance with OMB Control Number: 9000‐0157, the Air Force acknowledges that the most recent

SF330 expired on 2/29/2024. Accordingly, Offerors may choose to submit their SF330 in accordance with the expired version, or any latest, updated version, so long as submissions address each selec on criteria iden fied in this synopsis. Note that submission of the SF330 Part II is not a requirement for this synopsis.

The SF 330 submission is due at 1400 Central Time on Monday, 25 March 2024 via email to the

Contrac ng Officer, Ms. Brindle T. Summers at brindle.summers@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialists, Capt Sean Conroy at sean.conroy.2@us.af.mil, SrA Courage Krueger at courage.krueger@us.af.mil, and

Joyce Cavin at joyce.cavin@us.af.mil. THE OFFEROR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING THAT THEIR

SF330 WAS RECEIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. DO NOT EXCEED 8MB IN THE EMAIL TRANSMITTAL, OR

THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT RECEIVE YOUR SUBMISSION. If email a achments exceed 8MB in size, please contact the Government at least two days prior to the SF330 due date for instruc ons to provide files via DoDSAFE website. All PPQs/CPARS should be combined into a single pdf document. The SF330 should be its own separate pdf document. Both documents should be included in the same email or DoD

SAFE transmission.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Air Force Installa on Contrac ng Center (AFICC)/772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (772 ESS) in conjunc on with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), Joint Base San Antonio ‐ Lackland Air Force

Base, TX, and its customer the United States Air Force (USAF) desires to contract with Small Business (SB)

Architect‐Engineer (A‐E) firms to support the USAF worldwide dormitory facili es mission. The 772 ESS an cipates award of an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quan ty (IDIQ) Mul ple Award Task Order Contract

(MATOC) contract for A‐E services to support the dormitory and ver cal construc on facility design mission at installa ons supported by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air Na onal

Guard, Air Force Reserve, allied na ons, and others. These A‐E Services for dormitory and ver cal construc on facili es include Title I, Title II, and other associated A‐E services with a total contract ceiling of $49M, shared among all contract holders.

The 772 ESS an cipates making awards to three to five Small Business firms. The Government reserves the right to award to more firms, fewer firms, or none. The Task Order limita on will be a minimum of

$2,500 and maximum of $5M, subject to the condi ons of FAR 52.216‐19 ‐ Order Limita ons.

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.

In making the Most Highly Qualified selec on, the Evalua on Board may conduct interviews with Highly

Qualified Offerors (by phone, in person, or in wri ng) to move forward with the final selec on process.

ORDERING PERIOD AND CONTRACT TYPE: Each basic IDIQ contract within the MATOC will have an ordering period comprised of a three‐year base period, with a two‐year op on period. This MATOC allows for the issuance of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) nego ated task orders during the ordering period. While labor rates will not ini ally be nego ated on the basic contract, the Government will nego ate labor rates with the first project task order Request For Proposal (RFP) received by each firm, and will incorporate such rates into the basic contract for use on future task orders awarded to that firm. If the Government and the A‐E cannot agree to labor rates, the Government may off‐ramp the A‐E firm from the contract award.

INTENT: Small Business firms that perform DoD A‐E dormitory facility services described in this synopsis must submit an SF330 to be considered for award. At the Task Order level, a more in‐depth evalua on will occur to determine the most highly qualified (MHQ) firm for the type of work required by that task order, with specific geographical knowledge of the locality and capacity of the firm to perform that specific task taken heavily into considera on in the task order selec on decision. Offerors shall keep in mind that task orders may require performance in any US state or country where the US Government has a presence.

PRIME OFFEROR SUBMISSION AND USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: THIS PARAGRAPH APPLIES TO THE

FOLLOWING DISCIPLINES/FIRM TYPES ONLY: Project Management, Mechanical Engineering, Civil

Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Interior Design, Structural Engineering, and Title II Construc on

Inspec on Services. A Firm specializing in and proposing to perform any of these disciplines on this resultant contract shall only propose one me – a Firm can either serve as a Prime Offeror, or as part of a

JV‐Prime Offeror, or as a Teaming Partner to another prime. A Firm cannot be part of a JV‐Offeror and also submit as another Prime or Teaming Partner to another Prime. A Firm also cannot submit as a

Teaming Partner to more than one Prime. Conversely, a Firm cannot propose as both a Prime and a

Teaming Partner to another Prime. In the case where one Firm is represented on mul ple SF330’s, the

Offerors submi ng those SF330’s may be excluded from evalua on/considera on. Where a Firm has affiliated, sister, and/or a parent companies within it’s overall organiza on, if any engineering resources are shared within, among, or across that organiza on, those individual companies are considered part of the same “Firm”, and thus shall not be part of more than one SF330. For Prime Offerors that have affiliated en es: A Prime can use experience from an affiliated firm. However, that Affiliate cannot then duplicate their own experience (or that of the Prime Offeror) in a separate Prime Offeror SF330, or as a

Teaming Partner to another Prime's SF330. Alterna vely, your firm's Affiliate can provide its own SF330, but then cannot use your firm's experience if you also submit as a Prime or Teaming Partner on another

SF330.

The specialty disciplines iden fied in this synopsis, such as Fire Protec on Engineering, Cost Es ma ng, and Scheduling, DO NOT REQUIRE EXCLUSIVITY. Furthermore, any engineering disciplines not specifically iden fied for submission in the selec on criteria of this synopsis need NOT include a Teaming

Arrangement, and DOES NOT require exclusivity (i.e. Cybersecurity, Geo‐Technical services, etc).

The Government may exclude a SF330 from this compe on without evalua ng it against the selec on criteria below, if an ini al assessment of the SF330 shows it to be non‐compliant. Non‐compliant SF330s are SF330s that fail to address essen al requirements of this synopsis, fail to furnish informa on demonstra ng compliance with mandatory synopsis requirements, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable effort by the Offeror to sa sfy the requirements of the synopsis.

Firms selected as MHQ for this DoD AE24DORMS MATOC and issued a Task Order Request For Proposal will be required to submit and nego ate one composite labor rate per labor category/discipline, to be incorporated into the contract. The Government will not separately nego ate teaming partner rates.

If Teaming Partners are used for the primary disciplines iden fied 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 Construc on Inspector (Title II) and Primary *ENGINEERING* Disciplines (Mechanical

Engineer, Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Interior Design, Structural Engineer, Fire Protec on

Engineer). Submission of formal teaming arrangements will also be required for any proposed teaming partner that performs Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) and/or Fixed Furniture and Equipment (FF&E) design services. 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 MATOC will be procured in accordance with the Selec on of Architect‐

Engineers Act (40 USC Sec ons 1101‐1104, previously known as the “Brooks Act”), as implemented by

FAR 36.6. Firms will be selected as a MHQ firm in accordance with the selec on criteria. iden fied below. The North American Industrial Classifica on System (NAICS) code is 541330, which has a size standard of $25,500,000, applies to this MATOC. To receive award, contractors must be registered in the

System for Award Management (SAM) website at h p://www.sam.gov. This synopsis and any resultant contract awards do not guarantee work to selected firms. However, the minimum guarantee of $2,500 will be provided to all firms selected for award of this MATOC and requires the firm to a end a ½ day

Post‐Award conference in San Antonio, TX.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: This contract will support the award of AFCEC Worldwide A‐E Title I, Title II, and Other A‐E Services primarily for Dormitory Facili es, as iden fied in individual Task Orders.

General Scope:

This requirement is for a MATOC IDIQ for A‐E Title I, Title II, and Other A‐E Services primarily for

Dormitory Facili es (AE24DORMS). Task orders shall incorporate A‐E services in support of the Air Force

(AF) dormitory facili es at worldwide loca ons, with a primary focus on those installa ons within the

Con guous United States (CONUS). These A‐E services comprise the renova on of exis ng facili es, demoli on, repair, or replacement of AF dormitory facili es through Title I, Title II, and Other A‐E services necessary to complete individual task order requirements at loca ons worldwide.

DEFINITIONS:

The following defini ons aid in the prepara on of the Offeror’s SF 330.

"Project" defines work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER of an IDIQ type contract or a C‐

Type CONTRACT. This defini on does not consider an IDIQ type of basic contract, in and of itself, as a project. A single, stand alone, site‐specific contract represents another defini on for "Project." For the purposes of this evalua on, a “project” means a Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facility A‐E project (not construc on). “Project” also denotes the design por on of a Design‐Build (DB) construc on 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.

"Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facili es" includes dormitory facili es located on a United

States DoD installa on (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air Na onal Guard, or Air Force

Reserve bases). This defini on does not include facili es on a Coast Guard base, NASA loca on, or other federal, commercial, or private facility. DoD dormitory facili es include those components included in the Air Force Category Code 721312. “Air Force dormitory facili es” follow the same defini on as “DoD dormitory facili es,” except that the facili es are exclusive to the Air Force.

"Relevant Project" includes Title I, Title II, and Other A‐E services for DoD Dorm facili es mee ng the defini on of “project” above. A relevant project may include both Title I and Title II services as long as the project meets the defini ons of "project" and "relevant project." The specific defini ons of Title I, Title II, and Other A‐E services are as follows:

“Title I Services” include engineering services related to a specific construc on project and consist of conduc ng field surveys and inves ga ons to obtain design data and preparing contract plans, specifica ons, cost es mates, and es mated construc on periods of performance. Title I services may include all aspects of design, such as prepara on and review of contract plans, specifica ons, scheduling, cost es mates, Building Informa on 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 prepara on of opera ng and design manuals. This A‐E contract limits system commissioning requirements to genera ng the appropriate commissioning specifica ons. Title I efforts also encompass Other A‐E Services required to support and develop design work, planning and programming, program management, project scoping, studies, inves ga ons, evalua ons, consulta ons, conceptual design, value engineering, opera on services, monitoring services, topographic survey services, and infrastructure systems.

“Title II Services” include services related to a specific construc on project and consist of supervision and inspec on of construc on ac vi es. Title II services may include all aspects of construc on quality assurance and oversight of facility and infrastructure construc on/ renova on projects and may include oversight of incidental environmental projects associated with primary requirements. Title II Services include construc on phase creden aled architectural and engineering support services that encompass a full range of disciplinary exper se and services to include on‐site construc on oversight assistance, design reviews, quality assurance inspec ons, adherence to applicable specifica ons, construc on schedule analysis, material submi al reviews, environmental submi al reviews, claim reviews, post‐ construc on award services, and designer of record support, and other standard construc on submi al reviews. .

“Other A‐E Services” include design and construc on‐related services of an architectural or engineering nature or services incidental to studies, inves ga ons, surveying and mapping, tests, evalua ons, consulta ons, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifica ons, value engineering, construc on phase services, soils geotechnical engineering, drawing reviews, prepara on of opera ng and maintenance manuals, development of design criteria, and other related services that logically or jus fiably require performance by registered architects, engineers, or other employees. The study and inves ga on services may include, but are not limited to, work necessary to support the comple on of Title I design services, including structural engineering forensic analysis, seismic assessments, fire water flow tests, prepara on of As‐Built drawings, services of consultants, where not specifically applied to the prepara on of designs, plans, drawings or specifica ons, performance of expert witness tes mony, An terrorism and Force Protec on vulnerability assessments, u li es capacity studies, hazardous materials assessments, topographic, u lity and right‐of‐way surveys, vibra on analyses, prepara on of models or renderings, NEPA documenta on, environmental impact assessments, statements, and suppor ng data, geotechnical inves ga ons, roof and envelope assessments, mold studies, and energy studies. The planning and programming support services may include, but are not limited to, the development of comprehensive/master plans, Installa on Development Plans, and Area Development Plans.

"Completed projects" means the firm performed and finished the A‐E contract or task order for design and/or construc on support services within the past ten years from the date this synopsis was posted. “Completed Project” also defines the design por on of a Design‐Build contract or task order that the Prime Contractor (AE firm) submi ng 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 over one or more construc on contracts under one contract. This includes Title II contracts covering mul ple construc on contracts with one or more incomplete construc on contracts and at least one or more complete construc on projects covered under the contract.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

SELECTION CRITERIA ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE:

The Government will evaluate SF 330s to determine the most highly qualified firms. All projects iden fied in the SF 330 must have been performed by the office/branch/individual team member performing the work under this contract. The evalua on will exclude projects not performed by the proposed office/branch/individual team member.

While there is no defined ‘ra ng scheme’ in this synopsis, the technical evalua on board will assign ra ngs during SF330 evalua on based on the selec on criteria below.

The following lists the Selec on Criteria in descending order of importance:

1. Criterion 1: Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

2. Criterion 2: Professional Qualifica ons

3. Criterion 3: Capacity to Accomplish the Work

4. Criterion 4: Past Performance

5. Criterion 5: Knowledge of the Locality

CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, Proposed Team (2 pages): In one page or less, the Offeror shall iden fy their proposed team, inclusive of the Prime Contractor and any teaming partners required to perform work under the resultant contract, to include the size status of each Teaming Partner (SB or Other than SB, in accordance with NAICS 541330). ONLY IDENTIFY PRIME/TEAMING PARTNERS associated with each of the following Disciplines, to include iden fying the name of the firm that is proposed to perform those services: Project Management, Construc on Inspec on (On‐site Title II), Mechanical Engineering, Civil

Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Interior Design, Structural Engineering, Fire Protec on Engineering, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), Fixed Furniture and Equipment (FF&E) design services, Construc on Cost

Es ma ng, and Construc on Schedule Development/Analysis. DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER DISCIPLINES

OR IDENTIFY ANY OTHER CONSULTANTS/SUB‐CONSULTANTS, ETC, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DISCIPLINES

SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH. (Ensure the informa on provided in SF330 PART 1, SECTION C, directly aligns with the informa on provided in this proposed team narra ve).

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, Proposed Team, con nued: On the second page, the Offeror shall provide a narra ve en tled, “Compliance with FAR 52.219‐14” that is limited to no more than one page and shall summarize how the Prime Offeror proposes to meet the requirements of FAR 52.219‐14) (October 2022)

Limita ons in Subcontrac ng. Prime Offerors are reminded that similarly situated en es can team with the SB Prime Offeror to ensure the 50% threshold is met. NOTE: Joint Venture (JV) Prime en es are considered PRIME Contractors, and therefore any work performed by the Prime JV Firm or any of its

Prime JV en es are considered to be executed by the “Prime,” and will also count toward the 50% threshold required by FAR 52.219‐14 (October 2022), assuming that JV Prime appropriately submi ed as a Small Business en ty.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, Project Experience (1 page per project): Offerors shall submit a minimum of two and up to five Title I and Title II project descrip ons of relevant and completed projects (see defini ons above), not to exceed one page per project, by the Prime Offeror (and/or its Teaming

Partners). Each Offeror shall submit at least one project for Title I services and at least one project for

Title II services. Note the evalua on method below and ensure the project descrip ons are detailed enough for the Government to understand the project’s scope, size, and extent of engineering required.

A relevant project may include Title I and Title II services as long as the project meets the defini ons of

“project” and “relevant project.” Clearly delineate the work / scoped performed for Title I and Title II

Services to enable evalua on team to discern the work performed.

For each project submi ed, Offerors shall specify the scope of work (engineering disciplines) accomplished by the Prime and individual teaming partners. For Joint Venture Offerors, engineering disciplines performed by either en ty of the Joint Venture or the JV itself are considered the Prime and are not considered “teaming partners.” Use SF330 Sec on F, to capture project descrip ons. If a project includes both Title I and Title II services, you may treat each ac on separately, so describe the Title I services as one project with a maximum of one page, and the Title II services as a separate project with its own maximum of one page.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, Experience with LCCA (1 page) and FF&E (1 page): In addi on to the project descrip ons above, Offerors shall also provide a one‐page narra ve (maximum) that describes experience with Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). Similarly, Offerors shall provide a one‐page (maximum) narra ve that describes experience with Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) packages. For the

LCCA and FF&E narra ves, Offerors shall describe the scope of work (not restricted to DoD dormitory facili es), ar culate the services provided for the LCCA and FF&E efforts (as applicable) and if the work was self‐performed by the Prime Offeror proposing on this synopsis, or if a teaming partner was u lized. Note that the Offeror may provide experience with LCCA and FF&E from a teaming partner. If a contract award results from this synopsis, the Prime Offeror must use that teaming partner for the performance of LCCA and/or FF&E services at the task order level.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business

Rela onships (3 pages): The Prime Contractor is accountable for all work products. Therefore, it is crucial that the MHQ Firms demonstrate proficient management of schedules, uphold the quality of deliverables, and maintain strong business rela onships, whether the work elements are executed in‐ house by the Prime or by a teaming partner. The Government considers the longer the length of the rela onships and more projects completed together as a “strong” rela onship. The Offeror must submit a narra ve, limited to no more than 3 pages, that outlines the Prime Offeror’s capacity to effec vely manage schedules, coordinate design deliverables, ensure quality control, and demonstrate seamless collabora on with internal staff and teaming partners (Business Rela onships). The narra ve should ar culate the Prime Offeror’s partnering philosophy to cul vate and maintain rela onships among the

A/E, its team, and Government stakeholders.

The narra ve should also provide illustra ve examples of the impact on schedule and quality derived from the implementa on of this philosophy in previous contracts involving proposed team members

(both Prime and any teaming partners), as applicable. Finally, the narra ve should delineate design quality management procedures that enhance overall quality, minimize re‐submi als, and improve delivery efficiency. The narra ve should include procedures for effec ve and comprehensive quality control that emphasize the roles and responsibili es of the Prime and any teaming partner, as applicable. Outline past experiences collabora ng with proposed team members and expound on the history of these working rela onships, inclusive of joint venture and teaming partners. (Note that the business rela onship por on of this narra ve will be used in the evalua on of the remaining Criterion 2

– 5 below).

EVALUATION METHOD: The Government encourages Offerors to review the evalua on method below to ensure project submissions and narra ves provide enough informa on for the Government to determine the extent of the Offeror's experience, and management of schedule, design deliverables, quality, and business rela onships.

Sub‐sec ons a through e below are listed in descending order of importance, with more considera on given to a greater breadth/number of relevant projects submi ed. Further, for each category a through e below, the higher the value of the project, the more considera on that may be given.

Finally, for categories a and b below, the greater the number of disciplines involved in a project, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned. Disciplines include architecture, civil engineering, communica ons systems design, cost es ma ng services, electrical engineering, fire protec on engineering, interior design, mechanical engineering, scheduling services, structural engineering, LCCA, and FF&E:

a. Highest considera on will be given to project experience specific to Air Force dormitory Title I design services that comply with AFI 32‐6000 Chapter 11. The greater the extent of experience, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned.

b. More considera on will be given to Offerors that demonstrate A‐E Title I services for new construc on or repairs of DoD dormitory facili es. The greater the extent of experience, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned.

c. The greater the extent of experience performing LCCA required by UFC 1‐200‐02 High

Performance and Sustainable Buildings, UFC 3‐740‐05 Construc on Cost Es ma ng, 10 CFR Part

436 Subpart A, and NIST Handbook 135, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned.

d. The greater the extent of experience performing FF&E packages, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned. Offerors that demonstrate Title I services associated with AF Blanket Purchase

Agreements (BPA) for FF&E packages for any type of AF facility – required by UFC 3‐120‐10

Interior Design and UFGS 12 00 01.00 20 Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned.

e. The greater the extent and breadth of experience performing Title II projects where the Offeror provided construc on‐phase creden aled architectural and engineering support services, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned, no ng that Title II experience of Air Force Dormitories will provide greatest considera on, followed by DoD Dormitories, and then other ver cal facility

(building) construc on (in that order.) While “other ver cal facility construc on” is not included in the defini on of a ‘relevant’ project, for purposes of evalua ng Title II experience, the

Government will consider non‐dormitory ver cal facility (building) construc on as well. Do not include projects for Title II services for civil/horizontal construc on (roadways, paving, airfields, pipelines, electrical distribu on, etc, as this type of work will not considered and thus will not contribute toward your ra ng.)

The project experience and LCCA/FF&E experience demonstrated by the Offeror in this criterion will form the basis of the ini al ra ng assigned. The Government will then consider the strength of the

Offeror’s response to the Management of Schedule, Quality, and Business Rela onships when determining the final ra ng for this criterion. More considera on may be given when an Offeror’s narra ve demonstrates successful schedule and quality management strategies, and a history of strong business rela onships between the Prime and its teaming partners, if applicable. Lesser considera on may be given where the Offeror’s narra ve does not demonstrate successful schedule and quality management strategies, or where business rela onships between the Prime and its teaming partners are less strong.

For Criterion 1, Offerors will NOT be evaluated on por on of the narra ve en tled “Compliance with FAR

52.219‐14”. However, each Offeror that is selected as the Most Highly Qualified will have this por on of their narra ve evaluated by the Contrac ng Officer during the Responsibility Determina on in accordance with FAR 9.104‐1, prior to award. Narra ves that support a realis c approach to achieving the 50% performance requirement will contribute favorably to the Responsibility Determina on.

Narra ves that do NOT support a realis c approach to achieving the 50% performance requirement may result in a determina on of Non‐Responsibility and result in an ac on that is unawardable.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D AND E, CRITERION (2) PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Provide the data for Sec on E of each proposed key person iden fied below. Each key person is responsible for the execu on, management, and quality control of their specific area of exper se/discipline and must be assigned to each task order to oversee the work, with the Lead Project

Manager responsible for overall Task Order management. Each resume shall include a maximum of five

(5) specific, relevant, and completed projects (see defini ons above) that best illustrate the qualifica ons of the individual member for the posi on the Offeror proposes for the key member. Project Manager, ensure key personnel completed projects include at least one DoD dormitory project, where required below. Sec on 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 and creden als held, years with the company, and educa on. Proposed key personnel shall be current ac ve “cer fied payroll” employees of their respec ve firm (Prime or Teaming Partner) and that “contract, zero hour, and consul ng” staff will not be considered to meet the current Key Personnel requirement. The

Government will use a combina on of criteria below to determine the ability of the staff to contribute to the successful comple on of project task orders. An individual may serve in the role of no more than two disciplines if they hold the appropriate qualifica ons for those roles.

A er award, if the contractor needs to replace a key person iden fied in their originally submi ed SF330, the contractor must replace that individual with someone of equal or greater experience and qualifica ons, for approval by the Contrac ng Officer.

In the SF 330, Part 1, Sec on D, provide an organiza onal chart that iden fies the members of the program team, to include the key personnel. Indicate the branch office loca on of each team member. 11x17 format is acceptable for this organiza onal chart.

The individuals filling the role of each of the following posi ons are considered key personnel and must be assigned to each task order for their respec ve posi ons:

a. Lead Project Manager (must include at least One DoD Dorm Project as PM)

b. Lead Construc on Inspector (Title II)

The following individuals must be licensed in their respec ve disciplines:

c. Lead Architect (must include at least One DoD Dorm Project as Architect)

d. Lead Interior Designer (needs at least two DoD projects with Comprehensive Interior Design

(CID) that include a Structural Interior Design (SID) and Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment

(FF&E) and must include at least One DoD dorm project)

e. Lead Mechanical Engineer

f. Lead Electrical Engineer

g. Lead Civil Engineer

h. Lead Structural Engineer

i. Lead Fire Protec on Engineer

The Government expects these individuals will provide program level quality control and oversight of the task orders that result from this acquisi on. The Government’s Corporate Contrac ng Officer (CCO)

MUST approve any changes to the proposed key team members a er submission of qualifica ons.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The evalua on will consider the extent and breadth of relevant experience, professional licensure, and longevity with the firm for each key person, with more considera on given to key personnel employed by the Offeror, and to Key Personnel employed by teaming partners where the Offeror demonstrated a history of a strong and successful rela onship with that teaming partner in the “Management of

Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Rela onships” narra ve submission from Criterion 1. For teaming partner/sub‐consultant key personnel, the evalua on will consider current and former rela onships with the Offeror, with more considera on given to longer/direct rela onships. At a minimum, the Lead Project Manager, Lead Architect, and Lead Interior Designer, must each demonstrate experience with at least one DoD Dorm project. Resumes that include projects of the following categories will be evaluated more favorably, in the following descending order of importance:

1. Resumes that include Title I and Title II Air Force Dorm projects submi ed in Criterion (1)

2. Resumes that include Title I or Title II Air Force Dorm projects

3. Resumes that include Title I and Title II DoD Dorm projects submi ed in Criterion (1)

4. Resumes that include Title I or Title II DoD Dorm Projects

5. Resumes that include Title I or Title II projects for DoD ver cal construc on

6. Resumes that include Title I or Title II projects for Non‐DoD ver cal construc on

7. Lead Architect, Lead Interior Designer, and Lead Engineering posi ons (Key Personnel c through i above) must be licensed in their respec ve engineering disciplines, with more considera on given to a greater number of state/jurisdic on licensures

8. Resumes submi ed where the key member performed in the role proposed for this contract may also earn a more favorable evalua on

Key personnel proposed in the SF330 must each have 10 years of experience in their respec ve discipline, with the excep on of the Lead Project Manager who can demonstrate this experience as a

Project Manager or as an Engineer, and the Construc on Inspector (Title II), who must demonstrate at least 10 years of experience in the construc on industry, to include at least 3 years of experience performing DoD construc on projects as an on‐site Quality Control Manager, onsite Construc on

Manager, or an onsite Project Engineer. Key personnel proposed that exceed the minimum requirements, will receive a higher ra ng. The more experience each proposed key person has in their respec ve category, the higher the ra ng that may be assigned. The Prime must employ the Lead

Project Manager. Ensure every posi on has a person proposed. The Government will interpret any blank elements of Sec on E as the key person not possessing that experience.

SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (3) CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The offeror shall demonstrate capacity by providing the following:

1. The number of simultaneous Title I projects with an engineering services value of at least

$1,000,000, the Offeror can complete in a 12‐month period – Offeror shall provide a narra ve discussion to support the response. Limit the narra ve to one page.

2. The number of simultaneous Title II projects that require home office support of technical submi als, as well as one (1) full me on‐site Title II inspector with a 24‐month field construc on dura on, the Offeror can complete over the 24‐month period for a project with a

$10,000,000 es mated cost of construc on ‐ Offeror shall provide a narra ve discussion to support the response, to include how the onsite Title II inspector will be resourced among the

Prime and its teaming partners (if teaming partners are applicable). Limit the narra ve to one page.

EVALUATION METHOD:

Evalua on will occur as follows:

1. The greater the extent of capacity for Title I projects that can be completed in a 12‐month period, the more favorable the evalua on.

2. The greater the extent of capacity of Title II projects that can be completed in a 24‐month period, the more favorable the evalua on.

3. Where the Offeror proposes teaming partners to demonstrate Capacity, the ra ng assigned may be adjusted more or less favorable, based on the strength of rela onships demonstrated in the narra ve submission from Criterion 1, “Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and

Business Rela onships”.

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION H, CRITERION (4) PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall provide current and valid customer points of contact (name, posi on/role, email, and phone numbers) for each project submi ed in Criterion (1). Also submit Contractor Performance

Assessment Repor ng System (CPARS) evalua ons for each project submi ed in Criterion (1). DO NOT

SUBMIT ADDITIONAL CPARS OR PPQs. The Government encourages firms to contact the appropriate government Project Managers, Contrac ng Officers (CO), or Contrac ng Officer's Representa ves (COR) to ensure CPARS evalua ons are submi ed on completed government projects, par cularly for those projects submi ed under Criterion (1). If a finalized CPARS evalua on is not available, Offerors may submit a Past Performance Ques onnaire (PPQ) for completed design work. In addi on to stand alone design contracts/task orders,” completed design work” includes designs completed on a DB contract, even if the construc on por on is not yet completed. However, the PPQ shall only address the completed design por on and the quality of that design work, if known. The PPQ is A achment 2 to this synopsis. Contractors may use previously completed PPQs for contracts s ll in progress. Submit CPARS and PPQs to the Contract Specialist (CS), Senior Airman (SrA) Courage Krueger, via email at courage.krueger@us.af.mil, Joyce Cavin at joyce.cavin@us.af.mil, and the CO, Ms. Brindle Summers at, brindle.summers@us.af.mil in the same email transmi al as the SF330 – if the email is expected to exceed 8MB, contact the CO and CS AT LEAST TWO DAYS prior to the due date to coordinate an effec ve submission methodology. All PPQs/CPARS should be combined into a single pdf document. The SF330 should be its own separate pdf document. Include both documents in the same email or DoD SAFE transmission. The Air Force will not be responsible for late submissions or last‐minute requests. The

Offeror is responsible for ensuring submissions are received by the Air Force mely.

In addi on to informa on submi ed by the Offeror, the Government may consider informa on obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Repor ng System (CPARS) and any other sources deemed necessary by the Government, for any relevant project (as defined above) completed by the Offeror within the past five (5) years from the date this synopsis issued. This may include contac ng the customers submi ed with this Criterion.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The Government may evaluate all available past performance informa on for projects deemed recent and relevant to assess performance, with more considera on given to past performance of projects submi ed in Criterion (1).

SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (5) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

The Offeror shall furnish a logical narra ve, not to exceed two pages, that describes the Prime Offeror's

(and/or its Teaming Partner’s) experience performing design services for DoD Facili es within the United

States and its territories, and other regions worldwide. The narra ve shall briefly demonstrate knowledge/experience with as many states and US territories as applicable and shall iden fy any experience worldwide. The Government will consider any informa on that may be per nent to this criterion. Experience for this criterion does not need to be for DoD Dorm projects.

EVALUATION METHOD:

This criterion evaluates Offerors on the extent of geographical experience/knowledge within the US and its territories, as well as knowledge/ experience working DoD projects in other regions worldwide. The greater the extent of experience in the US and its territories is more important that experience in other regions worldwide. This synopsis does not require Offerors to work in mul ple regions. However, demonstrated experience performed in a greater number of loca ons and mul ple regions may be evaluated more favorably.

Where the Offeror proposes teaming partners to demonstrate Knowledge of Locality, the ra ng assigned may be adjusted based on the strength of rela onships demonstrated in the narra ve submission from

Criterion 1, “Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Rela onships”.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE TO INITIAL DORM DESIGN TASK ORDERS:

DO NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO THIS SECTION IN YOUR SF330. THIS SECTION IS ONLY TO PROVIDE

EARLY INFORMATION FOR FIRMS SELECTED AS THE MOST HIGHLY QUALIFIED FOR AWARD OF THIS BASIC

MATOC.

To streamline the acquisi on meline and selec on of the Most Highly Qualified Firms for award of the first few Dorm Design Task Orders that will be awarded against this resultant MATOC, Offerors that are interested in being considered for those projects at the Task Order Level, shall also be prepared to respond to the following Request for Qualifica ons (RFQ) for EACH project loca on the firm is interested in performing both Title I design and Title II Construc on services. The RFQ will be sent to the Most

Highly Qualified Firms that are selected for award of this MATOC, CONCURRENTLY WITH the Pre‐award no ce for Small Business firms IAW FAR 15.503(a)(2). The RFQ may require a response from the Most

Highly Qualified firms within three business days.

Upon award of the Basic MATOC, the Government will have already evaluated the response to the RFQs, and thus the firms selected as the Most Highly Qualified for the ini al Task Orders will receive an RFP to nego ate the fee for those projects, to include all labor rates applicable to the Basic MATOC, even if not used for the first Task Orders. An escala on for out‐years will also be included in the nego a on of labor rates. The labor rates nego ated with the first task orders will then be incorporated into the Base

Contract awards for use on future Task Orders.

The RFQ for the ini al project Task Orders will state that selec on of the task orders will be in accordance with FAR 36.6, and based on the following criteria:

1. All Offerors awarded a basic contract on this MATOC will be considered equal for Specialized

Experience and Technical Competence, Professional Qualifica ons, and Past Performance.

2. Knowledge of Locality will be of most importance in making the selec on of the Most Highly

Qualified Firm for each Project Loca on iden fied below. However, the Government will also consider the Capacity of each firm to ensure the capability to perform both the Title I and Title II services required.

KNOWLEDGE OF LOCALITY:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: For each project loca on below to which your firm is interested in performing BOTH Title I and Title II services, the Offeror shall furnish a logical narra ve, not to exceed one page (per interested project loca on), that describes the Prime Offeror's experience performing Title

I or “Other” design services at that loca on. The narra ve shall briefly demonstrate knowledge/experience with the facility, installa on, or state, as applicable. The Government will consider any informa on that may be per nent to this criterion. Experience for this criterion does not need to be for DoD Dorm projects.

EVALUATION METHOD: This criterion evaluates Offerors on the extent of geographical experience/knowledge of the specific project loca on. The greater the extent of experience with that facility, the installa on, local region, and/or state (in that order of preference), the more considera on that will be given.

CAPACITY:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT: Offerors shall provide a narra ve (not to exceed one page) to confirm, with suppor ng ra onale, that they have the resources available to execute a mul ‐floor, mul ‐ disciplinary complex 100% issued for construc on (IFC) design, inclusive of LCCA and FF&E, for a major construc on renova on of the construc on project size (CWE) noted in the table below, within the

Period of Performance stated for that project, and to include performing Title II services during the construc on period.

The narra ve shall ALSO iden fy if the firm is interested and capable of designing MORE THAN ONE of these projects/loca ons at the same me, with suppor ng ra onale of that firm’s ability to execute more than one, to include follow‐on Title II services during construc on. Where feasible, iden fy how many of these major dorm renova ons the firm can reasonably execute concurrently. For this por on of the narra ve, it is acceptable to use the same narra ve language for each project loca on/submission response.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The design and construc on of these Dorms are highly important to the Air Force and thus more considera on will be given to firms that can demonstrate a higher capability to execute the size and complexity of each project/loca on. In its evalua on, the Air Force will take a programma c approach to evalua ng the overall capability of the MATOC holders to execute all of these Dorm Renova on designs concurrently. Accordingly, based on the Capacity of each firm, it is feasible that where a single firm is

MHQ for Knowledge of Locality at more than one loca on, if the Air Force feels that that firm’s capacity could increase the risk of performance at both loca ons, another firm that is knowledgeable at one of those loca ons may be chosen for one of those projects, to ensure there is enough knowledge of locality and capacity among MATOC Holders to execute AFCEC’s Dorm Design Program.

PROJECTS FOR FY24/FY25 AWARD:

The following is the list the projects in the FY24 and FY25 program to which RFQ’s will be sent to the firms selected as MHQ for this Basic MATOC. Each Dorm Facility will result in the approximate construc on cost noted in the table below (CWE – Current Working Es mate), with a design Period of

Performance (PoP) also noted in the table below. Each facility is a mul ‐story building requiring a full renova on using most, if not all, engineering disciplines, LCCA, and FF&E. The Design Dura on is noted in the table below (with both Travis Dorm designs running concurrently on the same Task Order, unless

Capacity is an issue, and then each Travis Dorm may be awarded as separate Task Orders). Title II services will likely be nego ated as an Op ons to each Design Task Order.

TRAVIS AFB, CA – Design for Renova ons to Dorms 1304 and 1305 ‐ $40M CWE EACH – 18 month PoP

LUKE AFB, AZ – Design for Renova ons to Dorm 530 – $25M CWE – 15 month PoP

TINKER AFB, OK – Design for Renova ons to Dorm B5942 ‐ $20M CWE – 15 month PoP

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB, NC – Design for Renova ons to Dorm B3603 ‐ $15M CWE – 12 month PoP