FTQW251108 Code Study RFQ 8 Aug 25.pdf

Instruction to Offerors & Evaluation Factors Architect- Engineering Services for: Code Study Amber Hall and Base Supply

Project Number: FTQW251108 Attachment: 1

1. QUALIFICATION PACKAGE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all instruction requirements. Failure to meet the requirements may result in an offeror being excluded from evaluation. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the instructions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

a. Submit one (1) complete electronic .pdf copy containing:

i. A cover Letter including company name, point of contact information to include phone number and email, DUNS number and CAGE code, business type (large business, small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a)-certified small disadvantaged business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, very small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business).

ii.A completed SF-330 Part I specific to the Code Study Amber Hall (B3112, 3113, & 3114) and Base Supply (B3426) requirement. Prepare and submit a separate Part II for each firm that will be part of the team proposed for a specific contract and submit the document(s) with the SF-330 Part I. If a firm has branch offices, submit a separate Part II for each branch office that has a key role on the team. Please note, IAW FAR 52.244-4: Subcontractors and Outside Associates and Consultants (Architect-Engineer Services) (Aug 1998):

Any subcontractors, outside associates, or consultants required by the Contractor in connection with the services covered by any resulting contract will be limited to individuals or firms that were specifically identified and evaluated up front. The Contractor shall obtain the Contracting Officer’s written consent before making any substitution for these subcontractors, associates, or consultants.

iii. DO NOT SUBMIT ANY PRICING INFORMATION WITH YOUR SF-330.

iv. Pricing information will be requested prior to negotiations from the offeror that the Government determines most qualified for the project.

v. Teaming Agreement identification: The prime firm shall provide a statement in the cover letter confirming whether or not there are executed teaming agreements in place for team members as part of the SF-330 submittal. The statement shall also list team members. (Contractor teaming arrangements are defined as (1) a partnership or joint venture between two or more companies or

(2) an agreement for a specific Government opportunity between a potential prime contractor and one or more companies that are potential subcontractors.)

vi. Electronic packages under 5MB in size may be emailed to christopher.prince.3@us.af.mil with a courtesy copy to kimberly.graham.3@us.af.mil and 354CONS.PKA.Designs@us.af.mil.

Packages larger than 5 MB shall be uploaded to https://safe.apps.mil. Please email the 354 CONS Design Org Box at 354CONS.PKA.Designs@us.af.mil, with the Subject line: “Code Study Amber Hall and Base Supply Upload

Request” and an upload request will be sent to your email.

b. Disposition of Qualification Packages: Electronic Qualification Packages and related information will be retained in the contract file.

2. GENERAL: Submissions in response to this synopsis shall be completed on a Standard Form 330 – Architect – Engineer Qualifications Package (SF 330). Qualification packages received in response to this notice shall be evaluated by a Government evaluation board in accordance with The Brooks Act, Public Law 92-582, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures to determine the most highly qualified firms.

3. 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;

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.

4. SELECTION CRITERIA INSTRUCTIONS:

a. Professional Qualifications:

i. SF-330, Part I, Block E. Resumes Of Key Personnel Proposed For This Contract. The Government will consider any information, which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following: proposed key personnel (reference primary discipline list below), education, current professional registration, competence, related experiences to accomplish this work, 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. Architect

2. Civil Engineer

3. Structural Engineer

4. Mechanical Engineer

5. Electrical Engineer

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

1. Project/Program Manager: Experience in managing projects in remote and challenging environments.

2. Industrial Hygienist or equivalent certification (HAZMAT surveying and preparing abatement and worker protection specifications)

3. Cost Estimator

b. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence:

i. SF-330, Part I, Section F. Example Projects Which Best Illustrate Proposed Team’s Qualifications for This Contract. The Government will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following:

1. 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.

2. Offerors shall provide adequate Specialized Experience And Technical Competence information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability and qualification to perform the proposed work as identified within the Statement of Work. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract/project are deemed relevant to the requirements, complexity, and magnitude as related to the requirements of the Statement of Work. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating (i.e. aspects of Specialized Experience And Technical Competence should match or be similar to the work elements needed to fulfill the Government’s requirement).

3. The evaluation board will be placing emphasis on the following items when evaluating this factor on recent and relevant projects:

a. Firms that demonstrate experience with DoD design/investigations on a DoD Facility may result in a higher rating and should be addressed accordingly.

b. Cold climate (sub-arctic or arctic*) design experience;

c. Experience with whole building code studies including identification of structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, and life safety deficiencies and corrective actions needed.

4. *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.

ii. Example Projects: Submit example design projects in narrative format that highlight the experience factors listed above. Design project examples shall 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 (5) 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.

1. 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.

2. 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) to be determined recent. The evaluation will consider the relevancy (design and construction scope, size and location) of example projects submitted and give greater weight to those projects deemed most similar to the project for which the design team is being rated.

3. 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.

iii. Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for b. Specialized Experience And Technical Competence factor. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant Specialized Experience And Technical Competence record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

c. Capacity:

i. SF-330, Part I, Block H. Additional Information. 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 Government 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.

d. Past Performance:

i. SF-330, Part I, Block H. Additional Information. For the example projects provided under SF-330, Part I, Block B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence, in a single page narrative form, provide past performance quality information in terms of an offeror’s ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction for each example project submitted under Specialized Experience and Technical Competence.

ii. In addition to past performance information provided, the evaluation may 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.

iii. If an offeror has an evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for an example project, that offeror should include that assessment in their qualifications package in lieu of a PPQ or other ratings, letters of appreciation or performance, awards etc.

e. Geographic Proximity:

i. SF-330, Part I, Block H. Additional Information. 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.

ii. SF-330, Part I, Block C, Proposed Team. Demonstrate where the firm’s location of their corporate/branch office(s) including their teaming partner(s) and/or subcontractor(s) (if applicable).

iii. Firms that have corporate/branch office(s) located in Alaska will be considered advantageous. Subcontractor(s) that have corporate/branch office(s) located in Alaska will be considered advantageous. Firms that propose disciplines that are represented in Alaska will be considered advantageous.

5. SELECTION CRITERIA EVALUATIONS:

a. Table 1, Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method shall be used to evaluate:

i. Selection Criteria (a), Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services;

ii. Selection Criteria (c), Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time;

iii. Selection Criteria (e), Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project

b. Each of the aforementioned three (3) selection criteria shall receive one (1) separate rating each for a total of three (3) ratings.

Color

Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 1, Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

c. Technical Risk Assessment. The Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Table 2, Technical Risk Rating Method, is used to describe the risk assessment contained in the description of Table 1, Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. Technical risk is manifested by the identification of weakness(es).

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Table 2, Technical Risk Rating Method

e. Table 3, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method shall be used to determine the relevancy of the project(s) submitted under selection criteria B. Specialized Experience And Technical Competence. Only recent project(s) shall be evaluated (see Section 4, Selection Criteria Instructions, paragraph b. ii. 2.). Each project shall be assigned one (1) relevancy rating. Example projects that are considered to be Not Relevant will not be considered in the overall performance confidence assessment.

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 3, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

f. Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method, shall be used to determine the overall performance confidence assessment rating for selection criteria B. Specialized Experience And Technical Competence. This selection criteria shall be assigned one (1) rating from Table 4.

g. Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method, shall be used to determine the overall performance confidence assessment rating for selection criteria D. Past Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be somewhat relevant, relevant, or very relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror's performance and general trends. This information will be considered in the assignment of an overall performance confidence assessment rating. Selection criteria D. Past Performance shall be assigned one (1) rating from Table 4.

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record 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 performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

6. Once the evaluation board has concluded the evaluations, the evaluation board will hold discussions with the top three firms. If fewer than three firms have submitted qualification packages, the evaluation 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 fair and reasonable, a contract will be awarded to that firm. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to initiate negotiations with firms in order to negotiate specific items. Under no circumstances will the Contracting Officer award a contract to any offeror that has received a rating of “Red/Unacceptable” or “No Confidence” for ANY of the five evaluation criteria. If all offerors have earned a rating of “Yellow/Marginal” for ANY of the five evaluation criteria, the Government reserves the right to not conduct negotiations with any of the offerors.