Synopsis-Warm Storage Facility.pdf

SYNOPSIS FOR:

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES (A-E),

Design of Warm Storage Facility Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER), Alaska

Requirement Number: A036817-1

Table of Contents

I. CONTRACT INFORMATION:

A. General

B. Type of Contract

C. Competition

D. System for Award Management

II. SELECTION PROCESS

A. Selection for Negotiation

III. PROJECT INFORMATION

IV. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. General Instructions

B. Supplemental Instructions

C. ATTACHMENTS

V. SELECTION CRITERIA

A. Professional Qualifications

B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

C. Capacity to Perform

D. Past Performance on DoD and Other Contracts

E. Knowledge of the Location

F. Geographic Proximity to JBER, AK (tiebreaker)

G. Selection Ratings

VI. QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS SYNOPSIS

I. CONTRACT INFORMATION:

A. General

773 Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) requires professional architect-engineer services (A-E) to develop a design to construct a warm storage facility located on JBER, Alaska. The facility will include, fire suppression, electrical, lighting, HVAC, and all other requirements for a complete and operational heated vehicle storage building.

This contract is being procured in accordance with the Selection of Architects and Engineers statute as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 236.6, and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Subpart 5336.6. One (1) firm will be selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work.

Services shall include preparation of design analysis, drawings, technical specifications, and cost estimate for materials only. Building analysis and surveys, building design, site investigation, planning, engineering studies, concept design, final design, are required for the subject project. The construction project for this design will be accomplished in-house. The A-E will serve as the technical consultant and advisor to the Government during the construction process and perform administrative support during the construction phase.

B. Type of Contract

The estimated construction cost of the project is between $1 million and $5 million. A firm-fixed-price contract will be negotiated. The contract is anticipated to be awarded in August 2024 and design completed by May 2025. Service Contract Labor Standards may apply to the resultant contract depending on labor categories required to perform.

C. Competition

One (1) firm will be selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work. The North American Industry Classification System code utilized for this requirement is 541330, which has a size standard of $25.5M. This announcement is open to all small businesses under the size standard.

D. System for Award Management

SAM registration must be current at time of offer submission and must remain valid through award. If SAM registration lapses during the solicitation and evaluation period, the offer will no longer be eligible for award. For instructions on registering with SAM see the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/.

II. SELECTION PROCESS

A. Selection for Negotiation In accordance with FAR Subpart 36.6 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 236.6, 773 CES will select firms using the procedures set forth in:

(1) In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(a), 773 CES will review the Standard Form (SF) 330s submitted in response to this synopsis. 773 CES will also review the past performance questionnaires and any available data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Report System. Past Performance Questionnaires must be completed in their entirety by the interested irm’s clients and sent directly to the government POCs.

(2) In accordance with FAR 36.6 specifically FAR 36.602-1 Selection Criteria and DFARS 236.602 specifically DFARS 236.602-1 and PGI 236.602-1 Selection criteria (a)(4), the Government will make the selection decision based on all the Primary Selection Criteria as set forth in greater detail in this synopsis. By performing this evaluation, the 773 CES will determine the three (3) most highly qualified firms.

(3) In accordance with FAR 36.602-3(c), 773 CES will hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services described in this synopsis. Those 3 firms will be interviewed by the same method (telephone, video teleconference, or in person). All firms will be asked similar questions about their experience, capabilities, capacity, organization, management, quality control procedures, and/or approach for the project, as appropriate.

(4) Based on the above, in accordance with FAR 36.602-3(d), 773 CES will determine the firms most highly qualified to perform the required services described in this synopsis. If two or more firms are technically equal, secondary criteria will be used as "tiebreakers" and the final ranking of firms decided. Firms are technically equal when there is no meaningful difference in their aggregate qualifications relative to the primary criteria. The secondary factors will be used to establish a ranking order for the highest qualified firms, and hence, the order for negotiation.

III. PROJECT INFORMATION

Requirement Summary. Prepare 100% sealed design documents for the Design of Warm Storage Facility IAW the Statement of Work. Services shall include preparation of design analysis, drawings, specifications, and cost estimate for materials only.

The A-E shall perform administrative support during the construction phase.

IV. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

A. General Instructions Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit one electronic copy of SF 330 Part I, and one electronic copy of SF 330 Part II for the prime firm and all consultants, no later than Friday, 2 August 2024 by 4:00 p.m. (AKDT) unless changed by amendment. Qualifications shall be submitted via email to Maureen Badey at maureen.badey.1@us.af.mil and TSgt Nicholas Cripe at nicholas.cripe@us.af.mil.

(1) Acceptable electronic formats are Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf); or Microsoft Word Document version 2007 or later (.docx).

(2) No single file may exceed 13 Megabytes (MB) in size. Files which exceed this limit must be separated using the following naming convention:

(a) Firm Name, SF-330 Part {I or II}, Volume {x of n}.

(b) Example: “Wayne Enterprises, SF-330 Part I, Volume 1 of 3”

(3) The SF 330 Part I shall not exceed 50 pages (8.5 inches by 11 inches), including no more than 5 pages for Section H. Each side of a sheet of paper is a page.

(4) Use no smaller than 12 font type. Include the firm's Unique Entity Identifier number in SF 330, Part I, Section H.

(5) Information required to be submitted in the SF-330 may not be incorporated by reference.

(6) Submit all documents to both the primary and secondary government points of contact listed in this notice.

B. Supplemental Instructions

Facsimile transmissions will not be accepted. Solicitation packages are not provided, and no additional project information will be given to firms during the announcement period. This notice is a Request for Qualifications; it is not a Request for Proposal (RFP).

Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): The Government reserves the right to cancel this public announcement, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this public announcement, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

C. ATTACHMENTS

(1) Past Performance Questionnaire Template

(2) SF330 – Architect-Engineer (A-E) Qualifications Instructions

(3) Statement of Work-Warm Storage Facility

(4) AF Form 66 Template

(5) JBER CAD GIS Record Drawing As Built Standard

V. SELECTION CRITERIA

The selection criteria for this project are listed below in descending order of importance (first by major criterion and then by each sub-criterion). Criteria A through E are primary; criterion F is secondary and will only be used in the event of a tie among firms that are essentially technically equal.

A. Professional Qualifications

(1) The resulting contract will be subject to DFARS 252.222-7000, Restrictions on Employment of Personnel. 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, training, overall and relevant experience, education, longevity with the company.

(2) Project team shall be led by an Architectural Firm with various key engineering consultants and other professional services as required.

(3) Key personnel shall be permanent employees of their respective 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.

(4) The combination of criteria below will be used to determine the ability of the staff to contribute to the successful completion of project work.

(5) The Offeror’s team shall include staff members licensed in the State of Alaska in the following disciplines:

(a) architecture (team leader)

(b) civil engineering

(c) cost estimating

(d) electrical engineering

(e) geotechnical engineering

(f) mechanical engineering

(g) structural engineering

B. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

(1) 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:

(2) Architectural design and planning experience with multi-use facilities.

(3) Cold climate design experience

(4) Design experience in various disciplines, including:

(a) architectural

(b) building envelope

(c) civil

(d) electrical

(e) associated alarm systems

(f) life/safety

(g) mechanical (HVAC and plumbing),

(h) structural

(i) utility systems.

C. Capacity to Perform

(1) Demonstrate how the firm(s) will manage, coordinate, and administer the work within the prime and among any teaming partners.

(2) 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.

(3) The Air Force will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following:

(a) Capacity to perform work in-house and with teaming members.

(b) 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).

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

D. Past Performance on DoD and Other Contracts

(1) Provide example projects for past performance. In addition to past performance project information provided, the Government’s evaluation may include information available within the DoD, Federal, state, private industry, or other sources. In accordance with DFARS PGI 236.602- 1(a)(4), the Government will use any available performance evaluation data from CPARS.

(2) Reponses will be evaluated to determine firms’ ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction.

(a) Example Projects: Submit example design projects in narrative format that highlight the experience factors listed above. Narratives shall be supported with illustrations or photographs of completed projects. Each design project example narrative shall not exceed two pages, with no more than three additional pages of supporting illustrations or photographs.

(b) 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 three 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.

(c) The narratives of example projects must show contract number, issuing agency, project name, a current point of contact (including telephone and email information); project scope, size, and location; design fees, total number of modifications or change orders issued during performance of project; date of project completion, construction cost estimate, principal design elements and features; complexity of the job, challenges faced and actions taken; and the resolution and results of any challenges faced.

(d) If known, list the construction contract award price, and the total number of construction contract modifications/change orders and their total value.

(e) 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 three years.

(f) The evaluation will consider the relevancy (design and construction scope, magnitude, and location) of example projects submitted, and give greater weight to those projects deemed most like the project for which the design team is being rated. Relevancy will be determined against the criteria described in this section of the Evaluation Criteria. Examples of work submitted that do not meet the requirements specified here will not be evaluated.

(g) 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 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.

E. Knowledge of the Location In single page narrative, demonstrate the Architectural firm and respective team of consultants’ familiarity with local conditions, to include knowledge of and experience dealing with the regulatory agencies;

geological features; logistics; climatic conditions, seismic design; and local design and construction methods.

F. Geographic Proximity to JBER, AK (tiebreaker) For proximity purposes, using commercial software, the zip code listed in a firm’s registration will be used as the starting point. The Contracting Office’s zip code will be used as the destination. Proximity is the measure of the shortest distance between starting point and destination.

G. Selection Ratings

Each criterion will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Strengths Any feature of a proposal that increases the Government’s confidence of successful contract performance.

Weakness Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

The following adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate the overall 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, 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.

VI. QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS SYNOPSIS

All inquiries regarding this synopsis are to be submitted via email to Maureen Badey at maureen.badey.1@us.af.mil and TSgt Nicholas Cripe at nicholas.cripe@us.af.mil. Any questions whether technical or contractual in nature shall be submitted in writing by 4:00 p.m. (AKDT) on Tuesday, 16 July 2024.

Responses to inquiries will be posted to https://www.sam.gov/ by 4:00 p.m. AKDT on Friday, 19 July 2024. All bidders will be held to have reviewed the questions and responses at https://www.sam.gov/.

Nothing in the solicitation is changed unless an amendment is sent out.