Synopsis_W911S226RA003.pdf

SYNOPSIS: Architect-Engineer (A-E) Design Services for Lacquer Preparation Facility

Solicitation Number: W911S226RA003

Agency: Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) – Fort Drum, NY

PURPOSE.

The Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Drum is procuring Architect– Engineer (A-E) Design Services for the development of a new Lacquer Preparation Facility and Chemical Storage Tank Farm at Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP), Kingsport, TN. This procurement is conducted under the Brooks Architect–Engineer Act (40 U.S.C. 1102) and FAR Subpart 36.6, which require that A-E contracts be negotiated on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required professional services. The facility will support production of plastic-bonded explosives (PBX) and is critical to expanding the Department of Defense’s energetic materials manufacturing capacity.

This notice is issued in accordance with FAR 5.205(d) and constitutes a special situation. Interested firms must submit a completed GSA Standard Form (SF) 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, as outlined in Paragraph 4 below.

Description:

1. CONTRACT INFORMATION.

Procurement Method: Brooks Act qualifications-based selection procedures

(FAR 36.6).

NAICS Code: 541330 – Engineering Services.

Service Code: C1EA – Architect and Engineering – Construction: Ammunition Facilities

Contract Type: Firm-fixed price.

Set-Aside: Full and open competition (FAR 19.502-2(b)).

Period of Performance: Not to exceed 300 calendar days from award.

Estimated Contract Award: March 2026.

Design Completion Deadline: January 2027.

Magnitude of Construction: Between $100,000,000 and $250,000,000

Small Business Participation: Required through subcontracting opportunities in accordance with FAR 19.702 and DFARS 219.702.

SAM Registration: Required prior to submission deadline (SAM.gov).

2. PROJECT INFORMATION.

The selected A-E firm will provide design services for the replacement and construction of existing lacquer preparation, polymer handling, and Chemical Storage Tank Farm facilities at HSAAP to support the following:

a. Design Scope:

(1) Develop a 30% design package for a Lacquer Preparation Facility capable of supporting large-scale production of lacquer and plasticizer batches.

(2) Leverage existing infrastructure and capabilities of existing lacquer preparation, polymer handling, and Chemical Storage Tank Farm for the design of replacement facilities.

(3) Include system engineering documentation, value engineering report, utility tie-ins, and cost estimates.

(4) Ensure facility supports annual production of:

(a) 15M lbs. RDX.

(b) 2.5M lbs. HMX.

(c) 13M lbs. IMX.

b. New Facility Capabilities:

(1) Receive/store solvents and polymers.

(2) Grind and dissolve polymers into lacquer.

(3) Load lacquer into mobile wagons for transport.

Note: In accordance with FAR 36.209 and FAR Part 9.5, firms that design the project are prohibited from participating in construction contracts or subcontracting on the same project.

3. SELECTION CRITERIA.

The selection criteria for this particular project are listed below in descending order of importance. Criteria a-e are primary. Criteria f-h are secondary and will only be used as "tie-breakers" among firms that are technically equal in order to determine the Most Highly Qualified Firms. Primary criteria a, b, d, e, f, g, h will be assigned a rating as follows:

TABLE 1 -COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding SF 330 indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good SF 330 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 SF 330 meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal SF 330 has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable SF 330 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.

In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Guide, Section 2.3.2.6., the methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 above). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Ratings are based on the risk to the Government that the firm will successfully perform that evaluated factor. An overall rating will also be applied to the proposal submission using the same rating scale. Proposals failing to respond or provide complete information for each factor as required by this notice will be determined non-responsive and will be removed from further consideration.

Criteria c will be determined using the following table (see Table 2).

TABLE 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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

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

Neutral (Unknown) Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the firm’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Firm may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the firm’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the firm will successfully perform the required effort.

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

a. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence (SF330, Part I, Sections F and G).

Specialized experience and technical competence in the following areas:

(1) Legacy System Modernization. Experience upgrading legacy facilities with minimal disruption to ongoing operations, including retrofitting existing buildings with modern control systems and infrastructure. Integration of new technologies into existing utility and mechanical systems, including solvent storage, HVAC, and ventilation.

(2) Advanced Manufacturing & Automation Integration. Experience designing facilities that incorporate automated process lines, robotic handling systems, and smart sensors for real-time monitoring and control. Integration of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) platforms for predictive maintenance and performance optimization. Use of automated guided vehicles (AGVs) or mobile robotic platforms for material transport and batch handling.

(3) Chemical Process Engineering in Energetic Materials. Design of chemical processing systems for energetic materials (e.g., RDX, HMX, IMX) with emphasis on precision dosing, closed-loop solvent handling, and hazard mitigation.

Experience with solvent recovery systems, polymer dissolution, and lacquer formulation in high-throughput environments.

(4) Safety, Environmental, and Regulatory Compliance. Design of facilities with automated fire suppression, explosion-proof zones, and real-time environmental monitoring. Experience with EPA, OSHA, and DoD safety standards for hazardous material processing and storage. Integration of digital twin technology for simulation, safety modeling, and lifecycle management.

The evaluation will consider the management approach, coordination of disciplines and subcontractors, quality control procedures, and prior experience of the prime firm and any significant subcontractors on similar projects.

b. Professional Qualifications (SF330, Part I, Sections E and G).

(1) Project Manager (Architect or Engineer). Proven leadership in managing complex, multi-disciplinary design efforts involving automation, hazardous materials, and secure industrial environments.

(2) Industrial Automation Engineer. Experience in designing and integrating automated systems, including robotics, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems.

(3) Process/Chemical Engineer. Expertise in chemical process design for energetic materials, including solvent handling, polymer dissolution, and batch formulation systems. Expertise in process safety and process hazard analysis required.

(4) Mechanical Engineer. Design of mechanical systems supporting automated material handling, HVAC for hazardous environments, and solvent recovery systems.

(5) Electrical Engineer. Experience with power distribution for high-load industrial systems, integration of control panels, sensors, and smart devices for automated operations.

(6) Fire Protection Engineer. Specialized knowledge in designing fire suppression systems for explosive and flammable environments, including automated detection and response systems.

(7) Structural Engineer. Design of reinforced structures to support heavy equipment, explosion containment, and vibration isolation for sensitive machinery.

(8) Civil Engineer. Site planning, grading, drainage, and utility coordination for industrial facilities, including solvent and chemical containment infrastructure.

(9) Systems Integration Specialist. Experience in integrating IIoT platforms into facility operations, including data architecture and cybersecurity considerations.

(10) Sustainability/Environmental Engineer. Expertise in designing energy efficiency, emissions control, and compliance with environmental regulations for hazardous material facilities.

(11) Registration. Lead professionals in each discipline must be licensed/registered in their respective fields.

(12) Relevant Experience. Each key personnel must have a minimum of five (5) years of experience in projects of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity. No more than five projects should be listed for each resume, and each project listed must have been completed within six (6) years of publication of this announcement. (Note: The projects provided for this factor may also be used to address criteria a.)

(13) Project Relevance. Experience should reflect direct involvement in facilities incorporating automation.

c. Past Performance (SF330, Part I, Section H).

Past performance on DOD and other contracts with respect to cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules, as determined from Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other sources. Firms will be evaluated on past performance for quality of work products, compliance with project schedules, and effectiveness of management. Performance evaluations for the Prime firm are considered the most relevant criteria; however, past performance for any significant subconsultants/subcontractors may also be considered. Performance evaluations for completed designs within six (6) years of the synopsis closing date is considered recent.

Any credible, documented information on past performance may be submitted;

however, the Government is not required to seek other information on past performance if none is available through CPARS. A Firm may use Performance Assessment Questionnaires (PAQ) to provide or supplement a firm's past performance. Firms choosing to use the PAQ may use the attached PAQ (Attachment 1), to this synopsis.

d. Capacity to Accomplish the Work (SF330, Part I, Section D and H).

(1) Ability to meet design charrette deadline (Feb 2026) and final design deadline (Nov 2026).

(2) Adequate staffing and experience in similar-sized projects.

(3) Organizational chart and staffing plan required.

e. Knowledge of the Locality (SF330, Part I, Section H).

Firms will be evaluated based on the firm’s demonstrated understanding of regional factors that may affect the design, construction, and operation of a technologically advanced ammunition production facility in Kingsport, TN.

Secondary (Tie-Breaker) Criteria.

f. Geographic Proximity (SF330, Part I, Section H).

Proximity, measured in miles, to HSAAP, Kingsport, TN. This factor is secondary and will only be evaluated as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms.

g. Volume of DoD Contract Awards (SF330, Part I, Section H).

Specify the total volume of work awarded to the firm within the previous twelve (12) months of this solicitation’s closing date, with the objective of effecting an equitable distribution of DOD A-E contracts among qualified firms, including SB and SDB. When identifying the total volume of work, include all stand-alone or indefinite delivery contract (IDC) task orders, including modifications, issued by DoD agencies. DO NOT include the potential value of an Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC), nor options which have not been exercised. Present information for this criterion in SF330, Part I, Section H (Additional Information). This factor is secondary and will only be evaluated as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms.

h. Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation (SF 330, Part I, Section H).

Firms shall describe the extent of participation by small businesses (including women-owned), small disadvantaged businesses, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and minority institutions in their proposed contract team. This information must be provided in SF 330, Part I, Section H, and expressed as a percentage of the total anticipated contract value. This factor is secondary and will only be evaluated as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms.

4. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

a. Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit their response to this synopsis no later than December 19, 2025, 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Submissions received after this time will be viewed as late and not considered for contract award.

b. All questions shall be submitted no later than December 10, 2025, 3:00 PM EDT. to Mr. A. Milan Sanchez at alfredo.m.sanchez.civ@army.mil and Ms. Lyndsie Hall at lyndsie.j.hall.civ@army.mil. Questions submitted after this time may not receive a response. All timely submitted questions and/or comments will be addressed through subsequent amendments posted to this notice. No other means of communication (telephone, fax, etc.) will be accepted.

c. All SF 330s must be submitted digitally. The digital copy shall be submitted via the Email to Mr. A. Milan Sanchez at alfredo.m.sanchez.civ@army.mil and Ms. Lyndsie Hall at lyndsie.j.hall.civ@army.mil prior to the synopsis due date and time in paragraph 4a.

Solicitation packages are not provided, and no additional project information will be given to firms during the announcement period. This is not a request for proposal.

(1) One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of SF 330 Part I

(2) One (1) electronic copy (PDF) of SF 330 Part II for the prime firm and all consultants/subcontractors

Regulation requires that the Selection Board not consider any submittals received after the time and date stated in paragraph 4a. Late submittal rules in FAR 15.208 will be followed for submittals received after 2:00pm EDT on the closing date specified in this announcement.

The SF 330, 7/2021 edition, must be used, and may be obtained from the following web site: https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/architectengineer-qualifications.

d. The SF330 submittal must meet the following requirements:

https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/architectengineer-qualifications

(1) Include UEI number and CAGE code in SF330 Part I, Section B, Block 5.

(2) The UEI number and CAGE code shall be identified in SF 330 Part I, Section C, Block 9, for EACH TEAM MEMBER.

(3) The submittal shall have a page limit of 100 pages (total of 100 pages allowed for complete copy of the submittal, ALL-INCLUSIVE). The selection board will not evaluate beyond 100 pages. A page is one side of a sheet. Blank sheets, divider sheets with section identifiers, and/or tabs with section identifiers separating the sections within the SF 330 will not count against the maximum page count. Parts I shall be organized as follows:

Tab Title Digital Copies A Part I, Section A, B, C, D 1

B Part I, Section E 1

C Part I, Section F 1

D Part I, Section G 1

E Part I, Sections H and I 1

(4) All fonts shall be 12 point.

(5) Pages shall be 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches. Organizational charts may be presented on a sheet up to 11 inches by 17 inches.

(6) A Part II is required for each branch office of the prime firm and any consultants/subcontractors that will have a key role in the proposed contract (i.e. a Part II is required for all entities identified in SF 330 Part I, Section C of the submittal). Part II shall be organized as follows:

Tab Title Digital Copies F SF 330, Part II 1

G Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

H Additional information (if applicable)

(7) Cover letters, company literature and extraneous materials are not desired and will not be considered.

(8) Sections E and G of SF 330 Part I must include only individuals proposed to perform the anticipated work, including all consultants/subcontractors.

(9) In SF 330 Part I, Section G, Block 26, along with the name, include the firm with which the person is associated.

(10) A maximum of seven (7) projects including the prime and consultants/subcontractors will be reviewed for SF 330 Part I, Section F. If more than seven (7) projects are submitted, only the first seven (7) projects will be evaluated. Use no more than two (2) pages per project.

(11) When listing projects in SF 330 Part 1, Section F, an Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) with multiple Task Orders as examples is not considered a project. A task order executed under an IDC contract is a project.

(12) Past Performance evaluations (CPARS or PAQ - reference Paragraph 3c. above) should be submitted for each project provided in SF 330, Part I, Section F.

(13) SF 330, Part I, Section H (Additional Information) shall contain the following information.

(a) Item 1: Quality Management. Reference Paragraph 3a. above. Provide a 1–5-page narrative discussing the firms design quality control procedures and their approach to ensure technical quality and accuracy of work products.

(b) Item 2: Capacity. Reference Paragraph 3d. Provide a 1–2-page narrative discussing the capacity of the design firm to perform nationwide and to meet schedules, including adequacy of qualified personnel available and past experience in meeting tight design schedules.

(c) Item 3: Organizational Chart. Reference Paragraph 3d. Provide a 1–5-page chart that demonstrates the firms primary office where the work will be performed, and the staff at this office, to include subcontractors.

(d) Item 4: Volume of DOD Contract Awards - Reference Paragraph 3g. above. Provide a 1–5-page complete listing of all DOD A-E awards within the last 12 months. For IDCs, include total value of task orders actually issued by agencies in the last 12 months, not the potential value of the IDCs. For all types of contracts, do not include options that have not been exercised. Volume of work shall be demonstrated in a table format and be categorized by contract/task order, project award and completion dates, and dollar amount.

(e) Item 5: Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation – Reference Paragraph 3h. above. Submissions shall include a table showing each category’s percentage, estimated dollar value, firm name(s) with UEI number(s), and proposed role(s) and scope of work, accompanied by a brief narrative describing the specific, meaningful tasks to be performed and whether the work will be as prime or subcontractor. Offerors should summarize relevant past performance with the identified firms and outline their approach for monitoring and reporting participation levels in compliance with applicable FAR requirements. While this factor will be used only as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms, offerors are encouraged to propose meaningful and achievable participation levels that demonstrate a strong commitment to small business utilization.

5. JOINT VENTURES. Joint ventures shall submit the following additional documentation as evidence to support their existence as a joint venture entity:

a. Firms shall provide a copy of a legally binding joint venture agreement.

b. Identification of the party who can legally bind the joint venture.

6. ATTACHMENTS.

Attachment 1 – Performance Assessment Questionnaire.

NOTE: This is NOT a Request for Proposal. Respondents are hereby notified that, if designated as one of the most highly qualified firms, the response time for the issued Request for Proposal (RFP) is anticipated to be 14 calendar days from the date of RFP issue.