AE24DORMS – MATOC for Title I and Title II Services for Dormitory Facilities Worldwide

TITLE:  Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) Worldwide Architect-Engineering (A-E) Title I, Title II and Other A-E Services for Dormitory Facilities (AE24DORMS) Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)

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

Submit QUESTIONS that pertain to this announcement no later than 1400 Central Time; 23 February 2024, to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialists identified below.  The Government will not address questions received after this deadline. 

The SF 330 submission is due at 1400 Central Time on Thursday, 14 March 2024 via email to the Contracting 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 and SrA Courage Krueger at courage.krueger@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.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Air Force Installation Contracting Center (AFICC)/772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (772 ESS) in conjunction 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 facilities mission.  The 772 ESS anticipates award of an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC)  contract for A-E services to support the dormitory and vertical construction facility design mission at installations supported by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, allied nations, and others.  These A-E Services for dormitory and vertical construction facilities 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 anticipates 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 limitation will be a minimum of $2,500 and maximum of $5M, subject to the conditions of FAR 52.216-19 - Order Limitations. 

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 selection, the Evaluation Board may conduct interviews with Highly Qualified Offerors (by phone, in person, or in writing) to move forward with the final selection 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 option period. This MATOC allows for the issuance of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) negotiated task orders during the ordering period.  While labor rates will not initially be negotiated on the basic contract, the Government will negotiate 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 evaluation 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 consideration in the task order selection 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:  A Firm shall only propose one time – 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 multiple SF330’s, the Offerors submitting those SF330’s may be excluded from evaluation/consideration.  Where a Firm has affiliated, sister, and/or a parent companies within it’s overall organization, if any engineering resources are shared within, among, or across that organization, those individual companies are considered part of the same “Firm”, and thus shall not be part of more than one SF330.

The Government may exclude a SF330 from this competition without evaluating it against the selection criteria below, if an initial assessment of the SF330 shows it to be non-compliant. Non-compliant SF330s are SF330s that fail to address essential requirements of this synopsis, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory synopsis requirements, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable effort by the Offeror to satisfy 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 negotiate one composite labor rate per labor category/discipline, to be incorporated into the contract.  The Government will not separately negotiate teaming partner rates. 

If Teaming Partners are used for the primary disciplines identified 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 Construction Inspector (Title II) and Primary *ENGINEERING* Disciplines (Mechanical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Interior Design, Structural Engineer, Fire Protection 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 Selection of Architect-Engineers Act (40 USC Sections 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 selection criteria.  identified below.  The North American Industrial Classification 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 http://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 attend 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 Facilities, as identified 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 Facilities (AE24DORMS).  Task orders shall incorporate A-E services in support of the Air Force (AF) dormitory facilities at worldwide locations, with a primary focus on those installations within the Contiguous United States (CONUS).  These A-E services comprise the renovation of existing facilities, demolition, repair, or replacement of AF dormitory facilities through Title I, Title II, and Other A-E services necessary to complete individual task order requirements at locations worldwide.  

DEFINITIONS:  

The following definitions aid in the preparation 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 definition 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 definition for "Project."  For the purposes of this evaluation, a “project” means a Department of Defense (DoD) dormitory facility A-E project (not construction).  “Project” also denotes the design portion of a Design-Build (DB) construction 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 facilities" includes dormitory facilities located on a United States DoD installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Space Force, Air National Guard, or Air Force Reserve bases).  This definition does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or other federal, commercial, or private facility.  DoD dormitory facilities include those components included in the Air Force Category Code 721312.  “Air Force dormitory facilities” follow the same definition as “DoD dormitory facilities,” except that the facilities are exclusive to the Air Force. 

"Relevant Project" includes Title I, Title II, and Other A-E services for DoD Dorm facilities meeting the definition of “project” above.  The specific definitions of Title I, Title II, and Other A-E services are as follows: 

“Title I Services” include engineering services related to a specific construction project and consist of conducting field surveys and investigations to obtain design data and preparing contract plans, specifications, cost estimates, and estimated construction periods of performance.  Title I services may include all aspects of design, such as preparation and review of contract plans, specifications, scheduling, cost estimates, Building Information 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 preparation of operating and design manuals.  Title I efforts also encompass Other A-E Services required to support and develop design work, planning and programming, program management, project scoping, studies, investigations, evaluations, consultations, conceptual design, value engineering, operation services, monitoring services, topographic survey services, and infrastructure systems.  

“Title II Services” include services related to a specific construction project and consist of supervision and inspection of construction activities.  Title II services may include all aspects of construction quality assurance and oversight of facility and infrastructure construction/ renovation projects and may include oversight of incidental environmental projects associated with primary requirements.  Title II Services include construction phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services that encompass a full range of disciplinary expertise and services to include on-site construction oversight assistance, design reviews, quality assurance inspections, adherence to applicable specifications, construction schedule analysis, material submittal reviews, environmental submittal reviews, claim reviews, post-construction award services, and designer of record support, and other standard construction submittal reviews.  Examples include A-E services for DoD dormitory facility-related special designs including HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, special coatings and paints, and demolition of DoD buildings.  

“Other A-E Services” include design and construction-related services of an architectural or engineering nature or services incidental to studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils geotechnical engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals, development of design criteria, and other related services that logically or justifiably require performance by registered architects, engineers, or other employees.  The study and investigation services may include, but are not limited to, work necessary to support the completion of Title I design services, including structural engineering forensic analysis, seismic assessments, fire water flow tests, preparation of As-Built drawings, services of consultants, where not specifically applied to the preparation of designs, plans, drawings or specifications, performance of expert witness testimony,  Antiterrorism and Force Protection vulnerability assessments, utilities capacity studies, hazardous materials assessments, topographic, utility and right-of-way surveys, vibration analyses, preparation of models or renderings, NEPA documentation, environmental impact assessments, statements, and supporting data, geotechnical investigations, 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, Installation 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 construction support services within the past ten years from the date this synopsis was posted.  “Completed Project” also defines the design portion of a Design-Build contract or task order that the Prime Contractor (AE firm) submitting 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 construction contracts under one contract.  This includes Title II contracts covering multiple construction contracts with one or more incomplete construction contracts and at least one or more complete construction 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 identified in the SF 330 must have been performed by the office/branch/individual team member performing the work under this contract.  The evaluation will exclude projects not performed by the proposed office/branch/individual team member. 

While there is no defined ‘rating scheme’ in this synopsis, the technical evaluation board will assign ratings during SF330 evaluation based on the selection criteria below.

The following lists the Selection Criteria in descending order of importance: 

1. Criterion 1:  Specialized Experience and Technical Competence
2. Criterion 2:  Professional Qualifications
3. Criterion 3:  Capacity to Accomplish the Work
4. Criterion 4:  Past Performance
5. Criterion 5:  Knowledge of the Locality

SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:  

Proposed Team (2 pages): In one page or less, the Offeror shall identify 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):. For each of the following Disciplines, identify the name of the firm that is proposed to perform those services:  Project Management, Construction Inspection (On-site Title II), Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Interior Design, Structural Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), Fixed Furniture and Equipment (FF&E) design services, Construction Cost Estimating, and Construction Schedule Development/Analysis.

On the second page, the Offeror shall provide a narrative entitled, “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 (DEVIATION 2021-O0008 Revision 1) Limitations in Subcontracting. Prime Offerors are reminded that similarly-situated entities can team with the SB Prime Offeror to ensure the 50% threshold is met. NOTE: Joint Venture (JV) Prime entities are considered PRIME Contractors, and therefore any work performed by the Prime JV Firm or any of its Prime JV entities are considered to be executed by the “Prime,” and will also count toward the 50% threshold required by FAR 52.219-14 DEVIATION 2021-O0008 Revision 1, assuming that JV Prime appropriately submitted as a Small Business entity.

Project Experience (1 page per project): Offerors shall submit a minimum of two and up to five Title I and Title II project descriptions of relevant and completed projects (see definitions above), not to exceed one page per project, by the Prime Offeror.  Each Offeror shall submit at least one project for Title I services and at least one project for Title II services.  Note the evaluation method below and ensure the project descriptions are detailed enough for the Government to understand the project’s scope, size, and extent of engineering required.

For each project submitted, 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 entity of the Joint Venture or the JV itself are considered the Prime and are not considered “teaming partners.” 

Experience with LCCA (1 page) and FF&E (1 page): In addition to the project descriptions above, Offerors shall also provide a one-page narrative (maximum) that describes experience with Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA).  Similarly, Offerors shall provide a one-page (maximum) narrative that describes experience with Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) packages.  For the LCCA and FF&E narratives, Offerors shall describe the scope of work (not restricted to DoD dormitory facilities), articulate 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 utilized.  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. 

Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships (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 relationships, 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 relationships and more projects completed together as a “strong” relationship.  The Offeror must submit a narrative, limited to no more than 3 pages, that outlines the Prime Offeror’s capacity to effectively manage schedules, coordinate design deliverables, ensure quality control, and demonstrate seamless collaboration with internal staff and teaming partners (Business Relationships).  The narrative should articulate the Prime Offeror’s partnering philosophy to cultivate and maintain relationships among the A/E, its team, and Government stakeholders.

The narrative should also provide illustrative examples of the impact on schedule and quality derived from the implementation of this philosophy in previous contracts involving proposed team members (both Prime and any teaming partners), as applicable.  Finally, the narrative should delineate design quality management procedures that enhance overall quality, minimize re-submittals, and improve delivery efficiency.  The narrative should include procedures for effective and comprehensive quality control that emphasize the roles and responsibilities of the Prime and any teaming partner, as applicable.  Outline past experiences collaborating with proposed team members and expound on the history of these working relationships, inclusive of joint venture and teaming partners.  (Note that the business relationship portion of this narrative will be used in the evaluation of the remaining Criteron 2 – 5 below).

EVALUATION METHOD:  The Government encourages Offerors to review the evaluation method below to ensure project submissions and narratives provide enough information for the Government to determine the extent of the Offeror's experience, and management of schedule, design deliverables, quality, and business relationships. 

Sub-sections a through e below are listed in descending order of importance, with more consideration given to a greater breadth/number of relevant projects submitted:  

1. Highest consideration 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 rating that may be assigned.
2. More consideration will be given to Offerors that demonstrate A-E Title I services for new construction or repairs of DoD dormitory facilities. The greater the extent of experience, the higher the rating that may be assigned.
3. The greater the extent of experience performing LCCA required by UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Buildings, UFC 3-740-05 Construction Cost Estimating, 10 CFR Part 436 Subpart A, and NIST Handbook 135, the higher the rating that may be assigned. 
4. The greater the extent of experience performing FF&E packages, the higher the rating 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 rating that may be assigned. 
5. The greater the extent and breadth of experience performing Title II projects where the Offeror provided construction-phase credentialed architectural and engineering support services may receive a higher rating. 

While sub-sections a. through e. above are listed in order of importance, within each sub-section, the following applies: 

1. The higher the value of the project, the more consideration that may be given.    
2. The greater the number of disciplines involved in a project, the higher the rating that may be assigned.  Disciplines include architecture, civil engineering, communications systems design, cost estimating services, electrical engineering, fire protection engineering, interior design, mechanical engineering, scheduling services, structural engineering, LCCA, and FF&E. 

The project experience and LCCA/FF&E experience demonstrated by the Offeror in this criterion will form the basis of the initial rating assigned.  The Government will then consider the strength of the Offeror’s response to the Management of Schedule, Quality, and Business Relationships when determining the final rating for this criterion.  More consideration may be given when an Offeror’s narrative demonstrates successful schedule and quality management strategies, and a history of strong business relationships between the Prime and its teaming partners, if applicable. Lesser consideration may be given where the Offeror’s narrative does not demonstrate successful schedule and quality management strategies, or where business relationships between the Prime and its teaming partners are less strong.  Note that the Government considers that the larger the number of teaming partners used, the higher the risk of unsuccessful control and coordination by the Prime.

For Criterion 1, Offerors will NOT be evaluated on portion of the narrative entitled “Compliance with FAR 52.219-14”. However, each Offeror that is selected as the Most Highly Qualified will have this portion of their narrative evaluated by the Contracting Officer during the Responsibility Determination in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, prior to award. Narratives that support a realistic approach to achieving the 50% performance requirement will contribute favorably to the Responsibility Determination. Narratives that do NOT support a realistic approach to achieving the 50% performance requirement may result in a determination of Non-Responsibility and result in an action that is unawardable.

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

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:  

Provide the data for Section E of each proposed key person.  Each resume shall include a maximum of five (5) specific, relevant, and completed projects (see definitions above) that best illustrate the qualifications of the individual member for the position the Offeror proposes for the key member.  Project Manager, ensure key personnel completed projects include at least one DoD dormitory project, where required below.  Section 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 credentials held, years with the company, and education.  Proposed key personnel shall be current active “certified payroll” employees of their respective firm (Prime or Teaming Partner) and that “contract, zero hour, and consulting” staff will not be considered to meet the current Key Personnel requirement.  The Government will use a combination of criteria below to determine the ability of the staff to contribute to the successful completion of project task orders.  An individual may perform more than one role if they hold the appropriate qualifications for those roles. 

After award, if the contractor needs to replace a key person identified in their originally submitted SF330, the contractor must replace that individual with someone of equal or greater experience and qualifications, for approval by the Contracting Officer. 

In the SF 330, Part 1, Section D, provide an organizational chart that identifies the members of the program team, to include the key personnel.  Indicate the branch office location of each team member. 

The individuals filling the role of each of the following positions are considered key personnel and must be assigned to each task order for their respective positions: 

1. Lead Project Manager (must include at least One DoD Dorm Project as PM)
2. Lead Construction Inspector (Title II)

The following individuals must be licensed in their respective disciplines: 

1. Lead Architect (must include at least One DoD Dorm Project as Architect)
2. 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)
3. Lead Mechanical Engineer
4. Lead Electrical Engineer
5. Lead Civil Engineer
6. Lead Structural Engineer
7. Lead Fire Protection Engineer

The Government expects these individuals will provide program level quality control and oversight of the task orders that result from this acquisition.  The Government’s Corporate Contracting Officer (CCO) MUST approve any changes to the proposed key team members after submission of qualifications. 

EVALUATION METHOD:  

The evaluation will consider the extent and breadth of relevant experience, professional licensure, and longevity with the firm for each key person, with more consideration 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 relationship with that teaming partner in the “Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships” narrative submission from Criterion 1.  For teaming partner/sub-consultant key personnel, the evaluation will consider current and former relationships with the Offeror, with more consideration given to longer/direct relationships.  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 submitted 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 submitted 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 vertical construction
6. Resumes that include Title I or Title II projects for Non-DoD vertical construction
7. Lead Architect, Lead Interior Designer, and Lead Engineering positions (Key Personnel c through i above) must be licensed in their respective engineering disciplines, with more consideration given to a greater number of state/jurisdiction licensures
8. Resumes submitted where the key member performed in the role proposed for this contract may also earn a more favorable evaluation

Key personnel proposed in the SF330 must each have 10 years of experience in their respective discipline, with the exception of the Lead Project Manager who can demonstrate this experience as a Project Manager or as an Engineer, and the Construction Inspector (Title II), who must demonstrate at least 10 years of experience in the construction industry, to include 3 years of experience performing construction as an on-site Quality Control Manager, onsite Construction Manager, or an onsite Project Engineer. Key personnel proposed that exceed the minimum requirements, will receive a higher rating. The more experience each proposed key person has in their respective category, the higher the rating that may be assigned.  The Prime must employ the Lead Project Manager.  Ensure every position has a person proposed. The Government will interpret any blank elements of Section 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 narrative discussion to support the response. Limit the narrative to one page.
2. The number of simultaneous Title II projects that require home office support of technical submittals, as well as one (1) full time on-site Title II inspector with a 24-month field construction duration, the Offeror can complete over the 24-month period for a project with a $10,000,000 estimated cost of construction - Offeror shall provide a narrative 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 narrative to one page.

EVALUATION METHOD:  

Evaluation 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 evaluation.  
2. The greater the extent of capacity of Title II projects that can be completed in a 24-month period, the more favorable the evaluation.  
3. Where the Offeror proposes teaming partners in the SF330, the rating assigned for Capacity may be adjusted more or less favorable, based on the strength of relationships demonstrated in the narrative submission from Criterion 1, “Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships”.

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

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall provide current and valid customer points of contact (name, position/role, email, and phone numbers) for each project submitted in Criterion (1).  Also submit Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations for each project submitted in Criterion (1).  The Government encourages firms to contact the appropriate government Project Managers, Contracting Officers (CO), or Contracting Officer's Representatives (COR) to ensure CPARS evaluations are submitted on completed government projects, particularly for those projects submitted under Criterion (1).  If a finalized CPARS evaluation is not available, Offerors may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for completed design work.  In addition to stand alone design contracts/task orders, ”completed design work” includes designs completed on a DB contract, even if the construction portion is not yet completed.  However, the PPQ shall only address the completed design portion and the quality of that design work, if known.  The PPQ is Attachment 2 to this synopsis.  Submit CPARS and PPQs to the Contract Specialist (CS), Senior Airman (SrA) Courage Krueger, via email at courage.krueger@us.af.mil and the CO, Ms. Brindle Summers at, brindle.summers@us.af.mil in the same email transmittal 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 effective submission methodology. 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 timely.

*************************************************************************************

Contractors may use previously completed PPQs for contracts still in progress.  For those PPQs, please ask the current Government Representative on the contract of the PPQ verify currency and accuracy of the PPQ information and send email correspondence to the 772 ESS CO and CS listed above.  Please request submission of the email prior to the SF330 due date. 

*************************************************************************************

In addition to information submitted by the Offeror, the Government may consider information obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 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 contacting the customers submitted with this Criterion. 

EVALUATION METHOD: 

The Government may evaluate all available past performance information for projects deemed relevant (and completed within the past five years from the date this synopsis was issued) to assess performance, with more consideration given to past performance of projects submitted in Criterion (1). 

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

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:  

The Offeror shall furnish a logical narrative, not to exceed two pages, that describes the Prime Offeror's experience performing design services for DoD Facilities within the United States and its territories, and other regions worldwide.  The narrative shall briefly demonstrate knowledge/experience with as many states and US territories as applicable, and shall identify any experience worldwide.  The Government will consider any information that may be pertinent 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 multiple regions.  However, demonstrated experience performed in a greater number of locations and multiple regions may be evaluated more favorably. 

Where the Offeror proposes teaming partners in the SF330, the rating assigned for Knowledge of Capacity may be adjusted based on the strength of relationships demonstrated in the narrative submission from Criterion 1, “Management of Schedule, Quality of Deliverables, and Business Relationships”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONSE TO INITIAL DORM DESIGN TASK ORDERS: To streamline the acquisition timeline and selection 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 Qualifications (RFQ) for EACH project location the firm is interested in performing both Title I design and Title II Construction 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 notice 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 initial Task Orders will receive an RFP to negotiate 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 escalation for out-years will also be included in the negotiation of labor rates. The labor rates negotiated with the first task orders will then be incorporated into the Base Contract awards for use on future Task Orders.   

The RFQ for the initial project Task Orders will state that selection 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 Qualifications, and Past Performance.
2. Knowledge of Locality will be of most importance in making the selection of the Most Highly Qualified Firm for each Project Location identified 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 location below to which your firm is interested in performing BOTH Title I and Title II services, the Offeror shall furnish a logical narrative, not to exceed one page (per interested project location), that describes the Prime Offeror's experience performing Title I or “Other” design services at that location.  The narrative shall briefly demonstrate knowledge/experience with the facility, installation, or state, as applicable.  The Government will consider any information that may be pertinent 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 location.  The greater the extent of experience with that facility, the installation, local region, and/or state (in that order of preference), the more consideration that will be given. 

             

CAPACITY:

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT:  Offerors shall provide a narrative (not to exceed one page) to confirm, with supporting rationale, that they have the resources available to execute a multi-floor, multi-disciplinary complex 100% issued for construction (IFC) design, inclusive of LCCA and FF&E, for a major construction renovation of the construction 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 construction period.

The narrative shall ALSO identify if the firm is interested and capable of designing MORE THAN ONE of these projects/locations at the same time, with supporting rationale of that firm’s ability to execute more than one, to include follow-on Title II services during construction. Where feasible, identify how many of these major dorm renovations the firm can reasonably execute concurrently. For this portion of the narrative, it is acceptable to use the same narrative language for each project location/submission response.

EVALUATION METHOD:

The design and construction of these Dorms are highly important to the Air Force and thus more consideration will be given to firms that can demonstrate a higher capability to execute the size and complexity of each project/location. In its evaluation, the Air Force will take a programmatic approach to evaluating the overall capability of the MATOC holders to execute all of these Dorm Renovation 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 location, if the Air Force feels that that firm’s capacity could increase the risk of performance at both locations, another firm that is knowledgeable at one of those locations 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 construction cost noted in the table below (CWE – Current Working Estimate), with a design Period of Performance (PoP) also noted in the table below. Each facility is a multi-story building requiring a full renovation using most, if not all, engineering disciplines, LCCA, and FF&E. The Design Duration 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 negotiated as an Options to each Design Task Order.

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

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

TINKER AFB, OK – Design for Renovations to Dorm B5942 - $20M CWE – 15 month PoP

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB, NC – Design for Renovations to Dorm B3603 - $15M CWE – 12 month PoP