Inactive

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services for Pituffik Space Base, Greenland Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Title I Design, Title II Construction Survei... REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services for Pituffik Space Base, Greenland Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract for Title I Design, Title II Construction Surveillance and Inspection, and Other Investigative Services General Information Document Type: Solicitation Notice, Solicitation Number: FA2523-26-R-0001 Posted Date: November 3, 2025, Amendment 01 Posted 18 November 2025. This amendment pusblishes questions from industry with Government responses, changes the date established for receipt of qualifications to Dec 8, 2025, and amends paragraph D.3. to align the recency critieria for projects with paragraph D.1. Response Date: December 8, 2025 Archive Date: January 15, 2026 Contracting Office Address: 21st Contracting Squadron, Detachment 1, U.S. Embassy Copenhagen Dag Hammarskjölds Allé 24 2100 København DNK A. DESCRIPTION: This Announcement meets the requirement in FAR 36.6 and PL 92-582 (Brooks A-E Act) that the Government shall publicly announce all requirements for architect- engineer (A-E) services and negotiate contracts for these services based on the demonstrated competence and qualifications of prospective contractors to perform the services at fair and reasonable prices. The United States Space Force, 21 Contracting Squadron, Detachment 1 (DET1) desires two (2) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts that will be negotiated and awarded with a five-year ordering period and an option for an additional six-month extension of services. Neither contract shall exceed 66 months in total duration. It is the Government’s intent to award two IDIQ contracts with a not-to-exceed maximum shared capacity of $9,000,000. The Government will obligate not less than $5,000.00 in A-E services to each recipient of a contract award. The IDIQ contracts will be utilized to support facility sustainment, restoration and modernization projects for the U.S. Space Force at Pituffik Space Base in Northern Greenland. Task Orders (TO) placed on the IDIQ contracts will be solicited by project to the most qualifed firm. TO's may either be priced utilizing firm-fixed price (FFP) or time and material (T&M) line items. Notice to Offeror(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs. Notice to Offeror(s): This acquisition is subject to an International Agreement between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Denmark, and is therefore restricted to offerors from within the Kingdom of Denmark. Offers from firms that are not from within the Kingdom of Denmark will not be evaluated. B. SCOPE OF WORK: The general SOW for this IDIQ contract will require firms to perform architectural and engineering services. 1. A-E Services are defined as professional services of an architectural and engineering nature required to be performed or approved by a person licensed, registered, or certified to provide these services. Architectural and engineering services include services associated with research, planning, development, design, construction, alteration or repair of real property, and other professional services. Architectural and engineering services also include incidental services, which members of the architectural and engineering professions may logically or justifiably perform, including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals, and other related services. 2. Services commonly referred to as Title I include services related to a specific construction project and consist of conducting field surveys and investigations to obtain design data and preparing contract plans, specifications, and cost estimates. These services include preliminary/concept designs, design development, technical specifications, project design analysis, preparation of preliminary and final construction drawings, studies and surveys, facility assessments, and comprehensive interior design packages that meet Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-120-10. Services may be required for primary disciplines, which include but are not limited to architectural, electrical, mechanical, civil, landscaping, structural, environmental, and interior design. 3. Services commonly referred to as Title II services include services related to a specific or proposed construction project and consist of supervision and inspection of construction. This includes inspecting, monitoring, and evaluating construction activities to validate conformance to plans and specifications, including reviewing, evaluating, and testing product submittals and shop drawings, as well as preparation of construction contract modifications. 4. Services commonly referred to as other professional services include services such as charrettes, field investigations, recommendations, studies, reports, conceptual solutions, cost estimates, calculations, measurements, metering, testing, inspections, preparation and review of design plans and specifications, produce research, evaluation of contractor proposals, shop drawing review and construction inspection and presentations to coordinating agencies. Specific projects may include multi-discipline engineering and architectural services for renovations and/or improvements, facility maintenance and repair alterations and modernization and other planning functions for issues relative to planning services. Designs may also require asbestos and lead based paint removal, “Green Design” products and practices and the use of energy saving materials and methods. 5. Disciplines or areas of expertise that may be required include, but are not limited to: architecture, interior design, civil, landscaping, structural, mechanical, electrical, roofing, seismic, sanitary, fire protection, corrosion, soils, radio frequency interference (RFI) and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) shielding, energy management control system (EMCS), power distribution, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) controls, power distribution, construction inspection, facility interior studies, site and traffic planning, and environmental studies. 6. The estimated award date is between March 2026 and June 2026. The NAICS code is 541310. C. SLATE, INTERVIEW AND SELECTION PROCEDURES: The firm shall demonstrate its capability to perform planning work as required under this proposed contract using Standard Form 330 (SF330). The firm is required to complete ALL sections of Part I and Part II of the SF330. The Government will evaluate the completed SF330. This section describes the tasks required for completion of a fair, comprehensive, and impartial slate-selection process. 1. Evaluations: The evaluation for this project will be conducted using a Slate/Selection (one board) procedure. The Slate-Selection Board Chairman (SSBC) will make arrangements for the evaluation upon completion of the screening of the SF330. Each SF330 submitted will be evaluated individually and independently. 2. Familiarization: All members of the architect-engineer evaluation board will be composed of members who, collectively, have experience in different areas of architecture and engineering and Government and related acquisitions matters. Other non-voting members may be included to provide advice on specific matters. Members will be appointed from among highly qualified professional employees from the 21st Contracting Squadron and the Space Base Delta 1. The members are required to be familiar with the contents of the synopsis before evaluation begins. The Chairman will bring the evaluation team members and advisory staff together prior to the evaluation of proposals to discuss the synopsis, the rating methodology, and each member’s responsibilities. 3. Communication: All members of the evaluation organization are to communicate via secure Microsoft Teams, e-mail and/or verbally whenever possible and prudent to the Government. All e- mail communication among the evaluation organization is to be safeguarded and protected as controlled unclassified information (CUI). 4. Receipt and Preparation of SF330: The Contract Specialist and/or Contracting Officer will screen all SF330s to ensure that each is properly completed, executed and submitted in accordance with the synopsis requirements. After this initial screening, the Contract Specialist will forward the SF330s to the SSBC for evaluation. 5. Slate Evaluation: Each member of the evaluation organization will independently evaluate each SF330 submitted to identify compliance with the request for qualifications, strengths and weaknesses, potential clarifications and possible deficiencies. The evaluation will be documented on Slating Rationale worksheets and conducted in accordance with the guidelines established in this synopsis. 6. Narrative assessments: The evaluators’ narrative assessment of each SF330 is the cornerstone of the evaluation process. The narratives form the basis for the award decision. Narrative comments must be clear, detailed and self-explanatory. Narratives will be prepared in ink or computer generated. Evaluators must indicate, at a minimum, (1) where the SF330 meets or fails to meet minimum requirements; (2) strengths/advantages and the benefit to the government should the firm receive award; (3) weaknesses/disadvantages/deficiencies and the impact each would have on the capability to perform. The rating given under each of the evaluation criterion reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the requirement through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of an offer. The methodology used to evaluate the SF330 and related risk will be based on an adjectival score for each evaluation criterion. An overall rating will not be given. 7. Consensus: Upon completion of individual evaluations, the evaluation team and Chairman shall meet and establish a final rating for each firm on each evaluation factor. Ratings will not be averaged, but will represent the consensus opinion of the evaluators. The Chairman will record these consensus results and document the basis for each. The Chairman will present the consensus results to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and legal counsel for review and/or concurrence. 8. Discussions/ Interviews: After PCO review of the consensus results, a minimum of four (4) of the most highly qualified firms will be shortlisted and invited to participate in face-to-face, Microsoft Teams, or telephonic discussions/interviews. Face-to face discussions (if conducted) will be held either at the Offeror’s business location, in the U.S. Embassy Copenhagen, Denmark or virtually via MS Teams. Interviews are conducted for the purpose of obtaining any additional information that will help the board in ranking the firms in order of preference and distinguish between the most highly qualified firms. It provides the board an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the firm’s qualifications, to clarify questions regarding the SF330 and to assess their understanding of the work. The firms are given an opportunity to provide their presentation followed by a question- and-answer period led by the SSBC. The questions may be provided to the firms for preparation; however additional questions may arise based on the information presented during the interview. Any information received during the interview process may be used as justification for the ranking of the firms based on the published selection criteria. During the interviews, the firms are invited to present their approach, discuss the concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of furnishing the required services. Interviewed firms must be prepared to provide a listing of present business commitments with their required completion schedules; financial and credit references (include name and telephone numbers of officers at their financial institutions) and performance references other than 21st Contracting Squadron Det 1 Copenhagen, Denmark (include three (3) or more references with names and telephone numbers of the contract administrators). 9. Selection: Following the interviews, the Evaluation Board shall reach a consensus on the order of preference of the short-listed firms and provide a recommendation to the selection authority, in order of preference, of the firm(s) that is/are considered to be the most highly qualified. The Selection Board Report will include clear justification for the basis of selecting the most highly qualified firm(s) and will be based solely on the evaluation criteria identified in the publicized request for qualifications. Only one board will be used, and the Slate/Selection report will include documentation supporting the decision to include and exclude firms from the slate. Final selection decision shall be made by the designated selection authority. 10. After Selection: After the Selection Report has been approved, the PCO may release information identifying only the A-E firm(s) selected as the most highly qualified with which negotiations will be conducted. The PCO will request a priced proposal from the most highly qualified firm, including fully burdened rates (inclusive of direct labor rates, overheads and profit) for the requested labor categories. The priced proposal will be evaluated in accordance with techniques described in FAR 15.404 and the Government will enter into negotiations. Because of the Selection of Architects and Engineers procedures, if a fair and reasonable price cannot be negotiated with the selected firm(s), the Contracting Officer may terminate negotiations and request a price proposal from, and negotiate with, the next most highly qualified firm. This process will continue until the Government has successfully negotiated a fair and reasonable contract with two A-E firms. D. EVALUATION and SELECTION CRITERIA (PART I): Firms responding to this Request for Qualifications will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firm(s) to perform the required services in accordance with the published selection criteria. Failure to comply with instructions or provide complete information may affect the firm’s evaluation or disqualify the firm from further consideration. The following five (5) Selection Criteria will be used to evaluate offers. Firms must submit the completed SF 330 and up to a maximum of five past examples of projects completed since the beginning of calendar year 2020 (Section F). Sections F and H (if used) shall not exceed 20 pages in length. RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF EVLUATION CRITERIA: The evaluation criteria below are listed in descending order of importance. Significant evaluation factors in accordance with FAR 36.602-1 in order of relative importance are as follows: Factor 1 – Specialized experience and technical competence Factor 2 – Experience and Team Professional Qualifications Factor 3 - Offeror & Team Experience with Arctic Design, similar to Greenland Factor 4 - Recent Past Performance Factor 5 – Capacity of the Offeror and proposed subcontractors For each of the Factors above, the Government will assign an adjectival rating in accordance with the table below: ADJECTIVAL RATING Adjectival Rating Description Excellent The proposal demonstrates a superior understanding of the requirements and an approach that includes strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. No significant weakness identified. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will be sufficient to minimize risk. Good The proposal demonstrates a considerable understanding of the requirements and an approach that includes strengths that will benefit the Government. Any identified weakness has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Satisfactory The proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets the Governments requirements. The proposal has no deficiencies but may include some weakness that can potentially cause disruption of schedules or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will minimize any risk. Marginal The proposal demonstrates a marginal understanding of the requirements and the approach marginally meets the requirements. Unacceptable The proposal fails to demonstrate a basic understanding of the requirements and/or the approach fails to meet the requirements. The proposal has major omissions or inadequate details to assure the evaluators that the offeror understands the requirements. The proposal presents an unacceptable risk and cannot meet the requirements without major revisions. D.1. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: The Government will evaluate Factor 1 by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating. 1. The Government will review Offerors proposals up to first five past examples completed since start of calendar year 2020 (SF 330 Section F). Projects after number five will not be reviewed for factor #1. If a past example is completed before calendar-year 2020, the example will not be evaluated. 2. The Government will review and evaluate responsive past examples to ensure the Offeror submitted at a minimum of two of four criteria (2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d). a. Master planning on a campus and/or military base equal to or greater than fifty (50) acres. 50 acres must be for one single location rather than adding acreage from multiple sites to achieve 50 acres. b. Concept and Planning Studies c. Feasibility studies for an existing building, d. Programming, and/or design for facilities. 3. The Government will review to ensure the Offeror provided for each project presented in addition to information above: a. Completed date of service b. Project owner name, email address, and telephone number c. Acreage of the campus and/or military base (factor 1) d. Minimum of two factors (2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d) are addressed e. Offeror’s role in each example was identified. Offerors that provide responsive examples that address more than two criteria expressed in 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d will receive a higher adjectival rating than offerors that address fewer criteria. In the event the Offeror does not have experience since the start of calendar year 2020, Factor #1 will not be reviewed, nor any other factors, and the Offeror will be will not be evaluated for subsequent evaluation factors and will not be further considered for award. D.2. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE AND TEAM PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: The Government will evaluate Factor 2 by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating. 1. The Government will review professional qualifications for the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors and key personnel. If the experience is earlier than calendar year 2020 for personnel, that experience will not be considered. 2. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed team and organization chart. 3. The Government will review the SF 330 Sections C and D for key personnel proposed by the Offeror. 4. The Government will review the SF 330 resumes to verify the Offeror has addressed all labor categories in Attachment 3 – Contractor Key Personnel. 5. The Government will review the SF 330 key personnel participation in examples provided. D.3. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 3 – OFFEROR & TEAM EXPERIENCE WITH TREATMENT OF ARCTIC DESIGN, SIMILAR TO GREENLAND: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s experience to ensure the examples were completed since the start of calendar year 2020 (SF 330 Section F) and ensure the examples include customer names and contact email addresses. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, including subcontractors, experience according to items 1, 2 and 3 below: 1. Experience in the areas of applying UFC 3-130-xx series or similar commercial construction criteria/codes. 2. Experience with U.S. Federal sustainability requirements. 3. Experience with projects incorporating designs and/or charrettes in Arctic locations. Offerors that provide responsive examples that address criteria 1, 2 and 3 above will receive a higher adjectival rating than offerors that address fewer criteria. Offeror’s who have knowledge and experience with local governing bodies and related agencies within the Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland, will receive a higher adjectival rating. D.4. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4 – RECENT PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s past performance by reviewing the examples provided for Factor #1 and Factor #3. The Government will evaluate past performance using the following criteria: 1. Quality of work. 2. Compliance with performance schedules. 3. Contract cost control. 4. Project management. The Government shall additionally access performance evaluations data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), in accordance with FAR 42.1501 and may consider credible documentation included in the SF 330. The Government may consider other past performance data obtained through sources other than CPARS and/or the submitted SF 330, either favorable or unfavorable, during the entire selection process. D.5. EVALUATION OF FACTOR 5 – CAPACITY OF THE OFFEROR AND PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS: The Government will evaluate Factor 5 to determine the Offeror’s capacity and their subcontractor’s capacity for current and planned work for Fiscal Year 2026 (Date of Award through September 30, 2026). Specific projects are unknown at this time, however historical workload indicates between two (2) and five (5) projects per year consisting of Title I, Title II and other A-E services. E. EVALUATION and SELECTION CRITERIA (PART II): A minimum of four (4) firms evaluated as “highly qualified” from Part I above will be further evaluated in Part II. 1. The Government may have oral discussions with each Offeror in Part II, either at their place of business, at the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, or virtually via MS Teams. Offerors will be given a minimum of seven (7) days’ notice of the discussions. 2. The Offeror will be afforded 60 minutes of uninterrupted presentation time to review the Factors in Part I. The Offeror may elect to present for less than 60 minutes, but no firm shall exceed 60 minutes of presentation time. The Government will utilize a timer to ensure that no firm exceeds the allotted time. The Offeror will be evaluated on content rather than length of presentation. 3. The Government may ask questions related to Part I, or any information included in the Offeror’s presentation, for a period of not to exceed 30 minutes. At the conclusion of discussions with all Offeror’s included in Part II, the Government will rank the most highly qualified firms on a selection list in order from the most preferred firm, the second most preferred firm, the third most preferred firm, and so on. The Selecting Official will present the Selection List to the Contracting Officer. F. FEE/PRICED PROPOSAL: The PCO will receive a Selection List from the Selecting Official. Beginning with the most preferred firm, the PCO will request a fee/priced proposal, including fully burdened billing rates (inclusive of direct labor rates, overheads and profit) for the requested labor categories. The priced proposal will be evaluated in accordance with techniques described in FAR 15.404 and the Government will enter into negotiations. Because of the Selection of Architects and Engineers procedures described in FAR 36.606(f), if a fair and reasonable price cannot be negotiated with the selected firm(s), the Contracting Officer may terminate negotiations and request a price proposal from, and negotiate with, the next most highly qualified firm. This process will continue until the Government has successfully negotiated a fair and reasonable contract with two of the most highly rated, selected A-E firms. RESPONSE PROCEDURES: 1. Each firm will indicate selected consultants to include, but not limited to, the following design disciplines: Architectural (including Landscape Architects), Civil Engineer (General and Airfield Design), Structural, Mechanical (HVAC, Plumbing & Fire Protection), Environmental (Hazardous Waste Identification and Design), and Electrical (Building Design, Fire Detection & Alarm Systems, Exterior Lighting, and Underground Distribution). Consultants, joint ventures, or complete in-house capability of the listed design disciplines are acceptable. If joint venture or mentor protégé, the Contractor shall submit the agreement and failure to include the agreement will result in the firm’s elimination from further evaluation. 2. A-E firms that meet the requirements described in this request for qualifications are invited to respond to this announcement. Each A-E's response must include: Two (2) copies of SF 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications, with a cover letter, each copy is not to exceed fifty (50) A4 pages in length (excluding the cover letter), summarizing their qualifications, experience, and capabilities. Forms are available at www.gsa.gov (GSA Forms Library). The cover letter should also provide the name of a point of contact that can respond to questions about the response. Include a phone number and e-mail addresses for the points of contact. Be sure to include information on awards and other recognition for designs or other work relevant to the requirements set out in this request for qualifications. Offerors need not include CPARS or past performance questionnaires. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective response are not desired. 3. No projects have been authorized for design and funds are not presently available for any contracts. 4. In order to maintain total objectivity in the A-E selection process, telephone calls and e-mails to discuss this announcement are discouraged unless absolutely necessary. Personal visits for the purpose of discussing this announcement will not be scheduled. 5. Responses and submittals must be received at the Detachment 1, 21st Contracting Squadron office at American Embassy, Dag Hammarskjolds Alle, 24, 2100 Copenhagen as an attachment to the SF 330. Firms desiring consideration should be multi-disciplined in nature or clearly indicate their consultants. OTHER INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION: 1. All firms interested in this announcement must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) in order to receive a federal contract award. Register for SAM at: http://www.sam.gov. Failure to register may render the firm ineligible for award. Firm must also be willing and able to register in the Wide Area Workflow (WAWF), the government invoice and payment processing system at the time of the award. Register at: https://wawf.eb.mil. All documentation submitted in response to this solicitation must be submitted in the English language. Documents submitted in languages other than English will not be further evaluated. Attachments: SF330 Statement of Work (SOW) Contractor Key Personnel