Inactive

AMENDMENT 02 10 FEBRUARY 2022 - The purpose of this amendment is to: provide the revised Synopsis ( See Attachment: Synopsis PP AE AM 02); provide the Key Example Project Submission Scenarios (Attachm... AMENDMENT 02 10 FEBRUARY 2022 - The purpose of this amendment is to: provide the revised Synopsis ( See Attachment: Synopsis PP AE AM 02); provide the Key Example Project Submission Scenarios (Attachment 7); provide the Government responses to the questions received (Attachment 8). No further questions will be accepted by the Government. AMENDMENT 01 03 FEBRUARY 2022 - The purpose of this amendment is to: provide the revised Synopsis ( See Attachment: Synopsis PP AE AM 01); provide the Pre-Synopsis Conference Presentation Slides (Attachment 4); provide the Pre-Synopsis Conference Attendance List (Attachment 5); and provide the Government responses to the questions received (Attachment 6). The submission due date for the SF330s has been moved to 23 February 2022 at 1200CST. Questions were submitted by 1200CST on 27 January 2022 via ProjNet, PlanningandProgrammingA-E@usace.army.mil, and/or during the Pre-Synopsis Conference held on 20 January 2022. To ensure responses are disseminated, all questions and answers are posted on SAM.gov and ProjNet. No additional responses will be provided. INITIAL SOLICITATION (dated 11 January 2022): INDEFENITE DELIVERY CONTRACT (IDC) FOR A-E SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF REAL PROPERTY PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, HUNTSVILLE CENTER GENERAL INFORMATION Document Type: Combine Synopsis/Solicitation Solicitation Number: W912DY-21-R-0050 Posting Date: 11 January 2022 Response Date & Time: 17 February 2022 at 1200 CST Title: Planning & Programming Architect-Engineer Indefinite Delivery Contract NAICS Code: 541310 Architectural Services Product Service Code (PSC): C215 - Architect and Engineering – General: Production Engineering CONTRACTING OFFICE ADDRESS: US Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Center P.O. Box 1600 Huntsville, AL 35807-4301 CONTRACT INFORMATION. This is not a Request for Price Proposal (RFPP). This acquisition is being procured In Accordance With (IAW) the 40 United States Code (U.S.C) Chapter 1101 et seq, “Selection of Architects and Engineers” statute (formally known as the Brooks Act) as implemented per the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 36.6, Subpart 236.6 of the Defense Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) and Subpart 5136.6 of the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS); the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Acquisition Instructions (UAI); and Engineering Pamphlet (EP) 715-1-7, “Architect-Engineer Contracting in USACE”. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (CEHNC) plans to award a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC) suite using an unrestricted competitive method. Firms will be selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work. The multiple award IDC suite will have one twenty-four (24) months base ordering period and one thirty-six (36) month optional ordering period, for a total of sixty (60) months or five (5) years. FAR 52.217-9, “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract” will be evaluated and included in the IDC. FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services” not to exceed six (6) months of services will be evaluated and included in the IDCs. Work will be issued by negotiated Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) task orders. CEHNC intends to award a minimum of eight (8) IDCs (five (5) of the most highly rated other than small business firms and three (3) of the most highly rated small business firms) for this acquisition; however, the Government reserves the right to award more, less, or none at all if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 541310, which has a small business size standard of $8,000,000. The applicable PSC for this acquisition is “C215 - Architect and Engineering - General: Production Engineering”. This will be an unrestricted competitive acquisition. The total capacity amount to be shared among all awardees will be $160,000,000.00. The Government’s minimum obligation shall not exceed the minimum guarantee of $2,500.00 for the life of each IDC. To be eligible for an IDC award, a firm must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of their submission. Register via the SAM Internet site at https://sam.gov. IAW FAR 52.236-23, Responsibility of the Architect-Engineer Firm, the A-E firm shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications, and other services furnished by the Firm under this multiple award IDC. The Firm shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, and other services. The main activities that comprise the selection process for this A-E IDC suite: 1. Public Announcement 2. Receipt of Standard Form (SF) 330, Architect-Engineer Qualifications 3. Conduct Pre-Selection Evaluation Board (if needed) 4. Conduct Selection Evaluation Board 5. Approval of Selections by Selection Authority 6. Issuance, Evaluation, and Negotiation of Price Proposals 7. Preparation of Contract Award Documents 2. REQUIREMENTS INFORMATION: Firms will be required to provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, and supervision to perform military construction (MILCON) programming, Master Planning, Facilities Assessments, Real Property Systems of Record, and other miscellaneous studies and/or analysis which focus on real property assets. The acquisition requirements and its resultant contract and task orders will not include work which focuses on design or construction. The dividing line between a planning study and a design study is defined as a preconcept design (equivalent to a 15% design effort). Work which is defined as preconcept design of a facility or project is permissible. Work which is defined as being more than a design of a facility is not permissible. Services are required for site investigation, planning, engineering studies (not to include efforts above the preconcept design), primarily for real property assets on a Government installation. A. Location. Work under this multiple award IDC will be in support of multiple locations throughout the Continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Territories and possessions, and locations outside of the Continental United States, such as Germany, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, and United Kingdom. The A-E Firms must perform all work in accordance with commonly accepted practices, quality, and professional standards for the industry including adherence with all applicable codes, regulations, technical standards, instructions, specifications, and installation, local, state, and federal and international requirements. The work will, in some cases, necessitate travel to work sites and Government installations for the purposes of data collection, meetings, etc. However, the bulk of the work is anticipated to be performed in the home offices of the Firm. B. Security Considerations. All A-E firms and all associated sub-contractors’ employees shall comply with applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by government representative). The firm shall also provide all information required for background checks to meet installation/facility access requirements to be accomplished by installation Provost Marshal Office, Director of Emergency Services or Security Office. The A-E firms’ workforce must comply with all personal identity verification requirements (FAR clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel) as directed by DoD, HQDA and/or local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) at any installation or facility change, the Government may require changes in contractor A-E firm security matters or processes. C. Information Security. At a minimum, all documents submitted to the Government shall be marked Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in accordance with the Controlled Unclassified Information sections of Department of Defense (DoD) Manual 5200.01 DoD Information Security Program. The A-E firm shall put into place a system to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of data, photographs, reports, and other material generated or acquired as a result of this contract. Access to data, maps, photographs, and similar material under the firm’s controls shall be limited to those with a valid need. Paragraphs 10.3 through 10.10 apply to all task orders for which contractor A-E firm employees have an area of performance within a DoD-controlled installation, facility, or area. D. Classified Information. When required to handle classified information, the firm shall properly safeguard all classified material in accordance with applicable regulations outlined in the Department of Defense Form (DD Form). Access to classified information is only authorized at the A-E facility, DIA facilities, or other DoD activities as directed by the Contracting Officer. The A-E shall strictly adhere to the security guidance stated in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) DoD 5220.22-M regarding the safeguarding of information and the use of Defense Security Service approved computer systems to process classified information. The A-E shall transmit classified documents by a designated courier or escort cleared for access. Classified documents shall be stored in a General Services Administration-approved security container, an approved vault, or closed area. It is suggested that the A-E have Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) capability to ease in coordination efforts with Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) secure server. 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: Firms that demonstrate higher aggregate qualifications relevant to the primary selection criteria are considered to be the most highly qualified firms. If two or more firms are technically equal, the secondary criteria will be used as “tie-breakers” and the final ranking of the most highly qualified firms will be decided after interviews are conducted. If justified by the submissions, a sufficient number of firms will be recommended to ensure that at least two (2) most highly qualified firms remain “in reserve” when negotiations commence on the final contract. Negotiations for fully burdened labor rates in each labor category will take place with the most highly qualified firms. The selection process for this acquisition will be IAW EP 715-1-7, FAR Subpart 36.6, DFARS Subpart 236.6 and AFARS Subpart 5136.6, utilizing the selection criteria listed below: PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA The primary criteria are listed in descending order of importance: CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Criterion A Specialized Experience & Technical Competence Criterion B Professional Qualifications Criterion C Past Performance Criterion D Capacity Criterion E Knowledge of Locality A. Specialized Experience & Technical Competence The Government will evaluate the specialized experience and technical competence of each firm as demonstrated by six (6) relevant and recent Key Example Projects that the firm has submitted. Qualifications relative to this factor will be determined as follows: 1. Submission of Relevant Projects: A “project” is defined as efforts leading to the completion of a specific requirement that was ordered at one point in time. Multiple projects (even if performed under the same contract or task order) may not be submitted as a single Key Example Project and will be disqualified from further evaluation. Proposals that have fewer than six relevant projects may be interpreted as having less overall experience for this criterion. If the Firm submits more than six (6) Key Example Projects, only the first six numbered projects described in the proposal will be evaluated. 2. Firms Performing Key Example Projects: Key Example Projects must be performed by the prime contractor Firm, Joint- Venture partners, or Key Subcontractors that are being proposed as team members on this proposal. A Key Subcontractor is defined as a firm that is being proposed on this contract as performing or being recognized as a subject matter expert in one or more of the following fields: Master Planning, Medical Facility Planning, Facility Assessments, Real Property Systems of Record, Planning Charrettes, Requirements Analysis. 3. Portfolio of Proposed Projects: Numbered Key Example Projects must demonstrate specialized experience focusing on the following categories described below: Key Example Project 1: Programming Documentation Key Example Project 2: Master Planning Key Example Project 3: Facilities Assessments Key Example Project 4: Real Property Systems of Record. Key example projects 5 & 6 may address any of these projects in any combination the firm seeks to emphasize. Information provided for each project must contain all information necessary to allow for the complete evaluation of the elements described in para. 3.A.(4)a-d. If a project is not clearly associated with one or more of these project types it will NOT be considered relevant and will be excluded from evaluation: a. Programming Documentation: This product line focuses on the preparation of requirements analyses and DD1391 documents in support of financial programming of future MILCON projects. All work completed must comply with MILCON programming policies and procedures that includes the preparation of one or more of the following: Submission of DD Form1391. Project submission must include evidence of contractor A-E firm completion of Tabs A, B, C, D, and corresponding evidence of contractor A-E firm coordination among stakeholders to complete of Tabs E, F, H and J. Facility and mission requirements analysis Facilitation of planning charrettes and economic analysis. Development and review of parametric and programmatic cost estimates b. Master Planning: This product line focuses on the preparation of a Master Plan and associated support and ancillary documents as defined within UFC 2-100-01. Master Planning is the analytical process of evaluating factors affecting the present and future development of an installation with the goal of maximizing benefits to all stakeholders. Comprehensive master planning services may include any and all analyses of physical features on an installation and the corresponding report documents as stipulated. Master Planning projects will include preparation of one or more of the following documents: Real Property Assets: Installation Real Property Master Plans (RPMP), Area Development Plans, Vision Plans, etc. Infrastructure Assets: Infrastructure Capacity Analysis, Resiliency Planning, Installation Energy and Water Plans, etc. Environmental Assets: Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMP), Stormwater Analysis, Sustainability Planning, etc. Financial Plans: Capital Improvement Plans, Business Case Analysis, Economic Analysis c. Facility Assessments: Facility assessments involve the collection of data and analysis of that data in order to define current and near-term future use of an asset or building. The goal is to evaluate a building’s current and near-term future use to assess code compliance and maximum utility. The project description must include total square footage and the number of data elements for which information factors were collected. Analysis which supports this product line may include: Facility Utilization Surveys Facility Assessments Fire Protection Assessments Health Life and Safety Assessments Transition Planning d. Real Property Systems of Record: The DoD collects a significant amount of data on its real property assets for input into the appropriate Accountable Property Systems of Record (APSR) referenced below. Efforts will include collection, creation, input, editing, maintaining, and auditing data attributes within the ASPR. Predominate ASPRs are listed below. Work may be required within other systems of record. Projects or work submitted under this work type for systems not listed below are acceptable so long as the system for which data is being collected focuses on real property. The description of the example project must present the number of facilities for which data was collected, the total square footage and the number of factors for which data was collected. General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) Installation Status Report (ISR) Real Property Planning and Analysis System (RPLANS) Building Information Modeling (BIM) Proactive Real-property Interactive Space Management Systems (PRISMS) BUILDER PAVER ROOFER Geographic Information Systems 4. Evaluation Sub-criteria: Strength of each Key Example Project will be evaluated in terms of: Project Complexity, Depth of Involvement, Age of Project, and Customer. Project Complexity, Depth of Involvement, and Age of Project are considered equal in weight while Customer is weighted less than any single other sub-criterion: a. Project Complexity: In general, larger, more complex projects will generally be evaluated as being stronger than smaller, less complex projects. How complexity is evaluated for each project type is described below 1. Programming Documentation: Projects addressing facilities for which a Center of Standardization does not exist will be rated higher than projects for facilities which have a Center of Standardization. Projects seeking a waiver to a standardized design will be given equal weigh as projects for facilities lacking a Center of Standardization. Projects addressing facilities which will be used to support a unit with a combination Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) (a non-deployable unit)/ Modification Table of Organizational Equipment (MTOE) (a deployable unit) or a unit with only a TDA will be rated higher than projects having only a MTOE. Projects addressing facilities in support of a unit with an extensive or unusual MUE requirement will be rated higher than units with a minimal Mission Unique Equipment (MUE) requirement. Projects with square footages above 100,000 square feet will be rated higher than projects with below 100,000 square feet. Projects having site constraints such as adjacency to wetlands, cultural sites, steep topography, Organic Industrial Base (OIB) facilities having adjacency requirements to other facilities, or other such requirements will be given a higher rating. Projects containing Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) spaces will be rated higher than those which do not have SCIF spaces. 2. Master Planning: Projects which encompass a larger number of assets will be given greater weight than those which encompass a smaller number of assets. For the purposes of evaluating complexity, infrastructure will be considered part of the asset infrastructure. Master Plans which deal with OIB facilities and installations will be given greater weight than master plans which do not contain these elements. Master Plans which draw a direct link between requirements and future development forecasts will be given greater weight than those which focus on capacity planning. Project descriptions which include sub-component analyses such as those referenced above will be given greater weight that those which focus on a single analysis or aspect of master planning. 3. Facility Assessments: Assessments which include a larger number of individual facilities will be rated higher than those with fewer. Assessments which include a larger number of square feet will be rated higher than those with less. Assessments which involve a larger the number of factors for which data is collected will be rated higher than those with less. Assessments which include analysis of space utilization or some methodology which requires the contractor to develop course of action alternatives will be given greater weight than those which are focused on data collection 4. Real Property Systems of Record: Assessments with a larger number of individual assets will be rated higher than those with fewer. Assessments which involve a larger square footage will be rated higher than those with less. Assessments with a larger number of data fields will be rated higher than those with fewer. b. Depth of Involvement: A project team that had been directly involved in a greater number of critical disciplines on a project will be considered stronger than if the project team had been directly involved in fewer, less critical disciplines on the project. c. Age of Project: A Key Example Project will only be considered “recently completed” if the final completed product was accepted within the last three (3) years from the proposal due date of this acquisition. Projects which are older than five years from the date of completion to the present will not be considered. Projects which are less than three years of age from the date of completion will be given full consideration. Projects of age between three and five years from the date of completion will be given less weight. Key Example Projects which were completed more than three years ago or are currently less than 100% complete will still be evaluated, however, they will be considered significantly weaker than a recently completed Key Example Project. d. Customer: Customers outside the US Federal Government will not be considered. Projects within the DoD will be evaluated as stronger than non-DoD projects. B. Professional Qualifications The Government will evaluate the professional qualifications of each firm by evaluating the following elements: State Certificate of Authorization for A-E or Architectural Firm: If the firm has not provided a Certificate of Authorization, an equivalent certification, or (otherwise) a letter explaining why the firm may, by law, practice architecture and/or engineering in at least one state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States as required by FAR 36.601-4(b), the firm may be disqualified from further consideration. Joint Venture Partnership Agreement: If the firm is proposing as a joint venture partnership, it must include a copy of their signed agreement. Mentor Protégé Agreement: If the firm is proposing under a Mentor-Protégé program, it must include a copy of their signed agreement. Resumes for Key Positions: The Government will evaluate the relevant experience and required credentials of each person submitted for each key position. A resume must be provided for each of the following disciplines: Lead Project Manager Lead Urban Planner Lead Architect Lead Quality Control Manager Lead Civil Engineer Lead Landscape Architect Lead Cost Engineer Lead Military Training Analyst Lead Geographic Information System (GIS)/ Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) Technician 5. The following will be used to evaluate the qualifications of the proposed key personnel: a. Each key person shall have a reasonably-applicable degree from an accredited college. Advanced degrees will be given greater consideration. b. Possession of any of the following licenses or certifications (relevant to the position): Professional Engineer (PE), Registered Architect (RA), and/or American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Personnel possessing such licenses/certifications will be given greater consideration. c. The longevity of their work experience of their having performed relevant work on relevant projects. Personnel having worked longer with more relevant experience will be given greater consideration. d. The strength and relevance of their experience in the overall portfolio of projects that they have worked. More relevant work experience relative to the target requirements will be given greater weight. Experience with the conduct of applicable projects directly for the U.S. Federal Government will be given greater consideration. e. Any specialized skills or experience derived from the resume that the Government believes to be valuable. 6. Evaluation of Key Example Project Teaming Experience: A team will be rated stronger whose matrix demonstrates team experience where a greater percentage of its members have worked together on more Key Example Projects. 7. Evaluation of the Organization Chart: The organization chart will be evaluated for potential performance risks and opportunities related to organizational structure. 8. Evaluation of Quality Control (QC) Process: The QC Process will be evaluated for potential performance risks and its ability to maintain a level of quality consistent with the industry standard. C. Past Performance The Government will evaluate each firm’s Past Performance as follows: Past Performance will be evaluated primarily upon official information available about the Key Example Projects submitted. However, the Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance evaluation information from any other relevant sources for recent and relevant projects performed by the prime Firm, Key Subcontractors and Joint Venture Partners. The Government may elect to consider any credible and reliable information obtained from other sources. The relevance of such past performance information will be evaluated prior to consideration. In the event adverse past performance information is obtained from the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or other sources, the firm will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment. A firm’s overall past performance will be evaluated from the degree of confidence that the Government anticipates the Firm will perform successfully based on the information provided. The government will assign a Confidence Rating based on this evaluation. The Confidence Ratings will first be adjusted based on the relevance of the projects. Projects with lower Relevance Ratings will tend to lower the overall Confidence Rating. Past performance submitted must match the Key Example Project period of performance described in the respective Key Example Project fields provided in SF330 Part I, Section F. (This will ensure the board is evaluating the most recent past performance information on the project.) Past Performance (Criterion C) will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology: ADJECTIVAL DEFINITIONS Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant Past/present performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. ADJECTIVAL DEFINITIONS 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. 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 successfully perform the required effort. Unknown Confidence (Neutral)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 Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. D. Capacity The Government will evaluate each firm’s capacity to perform work as follows: Greater consideration will be given to firms who can effectively demonstrate a greater capacity for their proposed team to effectively handle additional work of the type demanded of this contract relative to their present workload. Simply stating that a firm has a certain amount of capacity without demonstrating it through a clear, understandable explanation derived by resource and workload analysis will not be given additional consideration. The board will not assign a rating on the clarity of explanation, but on the amount of additional capacity effectively demonstrated. Capacity is not simply a measure of the depth of the overall resources available to the A-E firm, but rather a measure of the proposed team to perform tasks under this contract. The SF330 Part II documents may be considered to determine the availability and number of team members who are competent to perform the target requirements. E. Knowledge of Locality Greater consideration will be given to firms who have demonstrated greater geographic diversity of project experience and capability. A firm who has worked projects in several locations Outside the Continental United States will be given more consideration than those who have worked on projects located only in the Continental United States. A firm that has worked projects located in several diverse locations within the Continental United States will be given more consideration than a firm that has only worked on projects in fewer, regionalized locations within the Continental United States. Work under this award may include multiple locations throughout the Continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. Territories and possessions, and overseas locations, such as Germany, Poland, Italy, Qatar, Kuwait, Honduras, Japan, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, and Turkey. Criteria A, B, D, and E will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating methodology: ADJECTIVAL DEFINITIONS Outstanding Submission meets requirements and indicates exceptional qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Good Submission meets requirements and indicates adequate qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. Submission contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Acceptable Submission meets requirements and indicates adequate qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Marginal Submission does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated adequate qualifications and an understanding of the requirements. The submission has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Unacceptable Submission does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Submission is un-awardable. SECONDARY SELECTION CRITERIA The secondary criteria will be used as “tie-breakers. The secondary criteria will only be used as a "tie-breaker,” if necessary, in ranking the most highly qualified firms. The secondary criteria will not be commingled with the primary criteria in the evaluation. The secondary criteria are listed in the order of importance. CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Criterion F Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Criterion G Volume of DoD Contract Awards F. Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business The firm must provide their intended subcontracting targets (as a percentage of Total Acquisition Value of the contract) in the following categories: Small Business (SB) Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone) Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned S...