Mechanical/Electrical A&E Services

SUBJECT: Synopsis for the FY 18-22 Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Architect Engineer Contract for Mechanical/Electrical Projects, Hanscom AFB MA 1. The following is a synopsis for the FY 18-22 A&E IDIQ for primarily Mechanical/Electrical Engineering multi-discipline firm: This contract is being procured in accordance with the Brooks A-E Act as implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. A firm will be selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work in accordance with the FY 18 A&E Statement of Work (Attachment 1). A single award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract will be negotiated and awarded for a five (5) year ordering period. The total fees for the ordering period shall not exceed $4,500,000. The estimated start date for this contract is May 2018. Work will be issued by negotiated firm-fixed-price task orders. The contract will require complete architectural-engineering services for various civil and architectural minor construction, repair, maintenance and alterations projects at Hanscom Air Force Base and/or surrounding Federal entities that are the responsibility of the 66th Civil Engineering Directorate at Hanscom AFB (e.g. Sagamore Hill, Fourth Cliff Recreation Annex, etc.). The scope of the individual delivery orders can vary extensively and may include topographical surveys, environmental studies, investigatory and design services for electrical utility system, HVAC systems, steam & condensate system, chilled water system, complete or partial renovation of large office facilities, laboratory and specialized facilities, etc. The target construction costs on each of these design projects can range in magnitude from $100,000 to $5,000,000. Work consists of furnishing all architect-engineer services (electrical, architectural, asbestos, civil, construction inspection, controls, energy, drafting (CADD), environmental, mechanical and surveying to perform complete Title 1A investigatory, Title 1B design, Title II construction inspection services and other services. These include but are not limited to: studies, reports, site investigation with building field survey, asbestos survey, topographic survey, testing, calculations, complete design drawings and specifications, cost estimates, economic analysis, energy analysis, construction phasing, etc. The following are the factors for evaluation (in order of importance): - 1. Professional Qualifications. The evaluation of Professional Qualifications will consider education, training, professional registration/licensure, certifications, and relevant experience of specified personnel performing the role to be used on the project, and longevity with the firm. Resumes are required for the following key personnel: program manager or principal, project manager (engineer or architect), lead mechanical engineer, lead electrical engineer, lead architect, lead code compliance/life safety specialist (architect or engineer), lead fire protection engineer, licensed land surveyor (registered in Massachusetts), and construction cost estimator (registration not required). The lead architect or engineer assigned to the project in each of the previously listed disciplines must be registered to practice in the appropriate professional field unless otherwise noted. Project manager shall have 10 years of experience managing projects. Information contained in the SF 330 Part I, Section E will be the primary basis for evaluation against this criteria. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #1: - a. Highly Qualified: Registered / Licensed in any state and has experience in projects utilizing UFC's similar to those listed the Evaluation Factor #2. - b. Qualified: Registered / Licensed in any state and has experience in projects similar to those listed the Evaluation Factor #2. - c. Not Qualified: Not registered / licensed, did not demonstrate experience in projects similar to those listed in Evaluation Factor #2. 2. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. Firms must demonstrate specialized experience and Technical Competence in: (1) Development of construction documents for a typical facility renovation project that includes the repair and/or upgrade of HVAC and electrical systems for administrative office buildings of at least 30,000 square feet. (2) The design of projects to meet Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) standards. Especially UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements and UFC 04-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Requirements for Buildings. (3) The design of projects to install, repair, or replace steam and condensate distribution systems or chilled water distribution systems. (4) The design of projects to install, repair, or replace medium voltage distribution systems. Information contained in the SF 330 Part I, Section F will be the primary basis for evaluation against this criteria. Projects in which the firm's work was completed prior to 2010 will be given less consideration. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #2: - a. Highly Relevant: Project is similar to those listed the Evaluation Factor #2 and designed for the Air Force using UFC's. - b. Relevant: Project similar to those listed the Evaluation Factor #2 and designed for the Department of Defense using UFC's. - c. Neutral: Project similar to those listed in Evaluation Factor #2 but designed for Non?DoD clients. - d. Not Relevant: Project not similar to those listed in Evaluation Factor #2. 3. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time. A proposed management plan shall be contained in the SF 330 Part I, Section H that references the organization chart provided in Part I, Section D of the SF 330, and briefly addresses the designer's management and philosophical approach for executing and managing multiple simultaneous task orders. The proposed management plan shall address team organization, quality control procedures, cost control, coordination of in-house disciplines and consultants. The SF 330 shall clearly indicate the primary office where the work will be performed and the staffing at this office. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #3: - a. Exceptional: Proposal demonstrated the ability to accomplish work, Part II's show ample personnel in the office location performing the work. Very little to no risk in the contractor's ability to accomplish the work. - b. Very Good: Proposal demonstrated the ability to accomplish work, Part II's show ample personnel to accomplish work within all of the firm's office locations. Little to no risk in the contractor's ability to accomplish the work. - c. Satisfactory: Proposal demonstrated capacity to accomplish work with minimal risk. - d. Marginal: Proposal demonstrated the ability to accomplish the work with risk. Part II's show personnel risks. - e. Unsatisfactory: Proposal did not demonstrate the ability to accomplish the work. 4. Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules. The firm must possess a good record of past performance on contracts with respect to quality of work, cost control, compliance with performance schedules, ability to manage subcontractors, relationship & history of work with proposed sub-consultants, and positive references from customers as determined by information provided by the offeror or pulled from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other sources. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #4: - a. Exceptional: The proposal has past performance data rating them very good to exceptional with more exceptional than very goods. - b. Very Good: The proposal has past performance data rating them Satisfactory to Very Good with more Very Good's than Satisfactory. - c. Satisfactory: The proposal has past performance data rating them Satisfactory with no Marginal or Unsatisfactory. - d. Marginal: The proposal has past performance data rating that includes Marginal ratings - e. Unsatisfactory: The proposal has past performance data rating that includes Unsatisfactory ratings. - f. Neutral: No past performance data is available. 5. Knowledge of the locality of the project including geologic and subsurface features, environmental conditions, climatic conditions, local construction methods, and permit requirements. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #5: - a. Exceptional: All A&E Team Members demonstrated experience in the design of projects in Massachusetts. - b. Very Good: All A&E Team members demonstrated experience in the design of projects in New England. - c. Satisfactory: All members of the A&E Team demonstrated experience in the design of projects in climates similar to Massachusetts. - d. Marginal: Some of the A&E team members demonstrated experience in the design of projects in Climates similar to Massachusetts. - e. Unsatisfactory: The A&E Team did not demonstrate any experience in the design of projects in climates similar to Massachusetts. 6. Geographic Proximity. Location of the firm's office(s) as well as those of their team in the general geographical area of the project. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #6: - a. Exceptional: Located in Massachusetts. - b. Very Good: Located in New England. - c. Satisfactory: All Other Locations. 7. Ability to perform asbestos testing and subsequent construction documents. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #7: - a. Satisfactory: Proposal demonstrated the ability to accomplish hazmat testing and subsequent construction documents. - b. Unsatisfactory: Proposal did not demonstrate the ability to accomplish hazmat testing and subsequent construction. 8. The A&E contractor must demonstrate the capability within its office to create and work contract drawings in most recent version of AutoCAD. Although the 66th Civil Engineering Directorate may provide drawings in Microstation, the final design documents must be submitted in AutoCAD. Adjectival Ratings and Definitions for Use in Evaluation of Factor #8: - a. Satisfactory: They have and regularly use AutoCAD 2014 or newer version. - b. Unsatisfactory: They do not have or regularly use AutoCAD 2014. Qualified firms desiring consideration shall submit three (3) bound hard copies with tabs and one (1) CD containing a Standard Form (SF) 330, Part I and Part II - Architect-Engineer Qualification package. Text for each applicant is limited to 40 pages each, exclusive of indexing tabs, project photos or drawings with brief captions. Submit credentials for both the Primary Firm and for Key Consultants of all the information pertinent to the selection criteria on a single copy to AFLCMC/PZIA, Thomas Robertson, Contracting Specialist, 16 Eglin Street, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2107, NLT 12:00 P. M. (Noon- Local Time) Wednesday, 5 Mar 2018. Facsimile transmission will not be accepted and will be considered non-responsive. Standard Form 330 may be obtained at: https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms If you need help with getting forms, contact Thomas Robertson, Contract Specialist, AFLCMC/PZI, by email at contact@example.gov or by phone at +1 (555) 000-0000. 2. Please call me at +1 (555) 000-0000 or email me at contact@example.gov if you have any questions or concerns. Attachment: FY 18 A&E SOW (Dated 27 Nov 17)