This is a service / maintenance or supply contract in San Antonio, Texas. Contact the soliciting agency for additional information.

The purpose behind this draft synopsis is to solicit potential edits, issues, suggestions from the A-E DoD Fuel Infrastructure industry partners. Please provide feedback for the following draft Synopsis NLT 1400 CST, 15 March ONLY if your firm has interest in providing an SF330 in response to the upcoming synopsis this year. Responses may either be provided as comments on the word version (attached) of this draft or as a NTE 3 page, single spaced or double spaced, 12 point font word document. PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. THERE IS NO SOLICITATION PACKAGE TO DOWNLOAD. ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SF330 DOCUMENTS IS CONTAINED HEREIN. Questions pertaining to this announcement shall be submitted NLT 1400 CST; DDMMMYYYY and addressed to the Contracting Officer, Geoffrey Bender, geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialist, Elizabeth Wergin, elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil. Questions received after this deadline shall not be addressed. A. GENERAL INFORMATION The 772 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS) in conjunction with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), Joint Base San Antonio - Lackland Air Force Base, TX, desires to contract with Architect-Engineer (A/E) firms in support of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) worldwide fuels infrastructure mission. We anticipate awarding a Multiple Award Task Order (MATOC) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Architect-Engineer (AE) contract to support the worldwide fuels infrastructure mission, to include US installations supported by the Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air National Guard, and others. These Architect-Engineer Services for Petroleum, Oil, & Lubricant Facilities (AE POL) will provide for Title I, Title II, and associated AE POL services with a total contract ceiling of $500M, to be shared among all contract holders. The 772 ESS anticipates making award to approximately 15 firms, including a Small Business Reserve of 5 firms. The government reserves the right to award to more firms, fewer firms, or none at all. The Task Order limitation will be a minimum of $2500 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(s) that submit a SF330 as a result of this synopsis. ORDERING PERIOD AND CONTRACT TYPE: Each basic IDIQ contract within the MATOC will have a single ordering period of five (5) years and an option for an additional five (5) years with the labor rates to be renegotiated at the time of option exercise. The IDIQs will be structured to allow for the issuance of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) negotiated task orders during the ordering periods. INTENT: For this Basic MATOC, the Government does not intend, nor expect, the most highly qualified firms to be able to demonstrate experience and/or knowledge of DoD POL-related A-E (heretofore: AEPOL) services all over the world. Further, the Government also does not intend, nor expect the most highly qualified firms to be able to perform every type of AEPOL service described in this synopsis. Instead, the Government seeks to contract with AEPOL firms that are experienced and knowledgeable conducting AEPOL services, regardless of their geographic knowledge or type of AEPOL services in which they specialize. Therefore, firms of all types and sizes that perform AEPOL services described in this synopsis are encouraged to submit SF 330s. At the Task Order level, a more in-depth evaluation will occur to determine which of the MATOC holders is the most highly qualified 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 also 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, and thus Small Businesses that focus on a small geographical area may be the most highly qualified for that area at the task order level. USE OF TEAMING PARTNERS: Offerors are also advised that while teaming partners are permitted, they are not encouraged nor desirable. The Government intends to award directly to AEPOL firms that perform AEPOL services in-house (organically) without extensive use of teaming partners. AEPOL firms that submit SF330s that demonstrate project management, oversight, quality control, or other support tasks that are performed in-house (organically), but where the technical AEPOL services are performed by teaming partners or subcontractors, will NOT be considered the most highly qualified. The Government intends to award directly to those firms that perform AEPOL services with their own personnel. To emphasize this point, all firms selected as the most highly qualified for this DOD AE POL MATOC and issued a Request for Proposal will be required to submit and negotiate one composite labor rate per labor category/discipline, to be incorporated into the contract. Teaming partner rates will not be negotiated separately. AWARD PROCEDURES: This MATOC will be procured in accordance with the Selection of Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C Sections 1101-1104, previously known as the 'Brooks Act'), as implemented by FAR 36.6. Firms will be selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work, in accordance with the selection criteria identified below. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330, which has a size standard of $16,500,000 per the size standards table dated 19 Apr 2019*. To receive award, contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Register via the SAM website at http://www.sam.gov. Those firms selected as the most highly qualified will be issued an individual Request for Proposal to negotiate labor rates. This synopsis and any resultant contract awards do not guarantee work to selected firms. *The CO is aware that the Small Business size standards for 541330 may be changing in the near future and will ensure the threshold is increased upon notification by the SBA* ORDERING PROCEDURES: Selection of the most highly qualified firm at the task order level will be consistent with the procedures in FAR 36.6 and DFARS 236.6. In most cases, experience and qualifications information from MATOC holders shall be gathered through a Request for Information (RFI) process as specific project requirements are developed to ensure the most highly qualified firm is selected at the task order level. The Government may gather information through a programmatic process across a specific type of work or geographic location, or for individual projects. The relative importance of selection criteria may vary among task order requirements, and may include Primary Selection Criteria in accordance with FAR 36.6 and/or Secondary Selection Criteria in accordance with DFARS 236.6. The Government may not consider firms that do not respond to an RFI. Conversely, when the Government issues a programmatic RFI, Requests for Proposals may be issued to multiple firms that are each considered the most highly qualified to ensure sufficient capacity to perform the work exists across a large program. Given the extent of highly specialized and qualified DoD POL AE firms on this MATOC, in many cases, particular emphasis shall be made to select firms with knowledge of a specific project(s) locality, as well as the firm's capacity to perform the work. Past Performance of recent AFCEC DoD POL projects shall be considered. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(c), when a logical follow-on task order is contemplated (i.e. performing a Phase II design after the Phase I effort has been completed, or performing a 100% design after a conceptual design was completed), the Government will not likely issue an RFI as the original firm selected was already deemed the most highly qualified for the initial work and now possesses more experience and familiarity with the second phase of the work. If the previously selected firm performs well, the Government will likely issue an RFP to that firm for the follow-on action. However, if past performance represents a concern, or capacity to complete the follow-on work becomes questionable, the Government may pursue an alternative approach to find the most highly qualified firm. The Government will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the most highly qualified firm to perform the required services. The Task Order RFP shall specify terms and conditions for the task order to include proposal preparation instructions and proposal due date. Task Orders that exceed the FAR 15.403-4 threshold are subject to Certified Cost or Pricing Data requirements. All other proposals shall require other than certified cost or pricing data in support of the proposals. The Government will evaluate each proposal and set up negotiations, as necessary, to arrive at a fair and reasonable price. An award shall be made upon receipt of certified funds. If a fair and reasonable price cannot be reached with the most highly qualified firm, the Government may issue an RFP to the next most highly qualified firm, and conduct negotiations to establish a fair and reasonable price. INTERVIEWS: In making the most highly qualified selection, the evaluation board may conduct interviews with highly qualified firms (by phone, in person, or in writing) during the final selection process. SUBCONTRACTING PLANS (LB only): Subcontracting Plans are applicable to Large Businesses only. Large Businesses that are deemed the most highly qualified will be required to submit a subcontracting plan, upon issuance of a Request for Proposal. In accordance with FAR 19.702(b)(3), the subcontracting plan applies only to work performed in the U.S. and its outlying areas. A subcontracting plan is NOT required with submission of the SF330 for this synopsis. The subcontracting goals/targets for this program are as follows: Small Business 42% of total subcontracted dollars Small Disadvantaged Business 23% of total subcontracted dollars Woman Owned Small Business 15% of total subcontracted dollars HUBZone Small Business 5% of total subcontracted dollars Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 5% of total subcontracted dollars Veteran Owned Small Business 5% of total subcontracted dollars RFPs: Those firms that are determined to be the most highly qualified will be issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to submit composite labor rates covering a variety of engineering and engineering support labor categories. Only one rate per labor category will be negotiated. Large Businesses will also be required to submit a subcontracting plan, which will be reviewed for compliance with the subcontracting goals identified above. Approved subcontracting plans will be incorporated into any resultant award to a Large Business. QUESTIONS: A pre-proposal (pre-SF330 submission) conference will not be held. Questions and/or comments related to this synopsis must be emailed to the Contracting Officer at geoffrey.bender.1@us.af.mil and the Contract Specialist at elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil by Close of Business on DDMMMYYY. Any questions and/or comments received after this date may not be considered for response. All timely questions and/or comments will be addressed and subsequently posted on the FedBizOpps website. B. DESCRIPTION OF WORK: This contract will support the award of Architect-Engineer (AE) services specifically for DoD Petroleum, Oil, and Lubrication (POL) Facilities, as identified in individual Task Orders: 1. General Scope: This requirement is for an Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) for AFCEC Worldwide Fuels Infrastructure Mission for the FY23-FY33 Architect-Engineer Services for Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Facilities (AE23POL). Task orders shall incorporate Architect-Engineer (A-E) services in support of the fuels infrastructure mission at worldwide locations, which include US installations supported by the Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air National Guard, and others. These AE Services comprise the renovation of existing facilities, demolition, repair, or replacement of POL Facilities through Title I, Title II, and associated AE POL services necessary to complete individual task order requirements at locations worldwide. NOTE: THIS MATOC WILL NOT COVER LEAK DETECTION SERVICES OR PIPELINE INTEGRITY TESTING SERVICES. PROJECTS SUBMITTED FOR THESE TYPES OF SERVICES WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. 2. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to aid in the preparation of your SF 330: "Project" is defined as work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC TASK ORDER of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract. An IDIQ type contract, in and of itself, is NOT considered a project. "Project" is also defined as a single, stand alone, site-specific contract. For the purposes of this evaluation a project is a DoD POL AE project (not construction). "DoD POL facilities" includes Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL or 'fuels') facilities that are located on a United States Department of Defense installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army or Air Force National Guard, or Reserve bases). It does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or any other federal, commercial, or private facility. DoD POL facilities include fuel farms, above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, cut-and-cover tanks, hydrant fuel distribution systems including piping, pumps, valves, hydrant and filter separators, oil water separator, bulk storage systems, transfer pump houses, POL control systems, stilling wells, containment areas, fuel pits, and fill stands. "Relevant Project" is defined as Title I and Title II services for DoD POL facilities, as follows: Title I Services 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, cost estimates, and estimated construction periods of performance. Title I services may include all aspects of design such as preparation and/or review of contract plans, specifications, scheduling, cost estimates, system commissioning services and preparation of operating and design manuals. Title I efforts also encompass those efforts required to support and develop design work, including American Petroleum Institute (API) or Steel Tank Institute (STI) inspections, planning and programming, program management, project scoping, studies, investigations, evaluations, consultations, conceptual design, value engineering, and operation, monitoring, topographic survey services, and infrastructure systems. Title II Services include construction support services that encompass a full range of disciplinary expertise and services to support various DoD POL Systems repairs, 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, and other standard construction submittal reviews. Examples include: A-E services for planning studies ("valve to valve" or "fence to fence"), construction cost estimating, fuel system analysis, tank inspections subject to American Petroleum Institute (API) 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, tank inspections subject to Steel Tank Institute (STI) SP001, API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspections, API 570 Piping Inspections, cathodic protection inspections, optimization of fuel systems. It also includes providing technical oversight or design for new, additions to, or upgrades of POL facilities including, above ground storage tanks, NATO cut-and-cover tanks, underground storage tank removal/replacement, hydrant fuel distribution systems including pumps, valves, hydrant and filter separators, bulk storage systems, transfer pump houses, and controls, buildings including pump houses, petroleum operations buildings, fuel truck maintenance buildings, or generator buildings. It also includes infrastructure design for POL facility-related site utilities, refueler truck parking areas, containment areas (pavement and drainage basin design), fuel pits, fill stands, and for POL facility-related special designs including cathodic protection, fire protection, special coatings and paints, and demolition of existing POL buildings. It also includes programming, studies, investigations, and other services not associated with a specific POL construction project, as well as AE POL Title II (construction support) services that encompass a full range of disciplinary expertise and services to support various DoD POL Systems repairs, 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, and other standard construction submittal reviews. "Completed projects" are defined as those in which the firm's performance of the task for which it was hired (i.e. design and/or construction support services) were completed within the past five (5) years from the date this synopsis was posted. C. SELECTION CRITERIA: SELECTION CRITERIA ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE: SF 330s will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firms. Evaluating Past Performance may include information provided by the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, and/or publicly available sources. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers may result in a firm being considered less qualified. All projects provided in the SF 330 must be completed by the office/branch/individual team member actually performing the work under this contract. Projects not performed by the office/branch/individual team member will be excluded from evaluation consideration. SF 330, PART 1, SECTION F, CRITERION (1) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Offerors shall submit three (3) to five (5) descriptions of relevant and completed projects (see definitions above). If more than five projects are submitted, only five will be evaluated, starting with the most recently completed and working backwards in time. For each project, Offerors must identify the workload distribution (disciplines and percent of work performed in-house (organically) versus those completed by a teaming partner/sub-consultant). Joint-Venture Offerors are considered a single entity and thus projects submitted that were performed in-house by either firm, or in-house by the JV entity, are considered to be performed "in-house." Offerors are encouraged to review the evaluation method below to ensure submitted project descriptions provide enough information for the Government to determine the extent of the Offeror's experience, and use of in-house (organic) resources for technical engineering services (not project management/oversight/quality control). EVALUATION METHOD: More consideration may be given to Offerors that provide the following: a. a greater extent and breadth of experience in a variety of relevant projects; b. Offerors that demonstrate experience performing A/E Title I services where the resultant construction value exceeds $1,000,000 and is for new construction or repairs of DoD petroleum fuel storage facilities, such as fuel tank(s), fuel handling and distribution systems (pipes, pumps, stilling wells, Automatic Tank Gauging, and valves), associated designs for electrical power, cathodic protection, and/or POL communication/control systems; c. Offerors that demonstrate Title I services associated with Aviation Fuel Systems (rather than Military Service Stations) may be evaluated more favorably; d. Offerors that demonstrate performing DoD POL A-E services in-house (organically, rather than with or by a teaming partner/sub-consultant) will be evaluated more favorably. Joint-Venture Offerors are considered a single entity and thus projects submitted that were performed in-house by either firm, or in-house by the JV entity, will be evaluated more favorably than those performed by a teaming partner/sub-consultant. While self-performance is most favorable, the evaluation will also consider current and former relationships between the Offeror and its proposed teaming partners/sub-consultants, with more consideration given to longer/stronger relationships. SF 330, PART 1, SECTIONS D & 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 individual member's qualifications for the position for which the key member is being proposed. Section E for each key person shall include all elements (the individual's employer(s), role proposed, the highest level of education achieved, the number of years engaged in the discipline, and any licenses and certifications held. While not every position is required, any elements of Section E that are blank will be interpreted as the key person not having that component. In the SF 330, Part 1, Section D, provide an organizational chart identifying 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 primary disciplines are key personnel: a. Lead DoD POL Project Manager b. Lead DoD POL Mechanical Engineer c. Lead DoD POL Civil Engineer d. Lead DoD POL Electrical Engineer e. Lead DoD POL Program Logical Controls Engineer f. Lead DoD POL Construction Inspector (Title II) It is expected that these individuals will provide program level quality control and oversight of the task orders resulting from this acquisition. Any changes to the proposed key team members after submission of qualifications MUST be approved by the Corporate Contracting Officer. Evaluation Method: The evaluation will consider the extent and breadth of relevant experience, and relevant professional licenses/certifications, education/training, and longevity with their firm, for each key person, with more consideration given to key personnel employed by the Offeror. For teaming partner/sub-consultant key personnel, the evaluation will consider current and former relationships with the Offeror, with more consideration given to working projects relevant to this solicitation and longer/stronger relationships. Resumes that include relevant projects submitted in Criterion (1) may be evaluated more favorably. Resumes submitted where the key member has performed in the role proposed for this contract may also be evaluated more favorably. SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (3) 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 ACASS/CPARS evaluations for each project submitted in Criterion (1). Firms are encouraged to contact the appropriate government Project Managers, Contracting Officers, or Contracting Officer's Representatives to ensure ACASS/CPARS evaluations have been submitted on completed government projects, particularly for those projects submitted under Criterion (1). If an ACASS/CPARS evaluation has not yet been finalized, offerors may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ is included as Attachment 1 to this synopsis. If the client requests, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Elizabeth Wergin, via email at elizabeth.wergin@us.af.mil and the Contracting Officer, Capt Geoffrey Bender at geoffrey.bender@us.af.mil prior to SF330 due date. In addition to information submitted by the Offeror, the Government may consider information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and any other sources deemed necessary by the Government, for any relevant project (as defined above) completed by the Offeror, within the past five years from the date this synopses was 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 synopses was issued) to assess performance, with more consideration given to past performance of projects submitted in Criterion (1). SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (4) CAPACITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK Submission Requirements: The offeror shall demonstrate capacity by providing the following: a. The number of simultaneous DoD POL Title I projects with an engineering services value of at least $100,000, the Offeror can perform in a given 12 month period; and b. The number of simultaneous DoD POL Title II projects that require one (1) full time on-site Title II DoD POL inspector with a six (6) month field construction duration, the Offeror can perform in a 12 month period. Evaluation Method: Offerors are not required to perform both Title I and Title II services; however, evaluation will occur as follows: a. Offerors that demonstrate capacity for a greater number of Title I projects that can be performed in a 12 month period, will be evaluated more favorably. b. Offerors that demonstrate capacity for greater number of Title II projects that can be performed in a 12 month period, will be evaluated more favorably. SF 330, SECTION H, CRITERION (5) KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCALITY Submission Requirements: Provide a narrative that describes the Offeror's knowledge of DoD POL A-E projects within the USA and other regions worldwide. The narrative shall identify the number US States the Offeror has performed DoD POL A-E projects and the number of regions outside the USA (defined as Europe, Asia, Pacific islands, or the Middle East). The Government will consider any information that may be pertinent to this criterion. Evaluation Method: Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate experience working DoD POL A-E projects within the US and experience working DoD POL projects in Europe, Asia, Pacific islands, and the Middle East, with more consideration given to knowledge and experience by the Offeror (rather than a teaming partner/sub-consultant). Offerors are not required to have worked in multiple regions; however, demonstrated experience working in multiple regions may be evaluated more favorably under this criterion. SMALL BUSINESS SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Cover Letter: A Cover letter must be submitted to accompany the SF330 that clearly identifies the submitting firms' size status (for NAICS 541330 with a size standard of the current size standard $16.5M) and in which pool of competition they would like to compete. Large Businesses may only compete in the Unrestricted pool. The SF330 evaluations will be divided into two pools of competition, an "Unrestricted Pool" and a "Small Business Reserve Pool." Firms must clearly state in which pool they would like to compete. If this preference is omitted, the firm will be placed in the "Unrestricted Pool." If proposing in both pools of competition, a separate proposal package need NOT be submitted. The Small Business Reserve Pool will be evaluated first. Any Small Business firms that are eliminated during the pre-selection phase of the evaluation will be automatically placed in the Unrestricted Pool of competition to compete among those firms. Teaming/Joint Venture Agreements: Each contractor may only receive a maximum of one prime contract award per MATOC. The prime firm shall provide a statement in the cover letter confirming executed teaming agreements are in place for all team members as part of the SF330 submittal. The statement shall also list all team members. Contractor teaming arrangements are defined as (1) a partnership or joint venture between two or more companies or (2) an agreement for a specific Government opportunity between a potential prime contractor and one or more companies that are potential subcontractors. Ombudsman: An Ombudsman has been appointed to hear concerns from potential firms during the submittal development phase of this acquisition. The purpose of the Ombudsman is not to diminish the authority of the Program Director or Contracting Officer, but to communicate contractor concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations to the appropriate Government personnel. When requested, the Ombudsman will maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The Ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of AE submittals or elsewhere in the acquisition process. Interested parties are invited to contact the appointed Ombudsman, The Director, Air Force Installation Contracting Agency AFICA/KP, 1940 Allbrook Dr., Building 1, Door 24, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433, (937) 257-5529. General Submission Requirements: The SF 330 Part 1 is limited to 20, 8.5" x 11" pages, not including Past Performance Questionnaires/CPARS/ACASS reports, cover page, tabs/page dividers or table of contents. SF330 Part II is limited to one page for the prime (Joint Ventures may have one page per company), and one page per teaming partner. Additional pages beyond the maximum stated may not be evaluated. Minimum font size is 10. Submit the following: One (1) original SF 330 utilizing the PIEE Solicitation system, including a completed Part II for the firm and teaming partners. Please note that a separate SF330, Part I, is not required for each sub-consultant. IF the system is not functional, a request to set up a DoD SAFE drop shall be completed no later than 1200 CST on DDMMMYY, in order to send out the appropriate invites. LATE SUBMISSION OF SF-330s WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Personal visits and/or requests for discussion regarding this announcement WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED. Updated file named AE23POL Synopsis dated 5 Jul 2022 to AE23POL Synopsis dated 7 Jul 2022.- See the yellow highlighted sections in AE23POL Synopsis dated 7 Jul 2022 to see the specific changes made to address submitting already completed PPQs prior to this synopsis for Criterion 3 The method of contractor selection has not been determined at this time. *The value for this project is based on a financial range. The value is listed as the highest possible cost from the range provided by a stakeholder or official project document.