Fire Protection Engineering Services (Review/Inspection)

The Department of the Interior (DOI), Interior Business Center (IBC), Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD), is issuing this competitive Request for Quote (RFQ) on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes for Health (NIH), Division of the Fire Marshal (DFM) for the purpose of entering into a task order for the project entitled, "Fire Protection Engineering Services (Review/Inspection)". AQD anticipates awarding a task order in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8.405-2 to eligible General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) holders under GSA MAS, Category 541330ENG for "Engineering Services". The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this task order is 541330, "Engineering Services," which has a small business size standard of $16.5 million. This solicitation is not set-aside for small businesses. All GSA schedule holders under GSA MAS Category 541330ENG are eligible to compete for the task order. The government anticipates the award of a Time & Materials (T&M) type task order. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Fire Protection Engineering Services (Review/Inspection) program is to facilitate the resolution of a wide range of fire protection issues in support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) programs. BACKGROUND: The Division of the Fire Marshal (DFM), Office of Research Services serves as the NIH "Authority Having Jurisdiction" (AHJ) as defined by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and, in that capacity, (1) provides final authoritative judgments required in the application and interpretation of current fire codes and other applicable standards, regulations and policies regarding all aspects of fire safety at the NIH; (2) provides consultation and technical assistance to the NIH and the extramural biomedical research community regarding work practices and facility design and construction concepts that enhance fire safety and includes providing comprehensive fire protection engineering reviews of structure modifications and new construction plans and proposals; (3) provides fire safety information and training; (4) develops methodology for assessing and mitigating fire hazards associated with biomedical research; (5) conducts technical fire investigations; (6) develops NIH policies and procedures regarding fire safety; and (7) conducts periodic fire safety surveys to (i) detect hazardous conditions, (ii) measure performance of fire safety devices, and (iii) assess compliance with fire safety policy. The DFM requires contractual support in providing fire protection engineering services as set forth herein. SCOPE OF WORK: The contractor shall provide all labor, supervision, management, and administrative resources necessary for providing fire protection engineering and administrative services at the NIH main campus located in Bethesda, MD, the NIH Animal Center located in Poolesville, MD, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) campus located at Ft. Detrick in Frederick, MD. The contractor shall provide on-site personnel in accomplishing the requirements set forth herein. The government shall provide office space for contractor personnel as well as furniture and furnishings. All furniture and furnishings shall be used for official business only in the performance of the contract requirements. All work to be performed by the contractor will be of a third-party nature (e.g., design reviews, construction fire protection submittal reviews, construction inspections, and witnessing fire protection system acceptance tests). All official direction to the contractor to perform fire protection reviews/inspections for NIH design and construction projects under this Order shall come strictly from the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). As the AHJ, the COR shall provide the final authoritative judgment required in the application and interpretation of current fire codes and NIH Fire Protection Policy. However, as provided herein, the contractor will interact with not only the COR, but will furnish reviews/inspections to the Office of Research Facilities (ORF) or Institute/Center (I/C) Project Officer, as required throughout this SOW. As such, none of the work outlined in the SOW is considered direct design or direct construction Architect & Engineering (A&E) services as defined by the "Brooks Act" of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). *See attached Solicitation for more detailed requirements, including the full Statement of Work. Submission of Questions DUE: January 5, 2022 at 10 AM EST. The government requests that any offeror intending to provide a quotation for this requirement, to please do so via email to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Samantha Hartman at Samantha_Hartman@ibc.doi.gov, on January 5, 2022. QUOTATION DUE DATE: January 21, 2022 at 10 AM EST. Evaluation Criteria (see Section 5 of attached Solicitation): 52.212-2 Evaluation Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) The Contracting Officer will serve as the Source Selection Authority for this acquisition. The government will evaluate the non-price and price quotes pursuant to the following: 5.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Quotations shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in Section 4 "Instructions to Offerors and Provisions," of this RFQ. The non-price submission(s) will be evaluated separately from the price submission. Each submission will be evaluated against the evaluation factors and sub-factors listed below. 5.2 BASIS FOR AWARD The government intends to award a single task order against an existing GSA schedule contract using the procedures in FAR 8.4 to the responsible offeror whose quote, in conforming to the RFQ, provides the overall best value to the government considering non-price evaluation factors and price. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose quote provides the best overall value to the government utilizing the tradeoff process. This will be determined by comparing differences in technical approach (Personnel Qualifications and Expertise, Technical Approach, and Draft Quality Control Plan), with the differences in price to determine the best value to the government. In order to be considered for an award, an offeror must receive a minimum rating of "good" on all non-price evaluation factors. The government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to the offeror with a higher rating if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the government. Overall, the government considers non-price factors, when combined, to be significantly more important than price. Between quotes with equivalent ratings for the non-price factors, price shall become the determining factor. The total quoted price will be evaluated separately but in conjunction with the non-price elements to ensure that the government is awarding based on best value. The government reserves the right to award without communications or clarifications, so it is in the best interest of each offeror to include their most favorable terms in the initial submission. However, the government reserves the right to conduct communications or clarifications and to permit offerors to revise their submissions. Any exceptions or deviations by the offeror to the terms and conditions stated in this RFQ for inclusion in the resulting award may make the quotation unacceptable for an award with or without communications or clarifications. The government reserves the right not to make an award as a result of this competition if in the opinion of the government, none of the submissions would provide satisfactory performance at a price that is considered reasonable and/or economically feasible or if an agreement between the government and offeror on the terms and conditions cannot be reached within the timeframe established by the Contracting Officer. 5.3 VOLUME I: TECHNICAL QUOTATION The following evaluation criteria will be utilized in order to evaluate each technical quotation. The factors below are in descending order of importance. Under each factor, sub-factors are of equal importance to each other. FACTOR A: Personnel Qualifications and Expertise FACTOR B: Technical Approach FACTOR C: Draft Quality Control Plan FACTOR A Personnel Qualifications and Expertise The government will evaluate the offeror's adequacy of personnel and assess the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated the ability to identify and describe the persons proposed as Key Personnel. The government will assess Factor A to the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated the following: Sub-factor A.1: The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates the relevancy, quality, and depth of experience of proposed Key Personnel with respect to similar projects and tasks specified in the SOW, which includes the degree qualifications as outlined in the SOW. Sub-factor A.2: The government will evaluate the extent to which proposed Key Personnel have experience with supporting a high volume of work with critical timelines and knowledge of NIH Fire Protection Services. The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror's proposed staffing plan describes the roles and responsibilities of Key Personnel and any supporting personnel with the following credentials: Program Manager (Key Personnel): Minimum five (5) years experience in fire protection engineering or related fields; Registered/licensed Professional Engineer in fire protection engineering; and two (2) years supervisory experience. Senior Fire Protection Engineers: Minimum four (4) years experience in fire protection engineering or related fields; and Registered/licensed Professional Engineer in fire protection engineering. The Program Manager and Senior Fire Protection Engineers shall have demonstrated experience in the following areas: - Application of the International Building Code and the National Fire Protection Association codes and standards; - Building Construction; - Means of Egress; - Fire protection water supplies; - Fire pumps; - Automatic fire suppression systems; - Automatic fire alarm systems; - Fire protection for health care facilities and laboratories using chemicals. Fire Protection Engineers: Minimum two (2) years' work experience in fire protection engineering or related fields. Management Analyst: Minimum five (5) years of administrative experience and possess strong computer and communication skills, including Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. The individual shall also be well versed in performance management, performance monitoring, performance data collection and be fully capable of developing spreadsheets, tables, charts, graphs, and PowerPoint presentations to clearly document the performance objectives of the contract that have been met. Sub-factor A.3: The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to hire and maintain the level of expertise covered by the professional staff proposed; and discuss its approach to staff continuity, specifically, how to recruit, train, and retain staff to perform the SOW tasks in relevant areas of technical expertise. FACTOR B Technical Approach The government will evaluate the offeror's understanding of the project's goals, objectives, and tasks. The technical quote will be evaluated for a complete and feasible description of the methods that the offeror will employ to meet the requirements of the SOW. The government will assess Factor B to the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated the following: Sub-factor B.1: The ability to describe and discuss in detail the understanding of the project, purpose and scope, and the degree of difficulty in successfully accomplishing it. Sub-factor B.2: The degree to which the offeror describes the technical capabilities that will accomplish the tasks outlined in Section 2, Statement of Work, including but not limited to, approach, resources, deliverables, and schedule requirements. Sub-factor B.3: The degree to which the offeror describes any potential problem areas that the offeror might anticipate under this requirement, including a discussion of how the offeror might mitigate those problems. Sub-factor B.4: The ability to describe and discuss any major logistical considerations. FACTOR C Draft Quality Control Plan: The government will evaluate the offeror's Draft QCP to determine the offeror's demonstrated plan to achieve and maintain quality performance. The QCP ensures all SOW requirements are being accomplished in accordance with the specifications in the SOW and industry standards. The QCP focus is the attainment of continuous quality improvement and emphasizes deficiency prevention over deficiency detection. The government will assess Factor C to the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated the following: Sub-factor C.1: The government will evaluate the degree to which the Quality Control Inspection Program describes and discusses all general and specific tasks outlined in the SOW. The degree to which the QCP specifies tasks, or areas, to be inspected on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis, the manner in which inspections will be conducted, the titles of the individuals who will perform the inspections, and the percentage of the work that will be inspected on a recurring basis. Sub-factor C.2: The government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror's method of proactively identifying potential deficiencies in outcomes and the quality of services to be performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable. The degree to which the offeror describes and discusses processes for corrective action without dependence upon government inspection. The degree to which the offeror describes and discusses process control and process performance measurement procedures to include how the offeror will affect preventative, corrective actions, instead of reliance on government identification of deficiencies prior to resolving the problem. Sub-factor C.3: The government will evaluate the offeror's method of documenting and enforcing quality control inspections. Sub-factor C.4: The government will evaluate the offeror's specific surveillance techniques for the performance of all services. The degree to which the offeror describes and discusses methods that are comprehensive and adaptable. Sub-factor C.5: The government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror describes and discusses the plan to update and revise the QCP during the performance of the contract. 5.4 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE The government will evaluate the offeror's recent and relevant past performance for work performed in the last three years. The government will also consider items in the Past Performance Questionnaire. Sub-factor PP.1: The government will evaluate the quality of previous work the offeror, and of its proposed key personnel, have performed on recent and relevant past performance similar to the type of work outlined in the SOW. Sub-factor PP.2: The government will evaluate the offeror's history of successfully completing projects noted in their past performance. Sub-factor PP.3: The government will evaluate the offeror's history of producing high-quality services and deliverables. The offeror should consider the following aspects in response to this subfactor: work products contained relatively few substantial deficiencies; requested corrections were quickly and correctly made or satisfactorily explained; work products contained detailed, logical, and insightful analysis and recommendation; use of appropriate statistical methods; insight into potential program vulnerabilities, etc. Sub-factor PP.4: The government will evaluate the offeror's history of staying on schedule and within budget. The government will obtain past performance information using the CPARS, from historical past performance information on file, if applicable, the Past Performance Questionnaire response(s) received by the quotation due date, and any other sources available for government reference. In the event that an offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance or information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably; a neutral rating shall be assigned. Note: while the Past Performance Questionnaire has adjectival ratings for utilization on the Past Performance Questionnaire, the government will utilize risk ratings for the evaluation of each offeror's past performance under this solicitation. 5.5 VOLUME III: PRICE The government will conduct a price analysis to evaluate the offeror's quote to ensure that it was submitted in accordance with Section 4.3.3 of the solicitation. The government will evaluate the Price Quotations as outlined below: a. Offeror Quote Validation The government will verify that the price quotation includes a statement that the offeror's quotation is valid for a minimum of ninety (90) calendar days from the date of submission. b. Offeror Within Scope Verification The government will verify that the offeror provided a statement in writing that their quoted solution is within the scope of their referenced GSA Schedule contract(s). c. The government will verify that the offeror provided a complete GSA Schedule solution (to include Order Level Materials if applicable). d. The government will evaluate to verify the labor rates (before any discount), and labor categories are within the offeror's, or a teaming member's, current GSA Schedule(s). Any quoted subcontractor employees (not GSA teaming member employees) must align with a labor category on the prime contractor's GSA Schedule. Note: If the offeror's GSA schedule contract ultimate completion date does not cover the period of performance for the base and all option periods, the government may consider this a risk when evaluating for the award. Prior to the government exercising any option period, the contractor must have an active GSA schedule with rates to cover that period. e. The government will evaluate the offeror's price quote to verify that the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed is considered appropriate to perform the SOW in order to determine that the price is reasonable. f. Evaluation of Options Except when it is determined, in accordance with FAR 17.206(b), not to be in the government's best interest, the government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s). The government may determine that a quote is unsatisfactory if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Prices are unbalanced if the government has reasonable concerns that the prices offered do not reflect the actual cost to the government. g. Evaluation of the Price Quotation for Clause 52.217-8 To account for the possible use of the six-month option period permitted under FAR clause 52.217-8, the government will take the price for the final option period, prorated to a six-month value, and add it to the sum of the base plus all option periods. This amount will result in the total evaluated price; however, offerors shall not include the price of the six-month FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services in their price quote. FAR 52.217-8 may be exercised at any point during the Order period of performance, and the labor rates of the applicable period of performance during which the option is exercised shall apply. h. If applicable, the government will evaluate any labor categories the offeror identified in the price quote that is subject to the SCLS statute to verify that the applicable labor categories are paid wages equal to or greater than the corresponding prevailing rates found in the MAS contract Wage Determinations. The place of performance is identified in Section 3.3 of the solicitation. i. In accordance with FAR 8.405-2(d), the government will determine that the offeror's quoted price is reasonable for the work required in the SOW. NOTE: Any non-price information that is included within the price volume, such as labor categories and hours, may be considered in performing the technical evaluation.