C -- ARCHITECTURAL-ENGINEER SERVICES FOR MCON PROJECT P-114, T-56 TURBOPROP ENGINE TEST CELL, MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice Date

September 19, 2001

Contracting Office

Department of The Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Contracts Office, Code AQ22D, 1510 Gilbert Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23511-2699

ZIP Code

23511-2699

Solicitation Number

N62470-01-R-3365

Response Due

October 25, 2001

Point of Contact

Ms. Bayla L. Mack, 757-322-8271 -- Ms. Sharon A. Taylor, Contract Specialist, 757-322-8258

E-Mail Address

Click here to contact Ms. Bayla Mack (mackbl@efdlant.navfac.navy.mil)

Description

Architect-Engineer or Engineering Services are required for preparation of plans, specifications, cost estimates, related studies, all associated engineering services, shop drawing review, as-built drawing preparation, Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) preparation (provides construction contract inspection requirements), Operation and Maintenance Support Information (OMSI), construction inspection and engineering consultation services during construction. The Government will reserve an option to negotiate final plans, specifications, cost estimates, related studies, all associated engineering services, and all post construction award services. The anticipated design start date is December 2001 with completion of the design completion by November 2002; construction inspection services if required start in April 2003 and end December 2004; preparation of OMSI if required may begin in April 2003 and be completed by December 2004. This project involves a new-design U. S. Navy T-56 turboprop aircraft engine test cell facility to support intermediate aircraft engine maintenance at the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina. The T-56 turboprop aircraft engine test cell facility shall be capable of testing all series of U. S. Navy T-56 turboprop aircraft engines. This test cell facility more closely resembles a working piece of machinery than a typical brick and mortar structure, and design shall accommodate stresses induced by engine testing. This facility shall be designed and constructed to operate without failure when subjected to the stresses induced by continuous operation of high-powered aircraft turboprop engines within the engine run room. The test cell design will include facility equipment and instrumentation, and will encompass integration of this equipment/instrumentation with NAVAIR-furnished and installed test equipment and instrumentation test systems. The major components of the facility are T-56 engine run room, air inlet, movable propeller orifice wall, exhaust augmenter and exhaust stack, all constructed with acoustically-treated panels and materials. Design of supporting components and systems shall include: engine air start system, fuel system utilizing and integrating with the NAVAIR fuel system (Government furnished equipment), engine test trailer restraint system, proof load test system, fire protection, industrial waste, oil/water separator, power and lighting. The test facility and especially the engine run room and exhaust system are subjected to continuous vibration, acoustical loading, high volume airflow and pressure variations. In addition, the exhaust system and components are subjected to a wide range of variations in internal temperatures and airflow velocities. The quality of the design of the facility and especially the air inlet and exhaust system are extremely critical to the ultimate success of this test facility project. Architect-Engineer firms and consultants shall show experience and capability to design aircraft engine test facilities. Key personnel shall have previous experience with design of aircraft engine test facilities. A&E firms that can demonstrate relevant experience and positive past performance with design of Navy test cells will be considered favorably in the selection process. The A&E must demonstrate his and each key consultant's qualifications with respect to the published evaluation factors for all services. Evaluation factors (1) through (6) are of equal importance; factors (7), (8) and (9) are of lesser importance and will be used as "tie-breakers" among technically equal firms. Specific evaluation factors include: (1) Specialized Experience -- (a) For the lead design firm and consultants, submit narratives for up to three (3) projects designed within the past 10 years that demonstrate experience similar to that described in the general overview presented above. Comment on any specialized experience in design of major test-cell components: engine run room, air inlet, movable propeller orifice wall, exhaust augmenter, exhaust stack. Also comment on any specialized experience in design of major subcomponents: engine air start system, fuel system utilizing the NAVAIR fuel system, engine test trailer restraint system, proof load test system, integration of equipment/instrumentation with NAVAIR-furnished and installed test equipment and instrumentation test systems. Indicate any projects on which the proposed design team worked together; and (b) knowledge of local codes, laws, permits and construction materials and practices of Eastern North Carolina; (2) Professional qualifications and technical competence in the type of work required: Firms will be evaluated in terms of the design staff's: (a) active professional registration; (b) Submit key personnel staffing, including consultants that demonstrate experience in the general scope of the project. The lead engineer for the design team shall have 10 years experience in all phases of design and construction of aircraft engine test facilities as design/construction inspection leader. For all key personnel, management and the lead designer in each discipline, provide name, title, assignment, education including college degrees/date of graduation (if any), professional registration/state, employment history (firm name and dates of employment), recent project experience on similar type projects (title, project name, description of scope and specific responsibilities on the project; (c) capability to provide qualified backup staffing for key personnel to ensure continuity of services and ability to surge to meet unexpected project demands; and (d) Submit organizational structure for design team demonstrating contractual arrangements and lines of authority among key personnel; (3) Sustainable Design -- Firms will be evaluated in terms of their knowledge and demonstrated experience in applying sustainability concepts and principles to facilities and infrastructure problems through an integrated design approach; (4) Ability to perform the work to schedules noted above -- Firms will be evaluated in terms of impact of this workload on the design staff's projected workload during the design period; (5) Past performance -- Firms will be evaluated in terms of one or more of the following (with emphasis on projects addressed in factor number one): (a) the process for cost control and the key person responsible; and (b) for the projects submitted under factor (1), Corporate Experience, identify any design awards, customer letters of commendation, etc., with current points of contact and telephone numbers/email addresses; (6) Quality Control Program -- Firms will be evaluated on the acceptability of their internal quality control program used to ensure technical accuracy and discipline coordination of plans and specifications -- list key personnel responsible; (7) Firm location (provided that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the contract); (8) Volume of Work -- Firms will be evaluated in terms of work previously awarded to the firm by DOD with the objective of affecting an equitable distribution of DOD A&E contracts among qualified A&E firms, including small and small disadvantaged business firms and firms that have not had prior DOD contracts; and (9) Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan -- Firms will be evaluated on the extent to which they identify and commit to the published Small Business Subcontracting Program. The following are the published Naval Facilities Engineering Command goals expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars for utilization of small businesses as part of the contract performance: Small Business (SB) -- 65%; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) -- 12%; Women-owned Small Business (WOSB) -- 5%; Historically Black Colleges/Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) -- 5%; Veterans Owned Small Businesses (VOSB) -- 3%; Services Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSM) -- 3%; HUBZone small businesses -- 2%. Large Business Firms shall submit their Navy-wide SF 295 (Standard Form 295, Summary Subcontract Report) with their Standard Form 255. The slated firms will be required to provide a preliminary subcontracting plan (support for small business subcontracting) as part of the interview. The contract requires that the selected firm have an on-line access to E-mail via the internet for routine exchange of correspondence. Firms are required to prepare the cost estimate utilizing the NAVFAC "SUCCESS" system in work breakdown structure (WBS), the specifications in the SPECSINTACT system format, and all drawings shall be submitted in an AutoCAD compatible format. The design contract scope may require evaluation and definition of asbestos materials and toxic waste disposition. Fee negotiations would provide for laboratory testing and subsequent preparation of plans and specifications may require definition of removal and/or definition of disposal process. Firms responding to this announcement must be prepared to accept the aforementioned as a part of their contract responsibility. Estimated construction cost is between: $5,000,000 -- $10,000,000. Type of contract: Firm Fixed Price. -- Architect-Engineer firms which meet the requirements described in this announcement are invited to submit completed Standard Forms (SF) 254 (unless already on file) and 255, U. S. Government Architect-Engineer Qualifications, to the office shown above. In Block 10 of the SF 255, discuss why the firm is especially qualified based upon synopsized evaluation factors; and provide evidence that your firm is permitted by law to practice the professions of architecture or engineering, i.e., State registration number. For selection evaluation factor (1), provide the following information for only the staff proposed for this work using these column headings: "NAME", "RELATED PROJECTS WORKED ON", "YEAR", "FIRM", and "TECHNICAL ROLE". Use Block 10 of the SF 255 to provide any additional information desired and continue Block 10 narrative discussion on plain bond paper. All information must be included within the SF 255. Provide a synopsis of the scope of work, point of contact and telephone number for each project listed in SF 255 Block 8. Firms having a current SF 254 on file with this office and those responding by 4:00 p.m. EST, 25 October 2001 will be considered. Late responses will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-10. Neither hand carried proposals nor facsimile responses will be accepted. Firms responding to this advertisement are requested to submit only one copy of qualification statements. The qualification statements should clearly indicate the office location where the work will be performed and the qualifications of the individuals anticipated to work on the contract and their geographical location. -- This proposed contract is being solicited on an unrestricted basis, therefore, replies to this notice are requested from all business concerns. -- The small business size standard classification is NAICS 541330 ($4,000,000). -- This is not a request for proposals. Inquiries concerning this project should mention location and contract number. See Note 24.

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010921/CSOL003.HTM (W-262 SN50Y0K1)