Value Engineering and Value Management Services for within USACE Mission Boundaries. The USACE mission is nationwide, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa.
1) SYNOPSIS: This announcement is open to small business. The proposed services, which will be obtained by negotiated Firm Fixed Price Contracts, are for a variety of efforts to provide Value Engineering (VE, or Value Methodology) services for workshops of a wide range of project types typically for, but not limited to, various military, environmental, and civil works projects nationwide (including Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa). Awards will be made as Firm-Fixed Price Task Orders during the period of performance. The total combined contract capacity is valued at $20,000,000 over a five year period. This is a five year contract, with no option years. Task orders are expected to range from approximately $20,000 to $250,000; however, larger task orders up to the maximum contract value may be awarded. This total dollar amount cannot be guaranteed since the task orders are on an as-needed basis. Task orders may be assigned for any work within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Contract capacity may be shared with other Districts, Divisions, or Centers throughout USACE. There is no limit on the value of individual task orders. Work will be issued by negotiated firm‑fixed-price task orders. Task Orders will be competed against all MATOC Pool holders. Firm(s) that are selected for negotiation of a contract may be required to submit additional information at a later time for use in the evaluation of qualifications for specific Task Orders. The period of performance for task orders issued under these contracts may extend beyond the five (5) year ordering period.
Up to four firms will be selected. If the Contracting Officer determines during the selection process that fewer contracts should be awarded, based upon the selection criteria, the Contracting Officer has the discretion of adjusting that number, or awarding none at all. Once selected, the following factors will be used in deciding which selected firm will be utilized for task orders:
(1) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services;
(2) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, where appropriate, master of Value Methodology, effective communication, and experience diversity;
(3) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time;
(4) Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules; and
(5) Other appropriate evaluation criteria specific to the task order requirement. Multiple task orders may be awarded with similar completion schedules and overlapping delivery dates. Estimated start date is July 2020.
As a contract specifically procured by the Louisville District for the USACE, the selected firms and relevant sub-consultants will be required to attend a two-day partnering workshop in Louisville, KY if they have not had a VE contract with the VE Section (Engineering Management Support) of LRL previously. The intent of the partnering meeting is to define the Government’s expectations of the VE firm, create a positive working atmosphere, encourage open communication, and identify common goals. The cost for these partnering sessions will be borne by the selected firms. The firm(s) must bring, at a minimum, the primary point of contact (POC) for the firm and at least one senior Certified Value Specialist (CVS) team leader.
In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 36.604 and the supplements thereto, and upon final acceptance or termination, all task orders above $35,000 will receive a performance evaluation. A performance evaluation may be prepared for lesser task orders and interim performance evaluations may be prepared at any time. Performance evaluations will be maintained for use in future source selections for Architect-Engineer Services.
2.) PROJECT INFORMATION:
a. General Nomenclature: VE, Value Analysis (VA), Value Management (VM), and CVS. VE, VA, and VM are all synonymous. Studies and Workshops are synonymous.
b. Agency Goals and Objectives: The USACE, Louisville District’s (LRL’s) goal is to use the VE/VM process to ensure the project(s) needs and required functions are met with the highest value possible; where value is defined as the relationship between functions (performance) and resources. For example, this can be accomplished by helping projects achieve a full scope award, stay within budget, remain on schedule, minimize maintenance needs, extend lifetime of systems, minimize risk, improve processes, and/or reduce life cycle costs. The overall goal is to have a viable VE program by performing VE work that our customers appreciate, respect, and actively seek the involvement of value management.
c. Agency Requirements of Consultant Approach to VE Studies: VE, VA, and VM workshops will follow the formal Society of American Value Engineer (SAVE) International approved job plan as well as the all USACE VE Standard (Chief Office of Value Engineer [COVE] policy letters). The Consultant/Agency contractual relationship will be a partnership to achieve the goals and objectives stated above; thus, acceptance of a task order scope of work implies agreement to the approach unless specified otherwise by the District Value Officer (DVO, via Contracting Officer’s Representative [COR]). Otherwise, a written alternative approach is required prior to the award of a task order. The CVS team leader is the primary POC for assigned project task orders, after the contract has been negotiated and awarded, and will be responsible for all contract matters, task management, and assuring the successful execution of the scope. All CVS team leaders shall be accredited by SAVE International.
d. Workshop Types: The task orders will include performance of formal VE studies, value‑based program/project planning/design charrettes, risk analysis including mitigation plans, large program (versus project) level and business process review workshops, lessons learned reviews, and after action reviews.
USACE has six (6) different types of VE workshops/levels of effort: Level 1 – Level 6 (COVE policy letter 2015-03). Also, there are two other approaches to address the VE requirement; identified as “Bridges and Scans” (COVE 2015-03). The various levels of effort are intended to meet the intent of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-131 as well as comply with USACE policy by scaling the VE approach to match the project complexity and anticipated value opportunity.
e. Project Types: Projects and programs requiring services under this contract may include, but are not limited to, large variety of military facilities, complex navigation and flood risk management projects, and extensive environmental restoration projects. These projects may use design/build, adapt/build, design/bid/build and other project delivery methods. Additionally, specialty workshops for headquarters-level program assessments and evaluations of agency-wide engineering business procedures may be required.
f. Relevant Projects: Projects that are considered most relevant to the typical work performed by the Louisville District are: Army Reserve Centers, Schools, Barracks, highly specialized labs for the Military, Fire Stations, Hangars, the design and repair of major civil works infrastructure projects like locks and dams, flood protection system, levees, pump stations, and environmental remediation/removal efforts. It is not required for the submitted projects to be for the military or the U.S. Government to be considered relevant; however, those who offer a variety that does include military or civil work may be considered more relevant.
g. Work Assignment Protocol: It is anticipated that work will be distributed on a rotational basis and will remain on a rotational basis. Some of the factors that may affect an even distribution of work are but not limited to the following: the consultants’ availability, the consultants’ responsiveness, experience with the type of work being performed, and performance on previous task orders on this contract. Firms that demonstrate the capacity to meet a project schedule under short notice will be considered more favorable.
h. Core Value Project Team Structure: All value studies will be led by a Certified Value Specialist (CVS, may be junior or senior based on project complexity). Desired teams consist of experts on relevant aspects of the project or procurement being studied. LRL has found the quality of the technical team members provided has a profound effect on the success of the VE workshop. All team members will be approved by the COR and will be hired on a task order basis based on the direction in the scope of work.
i. Security Requirement:
Contractor and all associated sub-contractors employees shall comply with adjudication standards and procedures using the National Crime Information Center Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III) and Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) (Army Directive 2014-05 / Army Regulation [AR] 190-13), applicable installation, facility and area commander installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures (provided by government representative, as NCIC and TSDB are available), or, at outside the conterminous United States (OCONUS) locations, in accordance with status of forces agreements and other theater regulations.
The contractor and all associated sub-contractors shall receive a brief/training (provided by the RA) on the local suspicious activity reporting program. This locally developed training will be used to inform employees of the types of behavior to watch for and instruct employees to report suspicious activity to the project manager, security representative or law enforcement entity. This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the COR no later than five (5) calendar days after the completion of the training.
All contract employees, including subcontractor employees who are not in possession of the appropriate security clearance or access privileges, will be escorted in areas where they may be exposed to classified and/or sensitive materials and/or sensitive or restricted areas.
3.) SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection criteria in descending order of importance are listed below. Paragraph 3(a) through Paragraph 3(d) are primary, and Paragraph 3(e) is secondary.
There is minimum content that MUST be included in the firm(s)’s response in order to be considered qualified. Any proposal that fails to meet the minimum qualifications will not be given any further consideration. The following list the minimum content that is required to demonstrate meeting the minimum requirements:
The proposer will be evaluated on the following as a minimum to be given any further consideration:
1. At least three (3) resumes for senior certified value specialists (CVS) defined as having at least ten (10) years of experience as a CVS facilitating VE workshops.
i. A senior CVS’s with an engineering or architectural bachelor’s degree from an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accredited school will be given a more favorable rating.
2. Include at least one (1) resume for a junior CVS defined as having at least two years of experience facilitating VE workshops as a CVS.
i. A junior CVS with an engineering or architectural bachelor’s degree from an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accredited school will be given a more favorable rating.
ii. A junior CVS with several years of diverse work experience will be given a more favorable rating.
3. All CVSs shall be certified by SAVE International and be in and maintain good standing.
4. The three (3) minimum senior CVS team members must be active by demonstrating VE workshop facilitation within the last three (3) years.
i. Validation of VE workshop facilitation may be in the form of a statement from their customer(s) or a list of projects recently performed.
ii. The contractor is recommended to provide supporting evidence and/or feedback from the customer(s).
6. The three (3) minimum CVS team members must demonstrate having at least three (3) of their five (5) submitted projects as relevant (Standard Form 330 [SF330] Section E).
7. Team members with more than three (3) relevant projects will be rated more favorably.
8. One (1) of the Firm’s submitted projects must be for another customer other than USACE (SF330 Section F).
i. All of the Firm’s submitted projects must have been performed by the firm and shall have been led by one of the CVSs submitted in your proposal.
a. Professional Qualifications:
The government’s evaluation of professional qualifications will consider education, training, certifications, registrations, overall experience, relevant experience, and longevity with the firm. Only SF330 Section E, Section F, Section G, and the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) additional consideration information in Section H will be used to evaluate the offeror’s professional qualifications.
Each CVS team leader will be evaluated based on how the function analysis discussion allowed the value team to develop more creative solutions that pushed the project to achieve higher value. The identified functions will be evaluated to ensure they have “unique and meaningful functions” and not “cursory functions”.
b. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence:
The government’s evaluation of Specialized Experience and Technical Competency will consider example projects in SF330 Section F that demonstrate the Specialized Experience and Technical Competencies below. The government’s evaluation will also consider how these same Specialized Experience and Technical Competencies are demonstrated in the respective team members’ resumes for both designers and checkers in SF330 Section E, for the disciplines as indicated below in parentheses.
1. Mastery of the Value Methodology: The Consultant’s response to the sample VE workshop summaries is expected to demonstrate a strong understanding of function analysis.
Terminology & Definitions:
Demonstration of a “true understanding of function analysis” would be in the form of project specific functions (not cursory or general) that are active verbs and measureable nouns. The functions should define “What is the core of the project’s purpose.”
True value alternatives are alternatives that maximize the Value expression of Functions divided by Resources without sacrificing quality while maintaining or increasing function and reducing or maintaining resources. True value alternatives are not cost cutting options.
Significant value contribution means it was accepted by the customer, it was implemented into the project, and changed the direction of the project in a positive way.
2. Effective Communication: The Consultant will be evaluated on how effective they are at succinctly conveying the idea, at setting the context behind an idea by including all the salient or relevant back ground elements, and selling the idea. The submitted sample Value Engineering Workshop Summaries will be used to evaluate this factor.
3. Management Plan: The Consultant will be evaluated on the firm's management approach; management of subcontractors (if applicable); quality control procedures (for all products including reports and electronic documents); procedures to insure internal resources are not over-committed.
An organizational chart showing the inter-relationship of management and various team components (including subcontractors) is required. This organizational chart is required in Part 1 section D of the SF330.
4. VE Experience: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a narrative that discusses the volume of value engineering studies conducted in the last 36 months that followed the SAVE standard and were greater than 24 hours in length; illustrate how many studies the firm typically performs simultaneously. The firms who demonstrate a high volume of VE workshop experience on an annual basis will be rated more favorably.
5. Team Member Selection: One of the basic functions of Value Engineering is to “Supplement Knowledge” by infusing expertise. The Consultant will be evaluated based on their process (approach) in selecting individual team members for a value engineering study. The Consultant will be evaluated based on the various companies your firm has a relationship (Portfolio Diversity) with that has served as a source for technical team members and how long your firm has worked with these companies. The Consultant will also be evaluated based on your firm’s ability to find unique or specialized team members for a value engineering study.
Terminology and Definitions:
Senior Level: Technical team member expertise is critical to the overall success of value studies. The Louisville District defines senior level to be a minimum of 15 years’ experience actually performing the work as a credentialed professional and not just managing it. Any technical team member listed shall be experts in design and construction as represented by the types of projects they designed rather than being team members on value studies or having VE credentials.
Quality of Technical Team: The evaluation factors that will be used to gauge the quality of the technical team members are: relevant expertise applicable to the type of work the Louisville District typically does and successful demonstration that the team members are an expert in his or her field.
Unique/Specialized Experience: The Consultant will also be evaluated on its ability to use members from disciplines outside of the “core” technical disciplines (i.e., Civil, Architect, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural, Geotechnical, and Constructability) in a way that adds expertise to the team and successfully contributes to its value studies.
Portfolio Diversity: The Consultant will be given a more favorable rating for: having a diverse portfolio of technical team members in which to pull from, for having a long relationship with these sources, and for having an active relationship.
Valuable Technical Team Member Expertise: Based on the type of work the Louisville District has performed in recent years, the following experience will be considered valuable and will be rated more favorably: Constructability expertise that specializes in the design and construction of high performance buildings, complicated building sites with challenging features, and expertise that specializes in the rehabilitation or replacement of critical infrastructure (e.g., Renovations).
6. Sample Approach: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a narrative description of your approach to executing the two sample projects in Attachment A and the rationale for why that approach sets the workshop up for success. The Consultant will be evaluated based on how the approach meets the intent of the SAVE job plan and the USACE VE Standard. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate the durations and the technical team disciplines and the associated expertise of those disciplines and how they will contribute to an effective VE workshop.
7. Effective Process: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes what makes your process/studies effective.
8. Workshop Planning: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes your experience planning, coordinating, staffing, executing and reporting value engineering studies/workshops for complex military, environmental, and civil works programs and projects. Consultants who demonstrate a higher number of relevant VE workshops in which they were responsible for planning will be rated more favorably.
9. Consensus Building: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes the firms experience coordinating/organizing large and diverse groups with various agendas (some contentious) and how your facilitation skills allowed you to arrive at a common list of objectives and requirements for programs and projects.
10. Experience Diversity: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes the firms experience doing the following:
i. Organizing nontraditional approaches using the Value Methodology and specifically Function Analysis to identify solutions to complex problems.
Nontraditional is defined as something different than a 3-5 day consecutive VE workshop following the 6-step job plan.
ii. Applying the Value Methodology to programmatic level efforts.
Leading/facilitating planning and design charrettes.
Describe your firm’s application of the value engineering methodology in a non-conventional or non-standard workshop for which your CVS team leader developed the approach. Additionally, indicate the outcomes of this application.
c. Capacity:
The government’s evaluation of the offeror’s capacity narrative and associated tables, figures, etc. included in SF330 Section H will consider the offeror’s ability to complete the work in the required time with the understanding that this contract may require multiple design teams to work multiple task orders at various locations simultaneously. The ID/IQ additional consideration information included in Section H will also be considered when evaluating capacity.
d. Past Performance:
The government’s evaluation of past performance will consider (1) the performance evaluations provided in Section H for the projects in Section F, (2) any performance evaluations in the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System/Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (ACASS/CPARS) for the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers of any firms or offices listed in the SF330 or for any of the projects included in Section F, and (3) if not already considered, the overall past performance on ID/IQ contracts provided in the ID/IQ additional consideration information included in Section H. Performance evaluations completed by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or equivalent role on the contract are preferred. While all performance evaluations may be considered, those for projects listed in Section F and projects with similar scopes of work will receive the most consideration when evaluating past performance.
Attachment A
Sample Project 1 – Military Renovation:
This project is a renovation and repurpose of an existing building on a military installation within the United States. The future occupying unit currently reside in the building to be renovated. This unit is expanding their operation, but due to spacing limitations, there are no other available on this installation; consequently, this facility will remain occupied during construction. The facility contains a highly sensitive top secret mission that MUST remain operational at all times and the security protocols MUST remain as well. The top secret mission contains a lab space that is sensitive to temperature and humidity. The original estimated budget was $8 million, but the current working estimate is closer to $14 million. The customer is unable to reprogram this project; therefore, an awardable project within the allowable budget is the main key. The funding source for this project is operations and maintenance which has strict restrictions on how much new work is allowed; therefore, it is assumed no additional square footage is allowed beyond the existing building foot print.
The scope of the work to be performed is to utilize an abandoned open volume three story portion of the building to create office space. The customer has decided to add the replacement of all heating and ventilation equipment for the entire facility due to the age of the equipment. The Directive Division (DD) Form 1391 reads as follows: “Accomplish interior demolition, slab saw cutting, foundation excavation. Provide a structural system for a three level structure, including framing, seismic bracing, floor slabs, stairwells, and an elevator as required by code. Provide interior partitions, door, hardware, ceiling and finishes. Replace facility heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Provide power and lighting, fire detection, alarm and suppression system.”
Unfortunately, the planning of the value engineering approach/strategy (value management plan) wasn’t determined at the beginning of the project; therefore, the designer of record (DOR) is expected to submit a set of 65% interim drawings within the next two weeks. The DOR is an A-E consultant that has a strong team with a reputable reputation for doing quality work and they are generally supportive of value engineering. Unfortunately, there isn’t any language in the DOR’s contract that requires them to participate in any value effort.
From your firm’s experience, how would you approach this project and what would you present to the project delivery team (PDT)?
Sample Project 2 – One of a Kind Civil Project:
A Veteran’s Administration in Oregon renovating and adding an addition to their current 175,000 Square Feet (SF) hospital to include another 67-bed to meet the demanding need of the surrounding area. This hospital is the only available comprehensive functional medical facility within a 300-mile radius, it MUST be operational 24-hour a day, 7‑day a week, and 365-day a year. Due to the size and visibility of this project, additional oversight and management are involved with a much diversified Project Delivery Team (PDT) and stakeholder involved (e.g., military leadership, community government, utilities, etc.). This project has a Program Amount of $150 million dollars.
The scope of the work to be performed is to renovation of current areas that includes electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), structural assessment, Antiterrorism and Force Protection, and fire suppression system to meet new codes. Everything in the building is functional, but dated as it was established 15 years ago.
The renovation and additional are two separate Designer of Records (DORs). The Additional is almost at interim (65%) design while the renovation is still in the planning and design stages.
Due to the sensitive nature of the project, the leadership’s priority is to execute the project within the schedule constraints while continuing to maintain the required healthcare to the surrounding military leadership.
From your firm’s experience, how would you approach this project and what would you present to the PDT?
4.) SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ANNOUNCEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DOD SAFE. No paper copies, CD-ROMs or facsimile submissions will be accepted. Electronic Proposal Submission is required through the Army’s Electronic File Sharing Service, DOD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil). The DOD SAFE Application is used to send large files to individuals that would normally be too large to send via email. There are no user accounts for SAFE. Authentication is handled via email. Anyone has access to DOD SAFE, and the application is available for use by anyone. The SAFE “Getting Started Guide” has information on how to utilize the system (https://safe.apps.mil/about.php). Instructions for uploading are as follows:
1. Send an email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist to receive the link to drop off your proposal. This will need to be completed five (5) business days prior to proposal due date.
• Jessica McCall, Contract Specialist at Jessica.L.Mccall@usace.army.mil
• Aaron Sanford, Contracting Officer at Aaron.L.Sanford@usace.army.mil
1. You will receive an email with the link to submit your drop-off. The link will be provided no later than two (2) business days prior to the proposal due date.
2. Short Note to the Recipients: Click the Add Files or Drag and Drop your files. For file description, enter
W912QR20R0074-FIRMNAME.
3. Click Upload button to send documents.
4. Guest users will need to check their email to verify their email address before the recipients will be notified. (Government-issued Common Access Cards (CACs) are not required).
File Size Limitations: Offerors are advised to follow the DOD SAFE instructions for uploading files. DOD SAFE supports delivery up to 8GB. If needed, Offerors are advised to break the files down into smaller sections in order to upload it to the system. In such cases, please divide the sections as logically as possible and be sure to clearly name the files as specified below.
File Naming Convention: To ensure your submission is received and processed appropriately, it is important that interested parties CAREFULLY ensure their electronic files adhere to the following naming convention:
• W912QR20R0074-FIRMNAME
Each file name shall begin with the solicitation number followed by the firm’s name and a brief file description. Please see examples above.
File Organization: Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized (larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the each section for each factor.
Upload Completion & Deadline: Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on the solicitation document. The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within DOD SAFE site. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process. Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record. Submissions after the deadline will be considered late and will be processed in accordance with FAR 15.208. Electronic Files: Files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text. Text and graphics portfolios of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe applications. Data submitted in a spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel (all cells and formulas should be unlocked). Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017),” subparagraph (e). The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.
Offerors must submit a current and accurate SF 330, Part l, and one copy of the SF330, Part II for the prime firm. Each branch office that will have a key role in the proposed contract must also submit a copy of the SF 330 Part II. Offerors must submit a current and accurate SF 330, Part II, for each proposed sub-consultant. Any firm with an electronic mailbox responding to the solicitation should identify such address in the SF 330, Part I. Please identify the Dun & Bradstreet number of the office(s) performing the work in Block 5 of the SF 330, Part I. Dun & Bradstreet numbers may be obtained by contacting (866) 705-5711, or via the internet at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.
The proposal shall be submitted as one file. Font size shall be 10 or larger on white letter-sized paper (8 inches by 11 inches). The SF 330 will be no longer than 150 pages in length (excluding the SF 330, Part IIs). Resumes in Section E can be no more than two pages in length, and individual projects in Section F can be no more than 4 pages in length. Section H shall be 20 pages or less in length and may only include information specifically required by this presolicitation to be in Section H. All government evaluation of proposals associated with the selection criteria in Paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) will be performed using Section E, Section F, Section G and Section H as indicated in Paragraph 3. Any additional information included in the proposal not specifically required may not be evaluated or considered. Each printed side of a page will count as one page.
Do not furnish design portfolios, prints, magazines, newspaper clippings, or CDs of completed projects. All requirements of this notice must be met for a firm to be considered responsive.
Additional instructions and clarifications for SF330:
SF330 Section D:
The offerors shall submit an organizational chart as required by SF330 Section D. Offerors can submit a folded 11”x 17” organizational chart as part of their submission. This will be considered only one page of their submission.
SF330 Section E:
The individuals identified by the project roles on the SF330 may not have multiple duties or be “dual-hatted”.
The Consultant is strongly encouraged to arrange the information within the proposal in order of importance within each section (e.g., when listing personnel, projects, experience, etc.). The following outlines the proposal structure:
Tab 1 – General: The SF330 is a standard form the Government utilizes and again will serve as a starting point. This proposal format breaks the SF330 up based on function/information rather than page order. Tab 1 can have up to four (4) pages total.
Page 1 of the SF330 shall be placed in tab 1.
Page 1 identifies the company name and contact information as well as the company make up/organizational structure.
Page 1 section C (Proposed Team) lists all your core VE related staff that are critical to the success of the overall VE effort, not technical team members.
Page 1 section D (Organizational Chart) illustrates the organizational structure of the company. Clearly illustrate who the contract manager is. The contract manager is considered the primary point of contact for the overall contract and the person(s) that will discuss scope, schedule, budget, and negotiate the task order contracts. The organizational structure shall clearly illustrate if the core staff are company employees or consist of subcontracted employees. If core staff consist of subcontracted employees, clearly indicate the organizational structure between prime and subs. This org chart will also be referred to from tab 4.
Tab 2 – Core VE Team Professional Qualifications: The focus of this section are to “demonstrate compliance”, “highlight experience”, “illustrate relevance”, and “highlight quality. Standard Form (SF) 330 section E is the initial page that will be used and shall be placed in tab 2. This solicitation does not have a maximum submitted core VE team member count however the maximum page count for tab 2 is (32) pages.
Page 2 section E of the SF330 shall be submitted for each team member required in this solicitation as well as any additional core team members submitted beyond the minimum.
Note: This will be used to gauge compliance. Clearly indicate licenses (Profession Engineer [PE], Registered Architect [RA], etc.) and certifications (CVS, etc.) along with the year the licenses and certifications were obtained. It is critical to include the length of time the CVS has been certified and been facilitating VE workshops.
Note: Page 2 section 19 of the SF330 shall demonstrate the experience of each team member and their experience relevant to the type of work the Louisville District typically performs. A maximum of five projects in section 19 is allowed per person.
Note: Page 2 section 19 of the SF330 Brief Description: Make sure to clearly illustrate the person’s role on the project.
Additional pages may be added for each team member. This is your area to get creative and explain what makes this person the greatest and why we absolutely want them. What differentiates this person from the rest? What about this persons abilities gets results? Within these pages, demonstrate actual examples of quality function analysis, from their studies, and how the function analysis allowed the team to find more creative solutions. Identify up to three (3) examples of Key VE alternatives/proposals that were instrumental to the success of the submitted VE study.
Tab 3 – Firm Value Engineering Workshop Summaries: The focus of this section are to “demonstrate mastery,” “demonstrate expertise,” “demonstrate added value.” Using SF330 page 3 section F and page 5 section H, submit summaries of three to five (3 5) relevant Value Engineering Workshops that demonstrate a mastery of the value methodology and illustrate how these workshop results had a significant value contribution to the project being studied. The submitted studies must have been done by the firm and by the CVS team members submitted in your proposal. The projects do not need to be (but can be) the same as those submitted in tab 2 for the individual team members. None of the submitted projects shall be projects for the Louisville District. At least one (1) of the three to five (3-5) submitted projects shall be for another customer other than USACE. List the technical team members used for each study in field 25 of section F. Tab 3 shall not exceed 15 pages in length
Tab 4 – Overall Competency and Experience: The focus of this section are to “demonstrate established methods and procedures,” “confirm value-specialty,” “validate quality”. Tab 4 will not utilize the SF330; however, we do want to maintain a set structure. The following order should be followed for tab 4:
Management Plan: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3.
VE Experience: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3.
Team Member Selection: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3. Also include a table of the various companies your firm has a relationship with that has served as a source for technical team members and how long your firm has worked with these companies; a matrix of companies showing the projects and years you have worked together on may be a good way to illustrate this information. Also, include a sampling of technical team members that highlights the quality of the team members that you utilize and have access to.
Sample Approach: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3
Effective Process: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3. The proposal must include an example where function analysis played a substantial role in the outcome of the workshop.
Workshop Planning: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3
Consensus Building: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3
Experience Diversity: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3
Customer References: list customer references that can validate the quality of your work
Tab 4 shall have a maximum of (20) pages.
Tab 5 – Capacity: The focus of this section is to “demonstrate workload management”, Tab 5 will not utilize the SF330; however, we do want to maintain a set structure. The following order should be followed for tab 5. Submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3:
Multi-Tasking Ability
Diversity of VE Work
Past Performance
Tab 5 shall have a maximum of (4) pages
To be eligible for award, a firm must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database, via the SAM Internet site at https://www.sam.gov.
Point of Contact(s):
Jessica McCall 502-315-6137; Jessica.L.Mccall@usace.army.mil
USACE District, Louisville
Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet.
To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system.
Project: W912QR20R0074; Architect/Engineer Services for Survey and Mapping Projects Primarily within the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Mission Boundaries
Quick Add Key: HWY3JP-3E8EBW
Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:
1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.
2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.
3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.
4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.
5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.
6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.
7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.
Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:
1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.
2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.
3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE.
4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.
5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.
6. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question.
7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.
Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.
The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of bids/proposals.
1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the
Presolicitation notice. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the
Contract Specialist identified in the Presolicitation notice.
2. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures that are submitted to
ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on beta.SAM.gov. In the case of any conflicts, the last posted notice or, if applicable, amendment posted to beta.SAM.gov governs. Any changes or revisions to the Presolicitation notice will be issued on beta.SAM.gov.
3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures will be disabled ten (10) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation. No Government responses will be entered into the
ProjNet system within five (5) calendar days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation.
W912QR20R0072 Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering District Louisville
7/21/20, 9:51 AM