NMACC III SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE ADDENDUM04.pdf

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE

ADDENDUM 04

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

NATIONAL MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT III (NMACC III)

Notice Type: Source Sought Synopsis Source Sought No.: 70Z04721RNMACC03 Solicitation: USCG NATIONAL MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT (NMACC III)

NAICS Codes: 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction Contracting Office: United States Coast Guard, Shore Infrastructure Logistics Command (SILC)

Construction, 300 E. Main St, Norfolk, VA 23510 Point of Contact: Vivienne E. Moore | vivienne.e.moore@uscg.mil | 757.628.4171

THE PURPOSE OF SUBJECT ADDENDUM IS TO RESPOND TO ADDITIONAL Q&As:

Q6. What is the status of the procurement at this time?

R6. We have completed market research. We are outlining a planned strategy for ordering pools and initial thoughts on a proposed evaluation scheme for selection of contractors. The ordering pool strategy has to go through a formal approval because of the small business nexus and this step is critical to further progress.

Once the ordering pool strategy is formalized, we need to develop an updated business case to enroll the contract in the DHS strategic sourcing portfolio and, in a parallel path, we need to finalize the solicitation and the source selection plan.

Q7. How can we stay informed on progress?

R7. We remain committed to posting progress on SAM.gov. At a minimum, we plan to post a pre-solicitation announcement that will be followed by a draft solicitation. You should not be surprised by the time that you see the final solicitation. We also have tentative ideas for an industry day or a pre-proposal conference. We will continue to evaluate the specific needs and the timing of any such events. Information on any events will be posted on SAM.gov.

Q8. What are your current thoughts on the ordering pools?

R8. Currently, we are leaning toward a single unrestricted ordering pool for large projects and two geographic pools for small business (essentially east and west with specific boundaries to be determined).

Q9. What are your current thoughts on number of contract holders in each pool?

R9. This decision can be complex. We know that our contract holders must maintain numerous business opportunities to stay in business and that our opportunities do not always align in a mutually beneficial manner.

We would only expect some indeterminate subset of the larger pool to take a strong interest in any given mailto:vivienne.e.moore@uscg.mil project. Given this reality and a desire to maintain a viable contract for ten years, we plan more contract holders than might be typical. Out of respect for the contract holders’ desire to avoid competing where probabilities of success are low, we plan to monitor interest of the contract holders and use a down-select process to hold down proposal costs overall. We are interested in attracting contract holders with competitive advantages to each project.

Q10. What should I expect, if I become a contract holder?

R10. This contract is being formulated for design-build efforts for capital improvement projects. In the Coast

Guard, all such procurements fall under a single group called the Facility Design and Construction Center

(FDCC). FDCC has two offices- one in Seattle (detachment) and one in Norfolk (primary office). Just like with any organization, there may be some “personality” differences between the two offices; however, they are under the same management overall. FDCC will award and administer all projects. FDCC is a small group who we believe operates in a harmonious and consistent manner throughout the contract. Since this contract is available to all DHS Components, contract holders will also have opportunities work with them. Regardless of who awards and administer the work on the project, the same general ordering procedures should be employed.

Q11. It is apparent that the USCG will be the primary user of this contract. What is the USCG’s approach to design-build?

R11. Coast Guard bridging documents will be a combination of performance specifications and some fairly prescriptive requirements. When we know what we want, we will be more inclined to ask for specifics. FDCC is a small organization and, if we go too far toward performance specifications that require significant creativity in the design process, we risk getting overly extended in design reviews. On the other hand, if we steer too far into prescriptive requirements, we risk losing the benefits of a design-build solution. There will be times when we lean toward prescriptive specifications and where we compete projects on the basis of price. Most of the time, where there is value to be added during the design process, we will employ a trade-off analysis. We have also been experimenting with down-select processes to identify contract holders with distinct advantages in the competitive process for project awards. The intent of these processes is to compensate for the larger number of contract holders overall. We do not want to unnecessarily drive up proposal costs among the contract holders. In certain cases, we believe that we can increase overall competition by decreasing the number of contract holders to those with the best economic advantages or design approaches.

Q12. What are your current thoughts on the source selection process?

R12. The procurement will definitely follow the general outline of FAR Subpart 36.3. For Phase One, we are currently envisioning a self-scoring format.