Atch 1 - Industry Questionnaire.docx

FA5613-24-R-MACC

Attachment 1

INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR THE REACQUISITION OF

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC)

FA5613-24-R-MACC

700 Contracting Squadron intends to issue a solicitation for the MACC throughout Kaiserslautern Military Community (KMC) and Spangdahlem Air Base areas for performance of the requirement in accordance with the draft General Requirements & Provisions (Attachment 2). Our goals are: a) to maximize performance while reducing cost of business with a manageable degree of risk; and b) to award qualified contractors under the basic MACC to fulfill the Government’s construction needs through individual task orders. Therefore, your thoughtful/candid responses, comments, recommendations, and suggestions are valuable for the development of our acquisition strategy and will be very much appreciated. Please return the completed survey to joshua.maxwell.3@us.af.mil and rebecca.berry.1@us.af.mil no later than 4:30 PM, 5 June 2024.

Company Information Company Name:

Company Address:

CAGE Code:

Point of Contact (POC) Name and Title:

POC Phone:

POC e-mail:

My company is interested as a potential: ☐ Prime Contractor ☐ Sub-contractor

700 CONS is looking to utilize Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) source selection methodology. In using the HTRO process, the Government establishes a weighted points-based spreadsheet of objective criteria in the solicitation. Offerors self-score and provide substantiation for their scoring in their technical proposal. The Government’s technical evaluation is a review of this substantiation to validate the offeror’s self-score. Best Value is defined as the offeror with the highest Government-validated technical score and past performance.

Offerors self-score against the pre-defined objective scoring criteria and deliver supporting documentation to objectively prove self-score validity. The self-scoring spreadsheet reflects the maximum points and the weight factor for each criterion. After receipt of proposals, all offerors are ranked highest-to-lowest using each offeror’s self-scoring worksheet. The Government reviews the supporting documentation of the highest scored offeror to validate offeror self-scores, and scores are adjusted downward if not adequately substantiated (no upward adjustments can be made). The highest scoring offeror then proceeds to the next evaluation criteria, past performance. It is not a trade-off, and like LPTA there are no evaluations.

HTRO is meant to streamline and reduce timelines to award, while also reducing proposal development time for offerors. HTRO reduces barriers to proposing, as it does not require new proposal narratives and does not include a seed project.

The following questions are to help inform us on any experience offerors may have with HTRO methodology, any scoring areas that are recommended, and any questions there may be. The information provided will also help inform follow on education and any pre-proposal conference(s).

Industry Questionnaire

1) Does your company have any HTRO experience or familiarity? If so, please provide examples of success and/ or any challenges encountered.

Response:

2) What elements or criteria do you anticipate to be scored/ evaluated for the anticipated MACC?

3) What do you anticipate to be the most challenging aspect of HTRO?

4) What are your concerns utilizing HTRO as a source selection methodology?

5) Do you have any other comments or suggestions that you would like share with us?