Atch 3_SABER Pre-Prop Conf Slides.pdf

23d WING Flying Tigers

23d Contracting Squadron (23 CONS) Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit

Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirement (SABER)

RFP No. FA4830-23-R-0001

For Official Use Only

Liz Preston Contracting Officer

06 Jul 23

Welcome & Introductions

Government Panel

23 CONS

Ms. Liz Preston – Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) Mr. Steven Davis – Admin. CO (ACO) for SABER 2d Lt Hannah Hidalgo – Contract Specialist

23 CES

Mr. Brett Wrenn – Technical Advisor Mr. Jerry Fruth – Technical Advisor Mr. Andy Knight – Technical Advisor

Purpose

Provide prospective offerors an overall understanding of the objectives of this acquisition

Provide a summary and discuss the requirement Explain significant elements of the solicitation Provide an opportunity for Q&As and one-on-one sessions Give prospective offerors an opportunity to visit the seed project site

Conference Agenda

EVENT SCHEDULE

0830 - 0900 Assembly & Meet and Greet – Bldg. 104

0900 – 0910 Welcome Message (23 CONS Commander, Major Peter Van Remmen) & Announcements

0910 – 1000 - SABER Program and Seed Project Requirements

- RFP & Evaluation Process

1000 – 1015 Break & Ready for Site Visit

1015 – 1130 Site Visit to Seed Project Site – Bldg. 326

1130 – 1145 Walk Back to Heritage Hall (Bldg. 104)

1145 – 1230 Assembly for Questions and Answers

1230 – TBD 1-on-1 Meetings

Rules of Engagement

All communication regarding this source selection shall be through Liz Preston (PCO) and/or Lt Hannah Hidalgo (CS)

The PCO & CS serve as the only points of contact for all inquiries and information regarding this acquisition

Any remarks, explanations, or answers to questions are supplemental guidance and do not override the terms of the solicitation

Terms of the solicitation remain unchanged unless the solicitation is formally amended in writing

Questions must be received in writing to receive an “official response”

Please do not use recording devices Please turn off your cell phones

Administrative Comments

Sign-In Attendance sheet, briefing slides, and conference minutes will be posted on SAM.gov Questions and Responses

Questions may be asked during the briefer’s presentation Questions during the site visit may be asked but are preferred to be submitted in writing Questions and the answers provided will be documented in the conference minutes

Announcements RFP RELEASED: 26 June 2023

Proposal Due: 3:00 PM (EST), 26 July 2023 Upcoming Amendment 0001

Removal of “bona fide branch office located in Region IV area” requirement

Transition from e4Clicks to eGordian cost-building tool Cost for purchasing e4Clicks software must not be included in building your coefficient

If any conflicts are identified between this presentation, the site visit & RFP….the RFP shall take precedence

No Government responses are “official” until provided in writing Q&A Ground Rules

Hold all questions until the open Q&A session Submit written questions on Q&A form provided in RFP Formal written responses will be posted to SAM.gov and take precedence over any verbal responses provided today

SABER Program Overview & Technical Requirements

For Official Use Only

SABER Program Overview

Execution of a broad range of maintenance, repair, and minor construction work on various real property facilities

Primary Place of Performance:

Moody AFB, GA Grand Bay Range, GA Grassy Pond, GA Spence Field, GA Valdosta Regional Airport, GA Avon Park Range, FL

SABER Program Overview (cont’)

Once the basic SABER contract is awarded, actual work performance is accomplished via individual Task Orders (TOs)

Each TO is negotiated via scoping meetings, reviews of SOO, drawings, and cost proposal

All TO work must be performed IAW SABER Specification (RFP Atch 1), Moody Design Guide (RFP Atch 2) & SABER Ordering Guide (RFP Atch 12)

Variety of multiple trades required in horizontal and vertical construction

The contractor shall furnish all management, supervision, labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary for performance

The contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least an average of fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract

RFP and Evaluation Process

For Official Use Only

Tentative Milestones

Event Anticipated Date RFP Issued and Posted 26 Jun 2023 Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit 06 Jul 2023 Proposal (All Volumes) Due 26 Jul 2023 Contract Awards 15 Oct 2023 Ordering Period Start 15 Oct 2023 First TO (Min. Guarantee) Issued 15 Oct 2023

Acquisition Approach

Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract w/ Firm- Fixed Price (FFP) Task Orders

100% 8(a) Set-Aside Basis of Award: Best Value Tradeoff between performance and price (PPT) among technically acceptable proposals Present/Past Performance approximately equal to Price consideration; award may be made to the higher priced, technically acceptable offeror with greater performance confidence rating

To be eligible for award, the offer must:

Conform to Section L and meet all RFP terms and conditions Receive “Acceptable” Technical rating Receive a Past Performance Confidence rating other than “Limited” or “No

Confidence” Have a fair and reasonable price (i.e., coefficient); and Be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1 (e.g., Performance bonding capability will be one of the determining factors)

Evaluation Process and Discussions

Government intends to evaluate and award without discussions Ensure initial proposal contains the best term from a price and technical standpoint (Don’t assume discussions will take place) The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make award decision after the initial evaluation or determine a Competitive Range for the purpose of holding discussions

Independent evaluation team will concurrently evaluate offerors’ Technical, Past Performance, and Price Proposals Technical: Will be rated “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis Past Performance: A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned per offeror based on the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and performance quality 5 Categories of Confidence Rating: Substantial, Satisfactory, Neutral, Limited, and No Confidence Price: Will evaluate offeror’s proposed coefficient (a single coefficient rate for 4-yrs of Ordering Period) for determining reasonableness

Evaluation Process and Discussions (cont’)

Evaluation Process

1. All received proposals will be checked for SAM registration

2. Technical and Past Performance volumes will be checked for page restriction Any access pages will be removed and will not be read

3. All proposals will be racked and stacked by the initial Total Evaluation Price (TEP), from lowest to highest ***TEP Calculation = Seed Project Cost Estimate (Technical Vol., Subfactor 1(c)) X Proposed Coefficient (Price Vol., Section B) X CCI***

4. Starting with the lowest TEP proposal, the team will conduct independent and concurrent Technical, Past Performance, and Price evaluation one proposal at a time

5. If the evaluation results in an offeror receiving “Acceptable” rating for Technical, “Substantial Confidence” rating for PP, and determined proposed coefficient reasonable, the Government will stop evaluation & the SSA may decide to award w/o discussion

Proposal Organization

Volume I: Technical Volume II: Present/Past Performance Volume III: Price

Items of Note

Carefully read RFP to include instructions to Offerors within Section L and Evaluation Factors for Award within Section M Proposals based upon requirements in the Seed Project SOW

(RFP Atch 3) & all its attachments, as well as the SABER Specifications (RFP Atch 1)

To be eligible for award, offeror must be registered in SAM (System for Award Management), https://www.sam.gov

Structure proposal IAW Section L, Instruction to Offerors Proposals shall be clear and concise, containing sufficient detail for accurate evaluation

Volume I: Technical

Pass/Fail basis Ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable Technical Rating Definitions

Technical proposal shall be specific, complete, and clearly demonstrate the ability to meet this solicitation requirement

Failure to meet subfactor requirement will result in a “Technically Unacceptable” determination at the factor level

Technical Subfactors

Subfactor 1 – Execution of Moody AFB Seed Project Element 1 – Scope of Work

Detailed Narrative of the preliminary design Preliminary drawings Design calculations

Element 2 – Construction Schedule Include critical paths, milestones, phasing, completion date, utility outage, etc.

Element 3 – Cost Estimate

RSMeans based complete construction line items for the seed project in CSI format

Technical Subfactors

Subfactor 2 – Management Approach Detailed Management Plan (MP)* - As a minimum, the MP shall include:

Complete key personnel org. chart, including identifying lines of authority, responsibilities, and qualifications, and names of each person identified in the chart

Detailed procedural descriptions for QC, scheduling, reviewing, certifying, and managing submittals

Narrative of detailed ability/strategy to execute multiple task orders, including policies and procedures on subcontractor management

* Accepted MP will be incorporated into the SABER contract

Volume II: Present/Past Performance

L.5.2.2. Summary Page(s) – 2 pg limit Identify and describe role of offeror and major subs, teaming arrangement, and/or JV for whom the offeror is required in submit PPPI L.5.2.3. Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) – 5 pg limit per contract No more than 4 total per offeror; 1 may be for sub, partner, and/or JV that will perform major/critical aspects of requirement (i.e. 25% / >) 5 pg limit includes letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.

Contents must include: contracting agency/customer, contract/TO #, contract type, date of award, total $ value, Period of Performance (if TO, indicate TO PoP, not the entire IDIQ contract duration), contract description, role of the offeror (and each subcontractor) & POC

***Offeror responsible to ensure the POC accuracy*** Provide rationale for which aspects of each submitted contract are relevant to the SABER and how they relate

Performance (cont’)

L.5.2.4. subcontractor Letters of Consent If applicable. Required for PPPI disclosure to prime offeror

L.5.2.5. Client Authorization Letters If applicable. Authorizes government’s access to PPPI for commercial customers L.5.2.6. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

Send out PPQ to the customer for completion The customer submits PPQ directly to PCO Offeror responsible for following-up with the customer PPQ received from the offeror will not be used for evaluation

Recency Assessment: Ongoing or contracts performed within 5 years from RFP issuance date Must have minimum of 6 months documented performance Contract performance meeting these criteria will be evaluated in its entirety Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be considered or evaluated Relevancy Assessment: Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity

Scope – Broad range of repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance and minor construction projects on various real property, etc.

Magnitude – Contract dollar value for contract/task order similar or greater compared to the solicited effort (Avg. SABER TO value is appx. $250K)

Complexity – Number of functions/trades involved to accomplish the project, single or multiple locations/managements of performance, multi-phase design-build project or a simple short-term project, etc.

Performance Quality Assessment Government will mostly rely on CPARS and PPQs received; however, the Government will obtain performance information available regardless of its source

Performance (Cont’)

Relevancy Assessment Ratings Definitions Assigned to each contract/TO evaluated

Considers demonstrated record of present and past performance in providing construction services that meet customers’ needs

Assesses the degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort

In determining relevancy, prime effort will be given more consideration over subcontracting effort

Each offeror will be assigned an integrated overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating based on recency, relevancy, and performance quality assessments of each contract/TO evaluated

Performance (Cont’)

Performance Confidence Assessment Assigned to each offeror after integration of all contracts evaluated

Sample 1 Past Perf. Evaluation Summary

Sample 2 Past Perf. Evaluation Summary

Volume III: Price & Other Contracting Considerations

Coefficient Rate Propose coefficient in Section B, Price Schedule, in SF 1442 A single rate of coefficient to be used for all SABER task orders for the entire

4-yr Ordering Period Should include all contractor costs (e.g., burdened labor, OH, profit, G&A, bond premium, insurance, etc.)

Coefficient Rate Reasonableness Justification

Provide full explanation w/ sufficient details for the basis for development (e.g., what’s included, what’s NOT included, assumptions made, etc….walk us through your thought process)

Unreasonably high or unrealistically low coefficient rate may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition

Initial rack and stack by price to establish the evaluation orders from lowest to highest TEP offeror

After the order of evaluation is established, the construction costs for the SABER seed will not be a factor for determining the reasonableness of proposed coefficient rate

Tips for Building Solid Proposal Technical

Carefully read Section L and address the requirements listed in Section L clearly, concisely and specifically

Review all RFP attachments thoroughly Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI)

Provide detailed description of the characteristics of each contract/task order Identify and explain which aspects of the past/current contracts are relevant to the overall SABER projects and how they relate If proposing subcontractor, team and/or JV partner, establish a nexus between the prime and the proposed partner (i.e. Be specific about what meaningful work it will perform and what role it will play)

Send out PPQs early and follow up to ensure the POC has sent in the PPQ to the 23 CONS

Price/Coefficient Propose reasonable coefficient Provide coefficient reasonableness justification w/ sufficient details for us to determine the reasonableness

Tips for Building Solid Proposal Other Contracting Considerations

Conform to all terms and conditions Ensure all required certifications are included (Section K) Clearly state all assumptions made and/or any exceptions taken Complete all fill-in clauses (Section I) Beware of page limits, font size and format Ensure to include/complete:

Teaming arrangements and/or Letter of Intent (if applicable) Bid Acceptance Period Proof of performance bonding capability