Attachment_2_Power_Point_Presentation.pdf

JOINT BASE CHARLESTON

Construct Fire Station Addition

Joint Base Charleston – Weapons Station, SC

PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT

Solicitation: FA4418-17-R-0019 Agenda

02 August 2017 Introductions Emergency Procedures, Rest Rooms Contracting Solicitation Review Civil Engineer Project Review Preliminary Questions Proceed to other Sites

SrA Joshua Nardone/ Ms. Rozella Johnson

628 CONS/LGCB

843-963-5167/5173

ATTACHMENT 2 FA4418-17-R-0019 Power Point Presentation

PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT

Pertinent Personnel

• SrA Joshua Nardone – Contract Administrator

• Ms. Rozella Johnson – Contracting Officer

• Mr. Larry Pearl – Project Manager

• MSgt Brooks McDonald – Project Inspector

In case of Emergency and evacuation is necessary exit conference room and proceed to the nearest Exit. Exit the building and meet in the parking lot in front of the building.

Rest Rooms

PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT

Contracting Request for Proposal Review

• 100% Small Business Set-Aside

• Project DKGV 12-2035 (FIRM FIXED PRICE)

Construct Fire Station Addition, Building 90

• “NOTICE TO OFFEROR(S)/SUPPLIER(S): FUNDS ARE NOT PRESENTLY

AVAILABLE FOR THIS EFFORT. NO AWARD WILL BE MADE UNDER THIS

SOLICITATION UNTIL FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. THE GOVERNMENT

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS SOLICITATION, EITHER BEFORE

OR AFTER THE CLOSING DATE. IN THE EVENT THE GOVERNMENT

CANCELS THIS SOLICITATION, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO

REIMBURSE AN OFFEROR FOR ANY COSTS”

• All amendments to the RFP will be posted on FedBizOpps (fbo.gov)

• Please submit any questions in writing to:

joshua.nardone.2@us.af.mil and rozella.johnson.1@us.af.mil mailto:joshua.nardone.2@us.af.mil mailto:joshua.nardone.2@us.af.mil mailto:joshua.nardone.2@us.af.mil mailto:joshua.nardone.2@us.af.mil mailto:rozella.johnson.1@us.af.mil mailto:rozella.johnson.1@us.af.mil mailto:rozella.johnson.1@us.af.mil mailto:rozella.johnson.1@us.af.mil

PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT

• Proposals Due No Later Than 9:00 AM EST on 29 August 2017 Mail or Hand Deliver to JB CHS Air Base

Hand carrier – Expect delays “ALWAYS” Mail – Do not rely on USPS. Use FedEx, UPS, or any other door to door service company.

• Faxed or Emailed Proposals will NOT be accepted

Faxed amendments and/ or proposal revisions will be accepted prior to the closing date, originals must be mailed in.

• Specifications & Drawings to the Solicitation

Located on FedBizOpps Section J of Solicitation

• All security badge procedures will apply to this project

• Questions in writing deadline is 2:00 PM EST on 7 August 2017

Bonds

The contractor shall submit a Proposal Bond (Standard Form 24) Performance Bond (Standard Form 25) and a Payment Bond (Standard Form 25-A) with good and sufficient surety and sureties to the Government within 15 days of award. The penal sum of such bonds will be as follows:

PROPOSAL BOND: In the amount of 20 percent (20%) of the proposal price. The Proposal Bond penalty may be expressed in terms of a percentage of the proposal price or may be expressed in dollars and cents.

PERFORMANCE BOND: The penal amount of the performance bonds shall equal one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price.

PAYMENT BOND: The penal amount of the payment bonds shall equal one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price.

Project Time Allowed

Period of Performance will begin performance within 10 calendar days and complete it within 320 calendar days after receiving notice to proceed.

52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEP 2000)

(a) If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $222.00 for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted.

WHAT TO SUBMIT TO CONTRACTING

(Preparation Instructions)

• IAW Proposal Preparation Instructions 1 original signed and 1 copy

• Price Proposal Information (Schedule B)

• Past Performance Information

Past Performance Information (Proposal Preparation

Instructions):

• Past Performance must be recent and relevant

• Trade-Off procedures apply

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, and will be determined technically acceptable. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Price Evaluation A. Initially offers shall be ranked according to total proposed price for the BASE BID (0001 and 0002) and Bid

Alternate (0003). An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B, price Schedule, by the proposed unit price for each Line Item to confirm the extended amount for each. The extended amounts will be added together to determine the total evaluated price. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award. The price evaluation will document (for the offers evaluated under paragraph a below) the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

Performance Confidence Assessment A. The contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on the lowest priced offerors (usually the lowest two to five) based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from the offeror, as solicited, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, and sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interview with Program Managers, Contracting officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance assessment.

B. Relevant performance includes performance of multi-discipline efforts involving renovation or repair of commercial buildings that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

C. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Source Selection Authority may determine that “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” is worth more than “Neutral Confidence”.

PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT

D. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

E. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment, that represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or expectations in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

EM 385-1-1 dated 14 Nov 2014 Contractor Quality Control Person can be the SSHO QC/SSHO can not have any other job Superintendent MAY NOT perform the duties of

QC/SSHO

Civil Engineer Project Review

Preliminary Questions

Proceed to other Sites - Government Transportation

Questions in writing deadline:

• 2:00 PM EST on 7 August 2017