FA4819-10-R-0006 Site Visit.pptx
PPTX presentation 137 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tyndall AFB SABER Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4819-10-R-0006
About this file
FA4819-10-R-0006 Tyndall AFB SABER Site Visit Slides - Note that the attached PPT slides were not shown to the attendees due to network issues at Tyndall on the day of the site visit however the contracting officer went over the information contained in the slides with those businesses who attended the site visit.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Site Visit Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) 325th Contracting Squadron Tyndall AFB, FL
Mr. William R. Baker
325 CONS/LGCC
3 Mar 11; 0900 CST
Develop America's Airmen Today ... for Tomorrow
Aim High...Fly-Fight-Win
Welcome to the Tyndall AFB SABER site visit. If you are here then you obviously have read Sec L of the solicitation or at least the first page of the solicitation! Good for you!
I would like to ask at this time that you please silence all cell phone and other electronic devices.
Overview Introductions Handling Site Visit Questions Requirement Overview CLIN structure Section M Evaluation Criteria Key Dates
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
Here are some of the agenda topics that we will be touching upon today.
Introductions Contracting Officer: Mr. William R. Baker, 325 CONS
Contract Specialist: Ms. Mary Helen Dent, 325 CONS
325 CES Representatives: Mr. Harry Britts, 325 CES; Mr. Pat Kelly, 325 CES; and Mr. Jerry Spivey, 325 CES
Minutes recorder: Ms. Aubreigh Sumner, 325 CONS
Attendee introductions of all site visit attendees
Handling Site Visit Questions All offerors who have questions generated from the site visit shall submit those questions to the Contracting Officer NLT 1200 CST on 4 Mar 11.
325 CONS/325 CES will provide answers to the questions within 2 business days via upload to FBO.
Any questions asked during the site visit should be written down or emailed to the CO by the date stated above.
The official “answer” to all site visit questions will be the document on FBO.
We are handing out a document that you may use in order to record any questions that stem from this briefing and/or the site tour through the base. At the end of the site visit, we will collect all of the question documents.
If an offeror has a question that they forgot to write down, thought of later, or you would just like to email your questions, please do so NLT 1200 on 4 Mar 11 to Mr. Baker.
Note that any verbal answers given today are not official answers. Questions will be recorded and then the official answer will be posted on FBO.
Requirement Overview Requirement: 325th Civil Engineer Squadron (325 CES) has need for construction services on real property maintenance, repair, alteration, and new construction; work will be performed on Tyndall AFB and associated sites.
Period of Performance: 12-month base with 4 (four) 12 (twelve) month options Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with Economic Price Adjustment (EPA); Task Orders issued on a FFP basis
This is a Firm-Fixed Price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for construction work on real property facilities at Tyndall AFB, and its associated sites in Florida. The work is required in support of the 325th Civil Engineer Squadron. Each construction project will be awarded by issuing individual Task Orders against the basic contract on an as needed basis. Projects will be in support of real property maintenance, repair, alteration, and new construction. It is anticipated that this contract will be used for renovations, new facilities, additions, roofing, paving, and related construction work.
(Geographically Separated Units: St. George, Carabelle, Cape San Blas, Appalachacola)
Requirement Overview Small Business: Set Aside for 8(a) nationwide competition Number of Award(s): One Selection: Performance/Price Trade Off with technical proposals
NAICS: 236220
Size Standard: $33.5M
CLIN Structure
| CLIN | CLIN Type | ||
| 0001 | Base Year | FFP w/EPA | |
| 0002 | Option Year 1 | FFP w/EPA | |
| 0003 | Option Year 2 | FFP w/EPA | |
| 0004 | Option Year 3 | FFP w/EPA | |
| 0005 | Option Year 4 | FFP w/EPA |
Evaluation Criteria Source Selection Type: Performance/Price Trade Off (PPT) with technical evaluations
Past performance is SIGNIFICANTLY more important than cost/price considerations
Source Selection (Technical)
(1) Management Submission (Sub-Factor 1): The contractor will be required to provide management information. The management submission is considered acceptable when the Offeror:
a. Provides an organizational diagram that demonstrates an overall organizational and management structure (inclusive of all teaming partners) adequate to successfully manage the contract.
b. Identifies organizational positions authorized to negotiate task orders and modifications following contract award.
c. Identifies Program Manager (and person holding the P.E. or R.A. if not the Program Manager), Quality Control Manager, Project Superintendents and minimum standards (education and/or experience) for those positions (include any subcontracting or teaming arrangements), and
d. Provides an approach that indentifies a process to hire and retain qualified key personnel.
Source Selection (Technical)
(2) Quality Control (QC) Submission (Sub-Factor 2): The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to quality control as specified below. The Quality Control submission is considered acceptable when the Offeror:
a. Reflects how quality problems will be adequately, logically, effectively and expediently documented and resolved.
b. Identifies how trend analysis will be accomplished to identify poor performing subcontractors, including appropriate corrective action, management tools, methods and documentation.
c. Identifies experienced, dedicated quality control personnel (with no overlapping duties and responsibilities) and the extent of their authority.
d. Identifies how often work will be inspected (frequency of at least once per day per delivery order).
e. Provides an adequate approach for interfacing with Government inspectors will be accomplished (weekly update as a minimum).
(3) Safety Plan (Sub-Factor 3): The Offeror will be required to provide their approach to safety. The Safety Plan is considered acceptable when the Offeror:
a. Provides an adequate approach for inspection of work sites for safety compliance (frequency of at least one per day per delivery order).
b. Reflects how safety problems will be logically, effectively and expediently documented and resolved.
c. Identifies how trend analysis will be accomplished to identify poor performing subcontractors, including appropriate corrective action, management tools, methods and documentation.
(4) Subcontract/Supplier Management Submission (Sub-Factor 4): The Offeror will be required to identify the company’s approach to subcontract/supplier management. The Subcontract/Supplier Management Submission is considered acceptable when the Offeror:
a. Describes policies and procedures for successful subcontractor management, including surveillance, recruitment and termination, quality control and scheduling.
Source Selection (Price) Basis for Price Evaluation The offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the proposed coefficient multiplied by $9.6M per year (estimated dollar value per year for the contract).
Other Than Certified Cost and Pricing Data will be obtained.
TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE: For the purposes of the initial price evaluation, the offeror shall submit Section J worksheet and Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data as required under Section L.
All proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award decision purposes. The offeror’s TEP will be the proposed coefficient multiplied by $9.6M per year (estimated dollar value per year for the contract). The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b): comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price list or market prices, comparison with independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.
The contracting officer will analyze the pricing information provided by the offeror and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1 to the extent necessary to determine the price fair and reasonable.
Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data will be obtained in order to understand each offerors coefficient in order to make an “apples to apples” decision. In addition, obtaining this data will allow the price team to evaluate if a contractor has buy-in.
Source Selection (Past Performance) Recency: Efforts performed in the last 3 years
Relevancy: performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.
The Government will evaluate all offerors past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the type of effort and type of requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:
| (1) The Government will accomplish the past performance evaluation, assigning a performance confidence assessment rating to the offeror’s proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts. |
| (2) The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the offeror to their selected sources, and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work &/or are not proposed to perform critical aspects will not be evaluated. |
(a) Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation.
(b) Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The Government will give greater consideration to performance on those contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this RFP. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor. Relevant contracts include those involving vertical construction Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) (e.g. Job Ordering Contracts (JOC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC), or Simplified Acquisition Base Engineering Requirement (SABER)) construction contracts with an estimated value of greater than or equal to $10M that are the same or similar in scope, magnitude, trade, complexity and contract type as the effort contemplated under this solicitation, including the specifications and drawings, contract environment, subcontractor interaction, and price.
Key Dates 4 Mar 11; 1200 CST – Questions from offerors in regards to site visit due to Contracting Officer
11 Mar 11; 1630 CST – Cut off date for questions regarding the solicitation
21 Mar 11 at ; 1600 CST – Proposals due
Air Education and Training Command “The First Command” image3.jpeg image1.jpeg image2.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .