MACC Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing Slides.pptx

23d Contracting Squadron (23 CONS) Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) Request for Proposal (RFP) No. FA483024R0007 For Official Use Only Mary Twitty Contracting Officer

17 Oct 24

23d WING Flying Tigers

Welcome & Introductions Government Panel

23 CONS

Ms. Mary Twitty – Contracting Officer (CO) Ms. Brittany Richardson – Contract Specialist (CS) Ms. Amanda Richardson – Contract Specialist

23 CES

Mr. Brett Wrenn – Technical Advisor Mr. Benjamin Hudson – Technical Advisor Mr. Philip Hoderny – 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 Give prospective offerors an opportunity to visit the seed project site

Conference Agenda

Rules of Engagement All communication regarding this source selection shall be through Brittany Richardson (CS) and/or Amanda Richardson (CS) The 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 and briefing slides will be posted on SAM.gov

Attendees email and phone number will be redacted when the attendance sheet is posted on SAM.gov.

Announcements RFP Released: 26 Sept 2024 Proposals Due: 2:00 PM (EST), 08 Nov 2024 Amendment 0001 Released: 11 Oct 2024 Incorporate RFP Attachment 3 Seed Project SOW QSEU 23-0118 Repair Lightning Protection System (LPS) Incorporate RFP Attachment 3a(iii) Bldg. 1107 Submittal Register Update Pre-Proposal Site Visit Invitation Update Section L 3.4 Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit 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 Questions shall be submitted in writing in accordance with Section L of the Request for Proposal Submit written questions on RFP Attachment 11- Question and Answer Form Responses will be provided via Amendment on SAM.gov

MACC Program Overview & Technical Requirements For Official Use Only

MACC Program Overview Execution of a broad range of design-build, bid-build projects for maintenance, repair, and minor construction. Project Task Order (TO)s can vary from trades such as carpentry, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, painting, pipe fitting, sheet metal, welding, roofing, site work, site utilities, excavation, concrete masonry, pavement repair, asbestos and lead paint removal, security hardware installation, mold remediation, and demolition.

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

MACC Program Overview (cont’) Once the basic MACC contracts are awarded, performance is accomplished via individual Task Orders (TOs) Fair opportunity proposal requests (FOPRs) are issued for individual TOs All work shall be in conformance with drawings and specifications provided in Moody Installation Guide Specifications and MACC General Statement of Work The contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, supervision, equipment, and related items necessary to design, manage, and accomplish each TO 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

Acquisition Approach Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract w/ Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Task Orders Competitive set-aside for 8(a), HUBZone, and Small Businesses Basis of Award: Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable w/Past Performance All technically acceptable offers with acceptable past performance rating shall be treated equally except for their prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being determined technically unacceptable.

To be eligible for award, the offer must:

Conform to Section L and meet all RFP terms and conditions Receive “Acceptable” Technical rating Receive an Acceptable Past Performance rating Have a fair and reasonable price 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 offeror’s best terms 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: Will be rated “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis Price: Will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness and Discussions (cont’) Evaluation Process All received proposals will be checked for SAM registration Technical and Past Performance volumes will be checked for page restrictions Any excess pages will be removed and will not be read All timely submitted proposals will be separated by 3 SB categories (HUBZone, 8(a), and Small Business).

All proposals in the HUBZone category will be ranked by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from the lowest priced to the highest priced.

The lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the offeror’s technical proposal is rated acceptable, the offeror will further be evaluated for past performance. If the offeror’s technical proposal is rated unacceptable, the offeror will not be evaluated for past performance and will be considered ineligible for award.

If the three lowest priced HUBZone proposals are rated technically acceptable with acceptable past performance, they will be selected as the HUBZone proposals that represent the best value to the Government and the Government will stop evaluation.

Evaluation Process If any evaluated HUBZone proposal is technically unacceptable or has unacceptable past performance the offeror will be eliminated from further consideration and the Government will continue to evaluate HUBZone proposals until there are three proposals that are technically acceptable with acceptable past performance or until all proposals in the HUBZone category have been evaluated.

Any evaluated proposal in the HUBZone category that also has the 8(a) status will not be evaluated in the 8(a) category. Only the unevaluated proposals in the HUBZone category that also has the 8(a) status will be placed in the 8(a) category pool to compete within the 8(a) category. Any unevaluated HUBZone proposals that are not placed in the 8(a) category will be placed in the Small Business category.

Next, proposals in the 8(a) category and unevaluated proposals from the HUBZone category that also has the 8(a) status will be ranked by TEP.

The lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the offeror's technical proposal is rated acceptable, the offeror will further be evaluated for past performance. If the offeror’s technical proposal is rated unacceptable, the offeror will not be evaluated for past performance and will be considered ineligible for award.

Evaluation Process If the three lowest priced 8(a) proposals are rated acceptable with acceptable past performance, they will be selected as the 8(a) proposals that represent the best value to the Government and the Government will stop evaluation.

If any evaluated 8(a) proposal is technically unacceptable or has unacceptable past performance the offeror will be eliminated from further consideration and the Government will continue to evaluate 8(a) proposals until there are three proposals that are technically acceptable with acceptable past performance or until all proposals in the 8(a) category have been evaluated.

Any evaluated proposal in the 8(a) category will not be evaluated in the Small Business category pool. Only the unevaluated proposals in the 8(a) category will be placed in the Small Business category pool to compete within the Small Business category.

Finally, proposals in the Small Business category, unevaluated proposals from the HUBZone category, and unevaluated proposals from the 8(a) category will be ranked by TEP.

The lowest priced offeror will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the offeror’s technical proposal is rated acceptable, the offeror will further be evaluated for past performance. If the offeror’s technical proposal is rated unacceptable, the offeror will not be evaluated for past performance and will be considered ineligible for award.

If the three lowest priced Small Business proposals are rated acceptable with acceptable past performance, they will be selected as the Small Business proposals that represent the best value to the Government and the Government will stop evaluation.

Evaluation Process If any evaluated Small Business proposal is technically unacceptable or has unacceptable past performance the offeror will be eliminated from further consideration and the Government will continue to evaluate Small Business proposals until there are three proposals that are technically acceptable with acceptable past performance or until all proposals in the Small Business Category have been evaluated.

If there are not three proposals in the HUBZone or in the 8(a) category that are technically acceptable with acceptable past performance, the remaining proposals in the Small Business category will be evaluated until there are a total of nine proposals that are technically acceptable with acceptable past performance.

Proposal Organization Volume I: Technical Volume II: Past Performance Volume III: Price and Other Contracting Considerations

Items of Note Carefully read RFP to include instructions to Offerors within Section L and Evaluation Factors for Award within Section M 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 provide a reasonable and complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable”

Technical Subfactors Subfactor 1 – Complete Technical Approach and Plan of Execution of Seed Project Element 1 – Scope of Work Detailed narrative to identify processes to successfully fulfill Seed Project requirements Identify trades and subcontractors Roles and responsibilities of key personnel Element 2 – Construction Schedule Include critical paths, milestones, phasing, inspections, completion date, utility outage, deliveries, installation, etc.

Element 3 – Work Breakdown Structure Use Seed Project WBS/Bid Schedule Price Worksheet to provide estimate for the construction of the Seed Project based on the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Master 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 Complete Accident Prevention Plan (APP), including identification of Site Safety Health Officer (SSHO), occupational safety and health policy, responsibilities, program requirements, and Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA) *Accepted MP will be incorporated into the MACC contract. Additional task order specific information may be required for individual task orders.

Volume II: 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 PPI L.5.2.3. Past Performance Information (PPI) – 5 pg limit per contract No more than 3 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, narrative, role of the offeror (and each subcontractor) & POC information ***Offeror responsible to ensure the POC accuracy*** Provide rationale for which aspects of each submitted contract are relevant to requirements in the solicitation

Volume II: Past Performance (cont’) L.5.2.4. Organizational Structure Change History Roadmap describing changes in the organization of your company L.5.2.5. Client Authorization Letters If applicable. Authorizes government’s access to PPI for commercial customers L.5.2.6. Subcontractor Letters of Consent PPI cannot be disclosed to the prime without the subcontractor’s consent L.5.2.7. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) Send out PPQ to the customer for completion The customer submits PPQ directly to CONS Offeror responsible for following-up with the customer PPQ received from the offeror will not be used for evaluation

Volume II: Past Performance (cont’) Recency Assessment: Ongoing or contracts performed within 3 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 Complexity – Number of functions/trades involved to accomplish the project, single or multiple locations/managements of performance, multi-phase bid-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

Volume II: Past Performance (Cont’) Relevancy Assessment Ratings Definitions

Volume III: Price & Other Contracting Considerations Price Reasonableness Adequate price competition Proposed price shall be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in Technical Proposal Volume and the Seed Project SOW requirements Proposed Price Provide price breakdown for the Seed Project for the entire construction work Complete, accurate, and sufficient detail to demonstrate reasonableness Reflect clear understanding of requirement and consistent with technical approach

Volume III: Price & Other Contracting Considerations Other Contracting Considerations Conform to all terms and conditions Clearly indicate all your Small Business socio-economic statuses Clearly state all assumptions made and/or any exceptions taken Complete all fill-in clauses (Section I) Ensure all required certifications are included (Section K) 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 image2.jpeg image4.png image1.png