Atch_3_-_Pre-Prop_Conf_&_Site_Visit_Briefing.pdf

11/8/2018

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit Multiple Award Construction

Contract (MACC) throughout the KMC and Spangdahlem AB

RFP No. FA5613-19-R-0003

7 November 2018

700th Contracting Squadron

11/8/2018

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Welcome & Introductions

• Government Panel

• 700 CONS

• Ms. Liz Preston – Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

• Ms. Christel Wittmer – Admin. CO for KMC Areas

• Ms. Anja Schady – Contract Specialist

• 86 CES/CEN

• Mr. Jason Halpin – Technical Advisor for KMC Areas

• Mr. Andreas May – Technical Advisor for KMC Areas

• Mr. Michael Klingel – Technical Advisor for KMC Areas

• 52 CONS

• TSgt Justin Scherer – Admin. CO for Spangdahlem Areas

• 52 CES/CEN

• Ms. Sabine Metzen – Technical Advisor for Spangdahlem Areas

11/8/2018 2

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

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

11/8/2018 3

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Conference Agenda

11/8/2018 4

EVENT SCHEDULE

0830 - 0900 Assembly and Introductions – Bldg. 518

0900 – 0910 Announcements and Ethics Liz Preston

0910 – 1000

- MACC Program and Seed Project

Requirements

- RFP & Evaluation Process

Michael Klingel Liz Preston

1000 – 1015 Break & All attendees ready for bus pickup for Site Visit

1015 – 1130 Site Visit to Seed Project Site – Bldg. 2167

1130 – 1145 Bus ride back to Bldg. 518

1145 – 1230 Assembly for Questions and Answers Government Panel

1230 – TBD

1-on-1 meetings/ 15 minute session per company

– Bldg. 573, 1st Floor Conference Room

Government Panel

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Rules of Engagement

• All communication regarding this source selection shall be through the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Liz Preston

• The PCO 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

11/8/2018 5

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Administrative Comments

• Sign-In

• Attendance sheet, briefing slides, and conference minutes will be posted on FedBizOpps (FBO)

• 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

11/8/2018 6

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Announcements

• RFP RELEASED: 1 Nov 18

• Proposal Due: 1600 (CET), 4 Dec 18

• Upcoming Amendment 0001

• 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 forms provided

• Formal written responses will be posted to FBO and take precedence over any verbal responses provided today

11/8/2018 7

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

MACC Program Overview and Technical Requirements

11/8/2018 8

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

MACC Program Overview

• Execution of a broad range of design-build, sustainment, maintenance, repair, alteration, renovation and minor construction projects to include residential and commercial work

• Primary bases/Geographically Separated Units (GSUs) served:

• Ramstein Air Base

• Vogelweh

• Einsiedlerhof

• Kapaun Air Station

• Landstuhl Military Family Housing

• Breitenbach

• Pirmasens Husterhoehe

• Bann

• Spangdahlem Air Base

• Buechel

• Geilenkirchen Air Base

• Suelm Annex & Zemmer Storage Annex 11/8/2018 9

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

MACC Program Overview (cont’)

• Once the basic MACC contracts are awarded, actual work performance is accomplished via individual Task Orders (TOs)

• Each TO is competed via TO Request for Proposal (TORFP)

• Each TORFP identifies the project scope in accordance with:

• Work Element 1 – Construction Effort Without Design Needed

• Work Element 2 – Construction Effort With Design Package Provided

• Work Element 3 – Partial Design-Build Effort

• All TO work must be performed IAW General Requirements & Provisions (RFP Atch 1) and Special Contract Requirements (RFP Atch 2)

• Variety of multiple trades required in horizontal and vertical construction

• The contractor shall furnish all personnel, labor, equipment, tools, materials, supervision and other items and services necessary for performance

11/8/2018 10

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

MACC Program Overview (cont’)

• The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least an average of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract.

• A German work permit or compliance with European Union member nation exchange laws and regulations is required.

11/8/2018 11

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Technical Factor

• Subfactor 1 – Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

• Do not contact/use igr AG or Cammisar A&E firm as a design subcontractor; an automatic disqualifier if you do

• Renovate and convert Bldg 2167 into KC-135 Aircraft Parts Store

• Complete 35% concept design IAW the Seed Project SOW (Atch 3 and all its sub-attachments) and Section L.4.3.1.1. (e.g. Basis of Design narrative, Concept Design Drawings and Bill of Quantities Calculation)

11/8/2018 12

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Technical Factor (Cont’)

• Subfactor 2 – Quality Management Plan (QMP)

• As a minimum, shall include:

• Quality Control (QC) Organizational Chart, including identifying lines of authority, responsibilities and qualification and names of each person identified in the chart

• Procedural description for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals

• Control, verification and acceptance testing procedures

• Procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action.

• Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats

11/8/2018 13

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

RFP and Evaluation Process

11/8/2018 14

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Tentative Milestones

11/8/2018

Event Anticipated Date

RFP Issued and Posted 01 Nov 18

Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit 07 Nov 18

Proposal (All Volumes) Due 04 Dec 18

(1600 CET)

Contract Awards 01 Aug 19

Ordering Period Start 01 Aug 19

First Task Order (Min. Guarantee) Issued

01 Aug 19

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Acquisition Approach

• Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract w/

Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Task Order

• Government intends to make approximately 5 contract awards and reserve approximately 2 “On-Ramp” contractors

• Unrestricted Competition

• Basis of Award: Best Value Tradeoff Between Performance and Price (PPT) among Technically Acceptable Proposals

• Present/Past Performance approximately equal to Price consideration

• To be eligible for award, the offer must:

• Meet the Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award and conform to all RFP terms and conditions in compliance with Section L

• Receive “Acceptable” Technical rating

• Receive a Past Performance Confidence rating other than “Limited” or “No Confidence”

• Have a complete, fair and reasonable price

• Be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1

11/8/2018 16

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Evaluation Process and Discussions

• Government intends to evaluate & award without discussions

• Ensure initial proposal contains the best terms from a price and technical standpoint (Don’t assume discussions will take place)

• The Source Selection Authority will make award decision after the initial evaluation or determine a Competitive Range for the purpose of holding discussions

• The independent evaluation team will concurrently evaluate all offerors’ Technical, Past Performance and Price proposals:

• Technical: Will be rated acceptable/unacceptable basis

• Past Performance: A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned based on the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and the performance quality

• Price: Will be evaluated on the offeror’s proposed 100% construction price for the seed project to determine reasonableness

11/8/2018 17

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Proposal Organization

• Volume I: Technical

• Volume II: Past Performance

• Volume III: Price

11/8/2018 18

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Items of Note

• Carefully read RFP to include Instructions to Offerors within

Section L, and Evaluation Factors for Award within Section M

• Proposal based upon requirements in the Seed Project SOW (RFP Atch 3) & all its attachments, as well as the General Requirements & Provisions (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

• Proposal shall be clear and concise containing sufficient detail for easy evaluation

11/8/2018 19

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Volume I: Technical

• Pass/Fail basis

• Ratings – Acceptable/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 may result in a “technically unacceptable” determination at the factor level

11/8/2018 20

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Technical Subfactors

• Subfactor 1: 35% Concept Design for Seed Project

• Basis of Design

• Concept Design Drawings

• Bill of Quantities Calculation

• Subfactor 2: Quality Management Plan (QMP)

• QC Organizational Chart with Narrative

• Procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals

• Control, verification and acceptance testing procedures

• Procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action

• Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats

11/8/2018 21

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Volume II: Past Performance

• Recency Assessment: Ongoing or contracts performed within

5 yrs of RFP issuance date

• Must have minimum of 6 months documented performance

• Performance meeting criteria will be evaluated in its entirety

• Relevancy Assessment: Scope, Magnitude & Complexity

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

• Magnitude – Approximately 1 million EURO or equivalent in dollars as the benchmark

• Complexity – Multiple functions/trades, design-build projects, performance at and managing multiple locations

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

11/8/2018 22

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Volume II: Past Performance

• Relevancy Assessment Ratings Definitions

11/8/2018 23

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Volume II: Past Performance

• 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

11/8/2018 24

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Volume II: Past Performance

• Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

11/8/2018 25

Rating Definition

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 26

Sample 1 Past Perf. Evaluation Summary

Performance Rating: Exceptional (EX), Very Good (VG), Satisfactory (S), Marginal (M), Unsatisfactory (U), Not Applicable (N/A)

Contract Submitted Contract Number

Contract Amount (Total / annual)

Perf Period

Recent (Y or N)

Relevance Perf Quality

PPQs Rcvd

CPARS Phone Interview

FA3002-09-C-

xxxx $278M / $37.9M1

2009-

Y VR S 1 7 0

FA3002-05-C-

xxxx $314.4M / $42.4M

2006-

Y VR EX 0 8 0

3 N00421-11-C-xxxx

$496.5M / $99.3M

2011-

Y R VG 1 12 0

4 NNJ12JC0xx $176M / $35.2M

2012-

Y R VG 1 9 1

(PPET Identified)

FA3002-12-C-

xxxx

$37.9M / $6.3 M

2012-

Y SR S 1 3 0

Total 4 28 1

IGE

$380M /

$50M

This offeror received SUBSTANTIAL Confidence Assessment Rating

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104 27

Sample 2 Past Perf. Evaluation Summary

Performance Rating: Exceptional (EX), Very Good (VG), Satisfactory (S), Marginal (M), Unsatisfactory (U), Not Applicable (N/A)

Contract Submitted Contract Number

Contract Amount (Total / annual)

Perf Period

Recent (Y or N)

Relevance Perf Quality

PPQs Rcvd

CPARS Phone Interview

FA3002-14-C-

xxxx $7.5M / $1.5M

2014-

Y SR EX 1 2 0

H92254-09-D-xxxx $114M / $23M

2011-

Y SR N/A1 0 02 0

FA3022-13-C-

xxxx $1.7M / $494K

2013-

Y NR N/A 1 3 1

FA8108-09-D-

xxxx-0070 $88.2M / $12.6M

2008-

Y SR S 2 7 0

Total 4 12 1

IGE

$380M /

$50M

This offeror received LIMITED Confidence Assessment Rating

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

Volume III: Price & Other Contracting Considerations

• Price completeness and reasonableness

• Price Data

• Don’t enter any amount in Section B under CLINs 0001 and 0002

• Complete Attachment 4, Seed Project Bid Schedule

• The proposal prices must be based on your own technical approach submitted in the Volume I, Technical Proposal and Seed Project SOW (Atch 3)

• Proposed price must be for the entire construction work required to complete the seed project IAW SOW

• The design cost shall not be a separate line item; it shall be included in the total construction price

• Proposed price must be submitted in EURO – if not, the proposal will not be considered for award

• Double check your amount entry to ensure the addition of all line items matches with the Total Proposed Price on the bottom

11/8/2018 28

“LIVE FREE, BUY HARD!”

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

• Past Performance (PPI)

• 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 MACC 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 Government

• Price

• Double check your price figures

• Do not propose design cost separately

• Submit price in EURO

11/8/2018 29