KISS Presolicitation Conference Brief.pdf

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 1

Kaiserslautern Installation Support

Services (KISS)

Presolicitation Conference

Hosted by:

700 CONS/

86 CEG

9 Dec 2024

“Regulators…Mount up!”

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 2

Agenda

◼ Welcome and Introductions

◼ Purpose

◼ Rules of Engagement

◼ Requirement Overview

◼ Draft Section L – Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

◼ Draft Self-Scoring Matrix

◼ Draft Section M – Evaluation

◼ Draft IDIQ Performance Work Statement

◼ Draft Ordering Guide

◼ Closing Remarks

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7

◼ Government Panel

◼ 700 CONS

◼ Ms. Shataya Butler– Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO)

◼ Mr. Andy Jacob– Contracting Officer

◼ Ms. Fabiana Benkel – Contracting Officer

◼ 86 CEG

◼ Capt Lois Agabon – Lead Contracts Team

◼ 786 CES Service Contracts team

◼ 86 CES Contracts team

◼ USAFE-AFAFRICA A8I

◼ Maj Joshua Eckart – Program Management ◼ Capt Ryan Black – Program Management

Introductions

Purpose

◼ Teaming with industry to develop an efficient and coherent solicitation

◼ Provide interested parties an opportunity to gain insight into the KISS solicitation requirement

◼ Provide interested parties detailed information regarding the Highest

Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) Source Selection method

◼ Provide a forum for industry to present substantial input crucial to the execution of the solicitation

Rules of Engagement

◼ Please provide company name and attendees in the MS Teams chat.

◼ Open discussion format - any remarks, explanations, or answers to questions today are general guidance, are not binding, are subject to change, and will be followed up by a formal written response.

◼ Please submit questions in the MS Teams chat and they will be answered in the order that they are received. Any questions not answered during the allotted time will be responded to in writing and included in the formal written response.

◼ A combined Q&A formal written response will be posted on SAM.gov

◼ The Contract Specialist and PCO serve as the only points of contact for all inquiries and information regarding the KISS procurement.

Rules of Engagement

◼ The briefer will present specific information and stop after designated portions to allow for questions. Participants are requested to limit questions to items specific to the portion briefed. Questions on any topic will be allowed at the end of the brief.

◼ Please mute all microphones unless speaking.

◼ This event will be recorded.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 7

Requirement Overview ◼ Scope: The KISS Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) will establish domains that consist of requirements of familiarity/experience with the full range of Civil Engineer Group (CEG) support services in support of daily operation activities for AF 86 CEG. Task orders will be awarded under domains.

◼ PSC and NAICS Code: (Codes and descriptions)

◼ 561210, Facilities Support Services

◼ S216, Facilities Operations Support Services

◼ Approximate Solicitation Release Date: Jan 2025

◼ Approximate Award: September 2025

◼ Multiple award IDIQ contract

◼ Ordering Period: 10 years

◼ IDIQ Ceiling: $175.5 M

◼ IDIQ contract

◼ Once the basic IDIQ contract is awarded, actual work performance is accomplished via individual Task Orders

◼ Each Task Order is competed via Task Order Proposal Request

(TOPR)

◼ The contractor shall furnish all personnel, labor, equipment, tools, materials, supervision and other items necessary to accomplish the requirements of the performance work statement.

◼ Task Orders can be Firm Fixed Price or Cost

KISS Domains

◼ Domains:

1. Facility, Real Property, and Real Property Installed Equipment

Total Maintenance: Maintain facilities non-privatized infrastructure, real property (RP), real property installed equipment (RPIE) for the

Kaiserslautern Military Community (KMC) area and Geographically

Separated Units (GSU’s).

3. Housing Maintenance: Maintain Military Family Housing (MFH) units at Ramstein Air Base (RAB), Vogelweh, and Landstuhl, or other

GSU’s which combined is also known as KMC Housing.

2. Grounds Maintenance: Ensure ground maintenance for the KMC and

GSU’s referenced that aims to promote healthy growth of greenery, maintaining a clean, neat, and professional appearance.

3. Custodial Services: Provide custodial services maintaining satisfactory facilities

9“Regulators…Mount up!”

KISS Graphic

KISS Contract

Domain:

Military Family

Housing

Task Order

MFH

Domain:

Grounds Mx

Task Order

Grounds MX

Domain:

Custodial

Task Order Custodial

Domain: Total Facility Mx

Task Order

Husterhöhe

Task Order B3336 & B201

+ Ability to cut additional task orders under domain

+ Ability to cut additional task orders under domain

+ Ability to cut additional task orders under domain

+ Ability to cut additional task orders under domain

KISS “Master Contract”

Standards ◼ The Contractor shall provide all management, supervision, labor, facilities, and materials necessary to perform each requirement solicited through the contract on a task order basis.

◼ Government Property: Any equipment, property, or facilities furnished by the

Government or any Contractor-acquired property will be specified on individual task orders and follow the policies and procedures of FAR part 45.

Almost zero equipment will be supplied.

◼ Hours of Performance: Will be identified at task order level. Generally Mon-

Fri during the day with an emergency call number and 30min-1hr response times.

◼ Training: The Contractor shall furnish training of Contractor employees in subjects unique to the Government, (e.g., Government unique software, Security Training) which is necessary for employees to function in their assigned work environment. Required training will be identified at the task order level. The Government will not pay for any required training.

◼ Key Positions: Key positions will be identified at the task order level.

◼ Subcontract Management: The Contractor shall be responsible for any subcontract management necessary to integrate work performed on this requirement and shall be responsible and accountable for subcontractor performance on this requirement.

◼ Administrative Requirements: Project Management, Program Management, In Progress Reviews, Program Management Reviews, Contract Management, Language Proficiency, Status Reports, Deliverables

KISS “Master Contract”

Standards

Section L –

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

◼ General Instructions

◼ The proposal shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the solicitation for the IDIQ Contract, and all other parts of this solicitation.

◼ The proposal shall be clear and concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of the claimed points on the Self-Scoring Matrix.

◼ All exchanges of source selection information between the

Government and the Offerors will be controlled by the PCO. Source selection information will be transmitted to Offerors electronically.

◼ Proposals shall be marked in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

◼ Volume I – Administrative (Section L, Para 3.1)

◼ Narrative of Offeror

◼ Contract Documentation

◼ Representations and Certifications

◼ Organizational Conflict of Interest and Mitigation Plan (If applicable)

◼ Corporate Relationships and Structures

◼ Volume II – Technical Experience (Section L, Para 4)

◼ Self-Scoring Matrix

◼ Cross-Reference Matrix

◼ Work Sample (WS_ Cover Sheet

◼ Work Samples

Proposal Organization

Work Samples

◼ Supporting documentation which demonstrate technical experience in the required elements, and which comply with the work sample qualifications established (Section L, Para. 4.3.4).

◼ The documentation and data provided validate points claimed in the Self-

Scoring Matrix

◼ It is encouraged to submit work samples that can be utilized in multiple categories

◼ Official Contract Documents (including but not limited to, Performance

Work Statements, Statements of Work, Contract Data Requirement List, Government Furnished Property List, Subcontracts, Invoices)

◼ At this time, a limit of two pages for each WS is enforced

Work Samples

◼ Each work sample shall have the included cover sheet

◼ Each work sample shall have an identifier (e.g. WS1, WS2, …)

◼ All pages of all work samples shall be numbered

◼ Offerors shall include all documentation for a given work sample in a single PDF file and add a unique WS identifier and page number in the margin (e.g. WS2 pg1) to each page

◼ Original pagination shall be retained

◼ If the original documentation within a WS is not numbered, Offerors shall add page numbers

◼ WS shall be in English

◼ If a WS substantiates multiple elements each element must be identified within the WS

Work Samples

◼ Qualifications (Section L, Para 4.3.4) :

◼ US Government contract with the Federal Government to include

Department of Defense (DoD)

◼ Services contract, defined as a contract whose primary purpose was/is to render services in support of the US Government with a total contract/order value of $2M or more with ongoing performance or completion within five (5) years of initial RFP close date.

◼ Fall into one of the following categories:

◼ Category 1: Prime offeror work samples.

◼ Category 2: Subcontractor work samples

Cross Reference Matrix

◼ Citation of WS to justify score in Self-Scoring Matrix

◼ This will be utilized to validate scores in Self-Scoring Matrix

◼ Provide references as specifically as possible

Excerpt of Cross Reference Matrix

Evaluation

Category Category Category Final Score

Document

Type(s) Work Sample Raw Data Reference

Document Title, Page, Paragraph, Table Number (if applicable), Block (if applicable)

EXAMPLE

Maximum number of military homes the offeror has maintained in a 12 month period, under a single contract/TO, in the past 6 years

2500 Homes Award Document, PWS

WS5 4 employees WS5 page 68; ExampleContract #1 SF1155, Pg 1 (block 28); PWS Pg 3 (Para 1.5.1)

Add rows for each work sample Award Document, PWS

WS1 1 employee WS1 page 86; ExampleContract #2 SF33, Pg 3; PWS Pg 7 (Para 4.2)

Pass/Fail Question

Is the offeror currently insured and licensed to operate in

Germany

Add rows for each work sample

Self-Score Matrix

◼ Section L, Appendix E

◼ The document that captures Offerors Technical Experience

◼ Offerors score themselves based on their applicable technical experience

◼ Offerors must justify their score within Work Samples

◼ Categories are listed in Column C and within Section L, Para. 4.3.4

◼ Offerors are only to input into Column K:

Excerpt of Self-Score Matrix

Section Pass / Fail Question Answer (Y/N)

4.1.4.1.1 Is the offerer currently insured and licensed to operate in Germany?

Points:

Weight

Factor

Max Possible

Pts

Offeror's Self

Score

Weighted

Score

Experience and Expertise 1000 900 750 500 250

4.1.4.1.2 Number of geographically separated work locations the offeror serviced under a single contract/TO ≥9 locations 7-8 locations 5-6 locations 3-4 locations 1-2 locations 3 3000 900 2700

4.1.4.1.3 Number of years the offeror performed custodial work with consecutive years on a single contract/TO, including follow on contracts ≥7 years 6 years 5 years 4 years 3 years 4 4000 500 2000

Self-Score Matrix

◼ Overview

◼ Column B shows where instructions for each criteria are found in Section L

◼ Column C lists each scoring criteria

◼ Column D - H shows points for each criteria

◼ Column I – shows the weight factor for each criteria

◼ Column J – shows the maximum number of points possible for each criteria

◼ Column K – offeror populates self-rated score

◼ Column L - totals the points according to Column K inputs

◼ Performance Related Experience (Section L, Para 4.1.4.1)

◼ Correlating work samples are supported by an overall CPARS rating

◼ The Government will verify CPARS rating provided

◼ Averages will be conducted using the ratings for the most recent rating period in the CPAR categories Quality, Schedule, and Management.

◼ The averages of the top three to five work samples will be averaged for a composite overall average

Example 1: Example 2:

WS 1 2024 CPARS WS 2 2024 CPARS

Quality: Exceptional – 1000 Quality: Exceptional – 1000 Schedule: Very Good – 900 Schedule: Very Good – 900

Management: Very Good – 900 Management: No rating/Neutral - 0

Average is 933 – is Very Good Average is 633 – is Satisfactory

= 900 pts = 500 pts

Self-Score Matrix

Questions

Break

Self-Score Matrix

◼ Appendix E, Tab 1: Custodial Services

◼ Pass/Fail Question

◼ Seven Sections with subtotals

◼ Row 21 shows Maximum Total Score

◼ Row 22 shows Offerors Total Self Score

◼ Custodial work sample description requirements

◼ Section L, Para. 4.3.4.1

Self-Score Matrix

◼ Appendix E, Tab 2: Grounds Maintenance

◼ Pass/Fail Question

◼ Seven Sections with subtotals

◼ Row 21 shows Maximum Total Score

◼ Row 22 shows Offerors Total Self Score

◼ Grounds Maintenance work sample description requirements

◼ Section L, Para. 4.3.4.2

Self-Score Matrix

◼ Appendix E, Tab 3: Total Facility Maintenance

◼ Pass/Fail Question

◼ Nine Sections with subtotals

◼ Row 23 shows Maximum Total Score

◼ Row 24 shows Offerors Total Self Score

◼ Total Facility Maintenance work sample description requirements

◼ Section L, Para. 4.3.4.3

Self-Score Matrix

◼ Appendix E, Tab 4: Military Family Housing

◼ Pass/Fail question

◼ Seven sections with subtotals

◼ Row 21 shows Maximum Total Score

◼ Row 22 shows Offerors Total Self Score

◼ Military Family Housing work sample description requirements

◼ Section L, Para. 4.3.4.4

◼ Number of Contracts to be Awarded: Unknown at this time. Contracts will be awarded to each Offeror that meets the HTRO MTTR (Section M, Para.

1.2)

◼ Proposal Substantiation: Submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims could result in the Government determination that Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points (Section M, Para. 1.3)

◼ Discussions: Intent to award without discussions. Reserves right to conduct if determined to be needed (Section M, Para. 2.2.1)

General Information

Section M - Evaluation

◼ Basis of Contract Award (Section M, Para. M.1)

◼ Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) source selection (FAR 15.3).

◼ Award will be made to acceptable Offerors whose proposals

◼ Meet or exceed HTRO MTTR after Government-validation, ◼ Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, ◼ Determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

◼ Price will not be evaluated. No tradeoff will be conducted.

Evaluation

◼ Factor: Prior Technical Experience

◼ HTRO MTTR method requires the Offeror to score itself

◼ The Burden of Proof rests with the Offeror. The provided documentation shall contain adequate data to validate points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal

◼ Pass/Fail Compliance Review: The Government will evaluate the licenses and/or certificates to validate Offeror’s current license to operate in

Germany.

◼ Offeror’s Government-validated rating must fall at or above the MTTR to be deemed an acceptable Offeror

◼ Using the Matrix and the Offeror’s Work Samples, the Government will validate the highest Self-Rated Scored (SRS) offers and determine a

Validated-Rated Score (VRS).

◼ Pricing will be evaluated at the task order level

MTTR

◼ The Government will establish a MTTR that an Offeror must meet or exceed to be considered acceptable for award (Section M, para 3.2.2).

◼ The Government has determined that an Offeror’s Government-validated rating represents its level of demonstrated capability to perform similar work.

◼ A high level of demonstrated capability of the categories within the scoring matrix presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance to the

Government.

◼ The Government-validated rating is the total of all points that the

Government evaluation team validates during their evaluation.

◼ Government-validated rating may be lower than the Offeror’s Self-Score if the Government evaluation team is unable to find evidence for the claimed points within the Offeror’s proposal.