Pre-Proposal_Conference_Briefing_Slides_30_Mar_2017.pdf

• Welcome! Please sign-in. Briefing will begin at 1200.

• Purpose: Overview of solicitation requirements, general Base tour, Seed Project site visit

• Request that questions be submitted in writing via email to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer

– rosann.knarreborg.1@us.af.mil

– vanessa.russell-reed@us.af.mil

– All Q&As will be posted to FedBizOpps with the solicitation approx. one week from today

Paving ID/IQ Solicitation FA9301-16-R-0011 Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit

Air Force Test Center

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Paving ID/IQ Solicitation

FA9301-16-R-0011

Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit

30 Mar 2017 Presenters:

Vanessa Russell-Reed, Contracting Officer Bayram Kurbanov, Program Manager

War-Winning Capabilities … On Time, On Cost

• Acquisition Team

• Reminder

• Description of Requirement

• Important Solicitation Details

• Edwards AFB Procedures

• Estimated Milestones

• Frequently Asked Questions

• Scope of Work Overview

Overview

• Contract Specialist

– Rosann Knarreborg, AFTC/PZIEB

• Contracting Officer

– Vanessa Russell-Reed, AFTC/PZIOC

• Primary Project Manager

– Bayram Kurbanov, 412 CEG/CENMP

• Secondary Project Manager

– Hugo Via, 412 CEG/CENMP

Acquisition Team

• All questions must be submitted in writing to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer

– Remember to write down questions throughout the duration of the pre-proposal conference, tour, and site visit

Reminder

• This is an ID/IQ contract for paving requirements at Edwards AFB, CA including the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Air Force Plant 42 (in Palmdale, CA), and other tenant organizations.

• The Contractor shall furnish all management, personnel, vehicles, supplies, equipment, etc. required to perform work such as, but not limited to:

• earthwork; soil sampling and testing; removal/disposal of soil; prime coat; tack coat and paint binder; asphalt concrete; slurry seal coating; construction seal and rejuvenating agent; fog seal; asphalt and concrete curbs; airfield Portland cement concrete, including runways, taxiways, pads, and aprons; penetrative oil/dust palliative treatment; road shoulder maintenance; ditch construction; street; road, airfield, and parking lot striping/marking; demolition of curb, gutters, sidewalks, and roadway and airfield pavements; surveys; handicap ramps; fences and gates; lighting standards, guardrails, and other incidental related work

• Military Family Housing at Edwards AFB is privatized. Roads within housing areas are excluded from the scope of this contract; however, the roads connecting housing areas to the rest of the Base are part of this contract.

Description of Requirement

• Competition

– HUBZone Set-Aside

• Contract Type

– Single Award, Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/

Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ), Construction

• Period of Performance

– Five years after contract start date (no options)

• Source Selection Procedures

– Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) IAW FAR 15.3 & supplements

• Past performance approximately equal to price

• Technical on acceptable/unacceptable basis

Important Solicitation Details

• Specific Instructions – from Section L-001:

– Part I – Contract and Price

• Complete “Offeror” section on p. 2 of SF 1442, Blocks 14-20

• Submit teaming arrangement information (if applicable)

– FAR 9.6 describes contractor team arrangements

• Submit Prime HUBZone small business concern certification

• Complete proposed ELIN prices

– Part II – Technical Proposal

• Subfactor 1: Submit proof of bonding capability

– $5M Single/$20M Aggregate

• Subfactor 2: Seed Project proposal

– Price

– Schedule of Material Submittals

– Progress Schedule

– Written Narrative (technical approach)

• Specific Instructions – from Section L-001 (cont):

– Part III – Past Performance Information

• Past Performance Information Forms (PPIFs)

– Maximum of four (4) recent and relevant efforts

» Efforts = contracts, task orders, job orders » Contracts = Stand-alone, ID/IQ, MACC, JOC, etc.

• Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQs)

– Submit to POCs on each PPIF, POCs send directly to

Government

• Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form (if applicable)

– When submitting past performance information in which information includes or is based on performance under a Subcontractor/Teaming arrangement

• Other Past Performance Considerations

– Government may use data obtained from other sources such as PPIRS/CPARS, EDA, etc.

• Evaluation Process – from Section M-001:

– Step 1 – Contract Evaluation

• Government will verify HUBZone status via SBA’s List of Qualified HUBZone Small Business Concerns

– At initial offer and before contract award

– Step 2 – Price Evaluation

• Offerors ranked lowest to highest based on total evaluated price

– Government will multiply offeror’s ELIN prices by Government-provided estimated workload for each ELIN (Atch 8 (L-2)) to determine total evaluated price

• ELIN prices evaluated for fair market price

– Reasonable

– Balanced

• Evaluation Process – from Section M-001 (cont):

– Step 3 – Technical Acceptability

• Government will evaluate technical proposal of the lowest total evaluated price ranked offeror found to have reasonable and balanced ELINs

– Acceptable/Unacceptable basis

• Technical consists of two subfactors:

– Subfactor 1: Proof of Bonding Capability

• $5M Single/$20M Aggregate

• From approved surety on Department of Treasury Circular 570

– Subfactor 2: Seed Project Proposal (Task Order 0001)

• Price Proposal (ELIN types and quantities)

• Using offeror’s proposed ELIN prices from Part I of proposal

• Reasonable, complete approach in construction methodology

• Schedule of Material Submittals

• Captures all items that have material effect on seed project

• Construction Progress Schedule

• Progression of work is logical, presents overall realistic timeframe

• Written narrative detailing technical approach to project

• Reflects reasonable assumptions as to construction efforts and applicable codes and regulations

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment

• Government will evaluate past performance of the lowest total evaluated price ranked offeror with “Acceptable” technical rating

– Maximum of four (4) efforts provided by offeror, plus data obtained by Government from other sources

• For each effort, Government will evaluate Recency, Relevancy, and Quality to determine overall Performance Confidence Assessment

– Recency:

» Efforts (contracts, or task orders, or job orders) with minimum performance of six (6) months completed within five (5) years of solicitation issue date (17 Mar 2017)

» Only efforts determined to be recent will move on to Relevancy determination

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Relevancy:

– How similar efforts are to scope, magnitude, etc. of this solicitation

– Tables 2 and 3 will be used to determine offeror’s Relevancy

Rating when evaluating each past performance effort

– Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Important Solicitation Details

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

• Relevancy (cont):

‒ Table 3, Relevancy Definitions (descending order of importance)

Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant Scope Performed Paving projects almost equal to or equal to the tasks listed on the Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs) as a Prime Contractor or in a Joint Venture (JV) arrangement.

Performed Paving projects somewhat less than the tasks listed on the ELINs.

Performed Paving projects significantly less than the tasks listed on the ELINs.

Complexity Performed as a Prime Contractor or in a JV arrangement on paving projects involving runway/airfield.

Performed on paving projects involving runway/airfield or roadways/parking lots.

Performed on paving projects involving concrete driveways/ sidewalks/curbs.

Magnitude Performed as a Prime Contractor or in a JV arrangement on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $5M within 12 months.

Performed on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $3M within 12 months.

Performed on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined value of at least $1M within 12 months.

Contract Type Performance under a Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Indefinite Delivery (ID) Requirements contract.

Performance under a FFP contract (non-ID/IQ and non-ID Requirements), task order, or job order.

Performance under a Cost Reimbursable contract or any other Fixed-Price arrangement.

Contract Environment

Contract performance on a military installation within the State of California.

Contract performance for a Federal, State, or Local Government Agency within the State of California.

Contract performance on a military installation or for a Federal, State, or Local Government Agency outside the State of California.

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Quality ‒ How well offeror performed on each recent and relevant effort ‒ Table 4, Past Performance Quality Rating Method, used to determine offeror’s Quality Rating for each past performance effort

Important Solicitation Details

E EXCEPTIONAL

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.

• Evaluation Process – from Section M-001 (cont):

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Overall Performance Confidence Assessment

‒ Based on offeror’s overall record of contracts deemed recent and relevant, and quality of performance on those contracts

‒ Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, will be used to determine offeror’s overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Overall Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

– If the lowest total evaluated price technically acceptable offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process will stop at that point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

– If the lowest total evaluated price technically acceptable offeror is judged not to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest total evaluated 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 confidence assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest total evaluated price technically acceptable offeror, if the lowest total evaluated price technically acceptable offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision to award to an offeror with other than a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment or not award at all.

• Security requirements

– Contractor Base Access Card

– Restricted Area Badges

– Flightline Driving

• Environmental procedures

• Airfield management waivers

• Escorts

• Real Estate Instrument

Edwards AFB Procedures

Estimated Milestones

Last day to submit questions 04 Apr 17 by 0700 PST

Q&As, pre-proposal conference / site visit information posted

(around) 07 Apr 17

Proposals Due 17 Apr 17 by 1530 PST

Evaluations Complete 16 Jun 17*

Contract Award 10 Aug 17*

*Estimate

• Previous Contract:

– First-time contract issued by AFTC/PZ

– Currently use Army Corps of Engineers’ Paving ID/IQ

• Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ):

– Must send out the PPQ attached to the solicitation to all

Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) - Contract Administrator (CA), Contracting Officer (CO), and Project Manager (PM)

– Past Performance Evaluation Team will make their best effort to contact the POCs listed on your PPIF if your company’s past performance is evaluated and there is a missing PPQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Scope of Work Overview

Presented By:

Mr. Bayram Kurbanov, 412 CEG/CENMP

Edwards AFB

Main Base

South Base

North Base

Residential Area

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

Air Force Plant 42

Lakebeds (68 Square Miles of Lakebeds)