Pre-Proposal_Conference_Briefing_Slides.pdf

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

12:00 PM PST.

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

• Request that ALL questions be submitted in writing via email to the Contract Specialists and

Contracting Officer NLT 07:00 AM PST 07 Jul 17

– corey.porter@us.af.mil

– guillermo.martinez.3@us.af.mil

– vanessa.russell-reed@us.af.mil

Note: All Q&As will be posted to FedBizOpps with the solicitation notice around 14 Jul 17

Painting ID/IQ Solicitation FA9301-17-R-0008 Pre-Proposal Conference, Base Tour, Site Visit mailto:corey.porter@us.af.mil mailto:guillermo.martinez.3@us.af.mil mailto:vanessa.russell-reed@us.af.mil

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

Painting and Coatings ID/IQ Solicitation

FA9301-17-R-0008

Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit

29 Jun 2017

Presenters:

Vanessa Russell-Reed, Contracting Officer

Arcadio Garcia, Program Manager

War-Winning Capabilities … On Time, On Cost

../../../../../../../PKOB

../../../../../../../PKOB

• Acquisition Team

• Reminder

• Description of Requirement

• Important Solicitation Details

• Edwards AFB Procedures

• Estimated Milestones

• Frequently Asked Questions

• Scope of Work Overview

Overview

• Contracting Officer

– Vanessa Russell-Reed, AFTC/PZIOC

• Contract Specialists

– Corey Porter, AFTC/PZIOC

– Guillermo Martinez, AFTC/PZIOC

• Program Manager

– Arcadio Garcia, 412 CES/CEOER

Acquisition Team

• All questions must be submitted in writing to the

Contract Specialists and Contracting Officer

NLT 07:00 AM PST 07 Jul 17

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

Reminder

• This is an ID/IQ contract for painting and coatings requirements at Edwards AFB, CA including Air Force

Plant 42 (in Palmdale, CA), and NASA. Military Family

Housing at Edwards AFB is privatized and excluded from the scope of this contract.

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

• Applying paint;

• Priming and applying/maintaining protective coatings on various facilities, surfaces, water/fuel tanks, monuments, and signs;

• Minor abatement of lead and asbestos; and

• Minor drywall, plumbing, and electrical work.

Description of Requirement

• Competition

– 8(a) Program 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, as supplemented

• Past Performance approximately equal to Price

• Technical factor 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

– Remember your CAGE Code and signature

• Award eligibility:

– Registered in SAM with no exclusions

– Active 8(a) Program certification

– Bona fide place of business in State of CA

• Submit written teaming arrangement information (if applicable)

– Remember each partner’s CAGE Code & share ratio, and signed by both

• Complete proposed ELIN prices (for Years 1-5)

– Government will calculate each offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) by multiplying each offeror’s proposed ELIN prices by the Government-provided estimated quantities at Attachment 6 for all five years

– Estimates will not be part of awarded contract

– Suggestion: Offerors should do the math themselves to ensure their TEP is correct before proposal submission (Note: This is not required for proposal submission)

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

– Part II: Technical Proposal

• Subfactor 1: Submit proof of bonding capability

– $2M Single/$10M Aggregate

• Subfactor 2: Seed Project proposal

– ELIN Types and Quantities

– Construction Progress Schedule

– Written Narrative (Technical Approach)

– 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 Questionnaires (PPQs)

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

Government

– Must use PPQ found at Attachment 11

– No minimum number of PPQs required as part of proposal

• Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form (if applicable)

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

Partner arrangement

– Part III: Past Performance Information (cont)

• Other Past Performance Considerations

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

– Prime Offeror = Company that is identified in Block 14 of

SF 1442 (i.e. the company that will receive the contract award)

• Evaluation Process – from Section M-001:

– Step 1 – Contract Evaluation

• Initial Offeror: Government will verify 8(a) Program Participant status via SBA’s Small Business Dynamic Search website

• Before award: Government will verify with SBA…

– 8(a) Program Participant status

– Business size under NAICS Code 238320

– Bona fide place of business in State of CA

– Step 2 – Price Evaluation

• Initially, offers shall be ranked by their total evaluated price

(TEP), for CLIN 0001, from lowest to highest

– To determine each offeror’s TEP, the Government will multiply each offeror’s ELIN prices by the Government-provided estimated workload for each ELIN for all five years

• TEP and ELIN prices evaluated for fair market price

– Must be both reasonable and balanced

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

– Step 3 – Technical Acceptability

• Government will evaluate the technical proposal, on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, submitted by the lowest total evaluated price ranked offeror found to have reasonable and balanced ELIN prices

• Technical consists of two subfactors (equal in importance):

– Subfactor 1: Proof of Bonding Capability

• Measure of Merit: Bonding capability documents prove the ability to obtain $2M Single/$10M Aggregate bonding capacity from an approved surety found on the Department of Treasury Circular

– Step 3 – Technical Acceptability (cont)

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

‒ Seed project proposal consists of:

» ELIN Types and Quantities

» Pricing must match Year 1 pricing from ELIN Pricing Template at

Attachment 5

» Reasonable and complete approach in construction methodology

» Construction Progress Schedule

» All work elements to complete project

» Progression of work is logical and presents an overall realistic timeframe

» Written narrative describing technical approach to project

» Reflects reasonable assumptions as to the construction effort and applicable codes and regulations

‒ Overall Measure of Merit: Proposal is an acceptable solution to the seed project IAW seed project’s SOW

» Acceptable = Complete, reasonable, and sound

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment

• Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on the lowest total evaluated price, technically acceptable offeror based on past efforts provided by offeror and data independently obtained from Government and commercial 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 a minimum performance period of three (3) months completed within five (5) years of solicitation issue date (16 Jun 2017)

» Cannot combine short-term efforts to meet three (3) months

(each effort stands on its own)

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

– 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.

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

‒ Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Relevancy (cont):

Table 3: Relevancy Definitions (descending order of importance)

Assessment

Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant

Not

Relevant

Scope Performed painting/coatings 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 painting/coatings projects somewhat less than the tasks listed on the ELINs.

Performed painting/coatings projects significantly less than the tasks listed on the ELINs.

Complexity Performed as a Prime Contractor or in a

JV arrangement on painting/coatings projects involving water tanks, epoxy floor coatings, and interior/exterior.

Performed on painting/coatings projects involving epoxy floor coatings and interior/exterior.

Performed on painting/coatings projects involving epoxy floor coatings or interior/exterior.

Magnitude Performed as a Prime Contractor or in a

JV arrangement on an Indefinite

Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract with a total contract value > $2M per year, or a non-ID/IQ contract, task order, or job order with a total value > $700K.

Performed on an ID/IQ contract with a total contract value > $1M per year, or a non-ID/IQ contract, task order, or job order with a total value > $250K.

Performed on an ID/IQ contract with a total contract value < $1M per year, or a non-ID/IQ contract, task order, or job order with a total value < $250K.

Contract

Type

Performance under a Firm-Fixed-Price

(FFP) ID/IQ or Indefinite Delivery (ID)

Requirements contract.

Performance under a FFP (non-ID/IQ and non-ID Requirements) contract, 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 for a military installation, 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 will be used to determine offeror’s Quality Rating for each recent and relevant effort

Table 4: Past Performance Quality Rating Method

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)

• Performance Confidence Assessment

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

‒ Table 5 will be used to determine offeror’s overall

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

– In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision or the decision not to award at all.

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Additional Performance Confidence Assessment

Information:

– Offers submitted by joint ventures (JVs) approved by SBA: Past performance and experience performed individually by each partner to the JV as well as any work done by the JV itself previously will be evaluated and will be considered as highly as the other.

– Offers submitted by JVs not approved by SBA: Past performance and experience of the JV’s individual partners will not be considered as highly as the past performance of the JV itself.

– Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant past performance, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the

Principal/Prime Offeror.

» Will still be rated, just not as highly as the Prime’s past performance

– Step 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment (cont)

• Additional Performance Confidence Assessment

Information:

– Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

– In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those efforts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Estimated Milestones

Pre-proposal Conference slides and sign-in sheet posted to FBO

30 Jun 17

Last day to submit questions 07:00 AM PST 07 Jul 17

Q&As posted to FBO 14 Jul 17*

Proposals Due 04:30 PM PST 21 Jul 17

Evaluations Complete 25 Aug 17*

Contract Award 22 Sep 17*

*Estimate

• Previous/Current Contract:

– FA9301-16-D-0009, similar requirements

– Recurring requirement (this will be fifth ID/IQ contract since 2004)

• Technical Written Narrative:

– Needs to be double spaced (per line, not just per para./section)

• Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ):

– Offeror must fill out “General Information” on p. 2 then send PPQ to all

POCs identified in each PPIF: Contract Administrator (CA), Contracting

Officer (CO), and Project Manager (PM)

– No minimum amount of PPQs that need to be received for each proposal

– 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/

General Information

• CPARS/CCASS Evaluations in lieu of PPQs:

– Government has direct access to CPARS/CCASS evaluations;

therefore, we do not require or encourage submission of this type of info with Part III of proposals

– Cannot submit previously completed PPQs for different acquisitions – will not be evaluated

• PPQs are unique to each acquisition

• Construction Progress Schedule:

‒ Can use Government-provided template at Attachment 9 or Offeror’s preferred scheduling program

• Submit PPQs for efforts already in CPARS:

‒ The PPQ for this solicitation is unique to this requirement, so Offerors should still submit a PPQ even if an effort can be found in CPARS.

Government has access to CPARS and may use data obtained from

CPARS and other sources during past performance evaluations.

‒ Typically, the more info, the better

• ELIN Pricing Template:

‒ Offerors only have to provide ELIN (unit) price in Column D of Attachment 5 for all five years

‒ Government will perform the task of multiplying each ELIN price by the

Government-provided estimated quantities/workload for each ELIN for all five years to determine each offeror’s TEP

• Minimum Performance Period:

‒ For the Recency Assessment under Past Performance, the Government will not consider the combined performance of each of the (up to four) efforts in order for the Offeror to meet the three month minimum performance period, i.e. each effort submitted by the Offeror stands on its own and should have a performance period of at least three months.

‒ Performance period = length of time the Offeror was provided to complete the project, e.g. “90 calendar days after Notice to Proceed issuance.”

• Submit basic ID/IQ, MACC, JOC, etc. Contracts:

‒ It is at the Offeror’s discretion which four efforts they choose to submit PPIFs for.

Each contract, task order, or job order submitted via PPIF is considered a separate effort. A PPIF for a task/job order basic contract (e.g. ID/IQ, MACC, or

JOC) may be submitted and the contract will be evaluated as one effort.

• Warranty Length:

‒ FAR Clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction, states that “work performed under this contract conforms to the contract requirements and is free of any defect in equipment, material, or design furnished, or workmanship performed by the Contractor or any subcontractor or supplier at any tier” and that “This warranty shall continue for a period of 1 year from the date of final acceptance of the work.”

‒ The one-year warranty period will apply to every awarded task order on the ID/IQ contract.

• Seed Project Proof of Bonding:

‒ Proof of bonding is not a requirement for the Seed Project Proposal (Subfactor 2 under Technical). As stated in Section A, Continuation of Block 10 of the SF

1442, bonds will be required at the task order level and will be due to the

Contracting Officer within 10 calendar days after award of the task order.

Therefore, the successful offeror who is awarded the Painting and Coatings basic ID/IQ contract will have to provide actual bonds for Task Order 0001 (seed project) IAW FAR Clause 52.228-15 (included in Section I of the SF 1442) within

10 calendar days of award.

‒ Technical Subfactor 1 asks for Offeror’s proof of bonding capability. Actual bonds will not be required as part of an Offeror’s proposal for Technical Subfactor 1 or

2.

Any/All questions/concerns should be submitted to the following individuals

NLT 07:00 AM PST 07 Jul 17:

guillermo.martinez.3@us.af.mil corey.porter@us.af.mil vanessa.russell-reed@us.af.mil

All Q&As will be posted to FedBizOpps with the solicitation documents around 14 Jul 17.

Questions mailto:guillermo.martinez.3@us.af.mil mailto:corey.porter@us.af.mil mailto:vanessa.Russell-reed@us.af.mil

Presented by:

Mr. Arcadio Garcia, 412 CES/CEOER

Program Manager for

Painting and Coatings Requirements at Edwards AFB, CA

Edwards AFB Procedures &

Scope of Work Overview

• Base Access Security Requirements

– Contractor Base Access Card

– Restricted/Secured Area Badges

– Flightline Driving Training

• Environmental Procedures

– Contractor will provide abatement plan

– Lead reports

– EM will review and approve all abatement plans

– Contractor can start abatement as soon as EM approves abatement plan

• Airfield Waivers

– Will be approved by Airfield Management

• Escorts

– Provided by Facility Managers

• Anti-Terrorism Training

– Can be completed online, certificates provided to PM

Note: All info above explained in basic contract’s SOW

Edwards AFB Procedures

Edwards AFB

Main Base

South Base

North Base

Air Force Research

Laboratory (AFRL)

Air Force Plant 42

Seed Project

How a Paint Project is Funded

START

Identify project

(PM or

FM)

Submit

Service request through

Maximo 332

Start

Coordination

Process

Program

Project

(ACES)

Conduct

Project

Assessment

(PM)

Generate

SOW, RFP,

AF 66, and

IGE

Send to

Contracting

Office (PZ)

Place

Project on list to Rack and Stack

PZ Sends

RFP to

Contractor and

Schedules

Site Visit

Conduct

Site Walk

Visit

Contractor

Submits

Proposal to

PZ

PZ sends

Proposal to

PM and requests a tech eval

PM

Conducts

Technical

Evaluation, PZ evaluates price and schedules negotiations

PM initiates

Request for

Funding after

PZ finalizes negotiations

How a Paint Project is Funded

PZ Awards the

Contract

Submit Form

9 Funding

Documents in

CCaRS

Wait for

Funds PZ Issues

NTP

PM

Schedules

Pre-construction

Meeting

Construction

Starts

Finish

Base Tour Route

• Start B2800

• 1st stop: B1600

• 2nd stop: B6000 (Commissary)

• 3rd stop: Contractor’s Row

• 4th stop: AFRL B8370 (Seed Project)

• End B2800