GBSMP_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Slides.pdf

DoDDS-E Germany & Belgium School Maintenance Program

(GBSMP)

Pre-Proposal Conference

15 August 2014 Wiesbaden, Germany

Registration / Sign in

Introductions /Acquisition Ms. Johnson 10:00 Overview

Procurement Integrity Purpose of the Pre-Proposal Conference

Welcome Mr. Robbins 10:10

Technical Overview Mr. Wingo 10:25

Proposal Preparation Mr. Christen 10:45 Overview

Open Questions 11:15 - 12:00 Lunch 12:00 - 13:00 Additional Time for Questions 13:00 – 14:30

Agenda

2 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

DoDDS-E Germany & Belgium School Maintenance Program (GBSMP)

INTRODUCTIONS/ACQUISITION

OVERVIEW

Ms. Jennifer Johnson Contract Specialist

Pre-Proposal Conference

Mr. Mark Robbins, Chief, Procurement Division

Mr. Andrew Christen, Contracting Officer

Ms. Jennifer Johnson, Contract Specialist

Introductions

4 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Mr. Jose Tovar - Chief, Facilities Branch

Mr. Russ Roberts - Transformation Officer/Acting Chief, Logistics Division

Mr. Dunnie Wingo - Contracting Officer Representative

Introductions

5 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

ter

Provide information about the Government’s acquisition approach and solicitation.

Brief the technical background / requirements of the RFP.

Purpose

6 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Remarks and explanations provided today do not qualify as the terms of the solicitation. (All written guidance in the solicitation governs)

The information provided at this conference is considered supplemental guidance and does not override the terms of the Solicitation and specifications.

For any ambiguities and/or conflicting information the offerors shall refer to the Solicitation.

Any required changes to the Solicitation will be accomplished through a formal amendment.

Ground Rules / Program Integrity

7 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

No audio or video recording of Pre-proposal Conference is permitted.

DoDDS-E will attempt to address all questions that are submitted today; however, the official responses to all questions received from today’s conference will be posted as an amendment under the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) database.

Reminder: Please turn off cell phones and pagers.

Ground Rules / Program Integrity

8 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Solicitation HE1280-14-R-0008 is an open market requirement.

All announcements regarding this solicitation will be posted to Fed Biz Opps at www.fbo.gov.

All subsequent amendments and announcements concerning this solicitation will be posted to the FBO website. It is the responsibility of each interested offeror to monitor this website for any updates to the solicitation.

Acquisition Overview: Administrative

9 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Objective: To obtain contracted services for the GBSMP requirements to ensure all DoDDS-E locations in Germany and Belgium (as listed in Attachment 1 of the solicitation) are fully functional, neat, healthy, sanitary and safe.

10 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Procurement Timeline

21 July 2014 - Pre-Solicitation Notice was posted to FBO 2 August 2014 - Solicitation and all attachments posted 11 & 13 August 2014 - Schooldude™ Informational Webinars were held 12 August 2014 - Official Site Visits were held at all Ramstein Schools 14 August 2014 - Official Site Visits were held at all Wiesbaden Schools 18 – 22 August 2014 - Additional site visits will be accommodated upon request; however, all requests for additional site visits shall be emailed to Andrew.Christen@eu.dodea.edu no later than 15 August 2014.

Proposals Due no later than 03:00 PM (Central European Time) on 2 September 2014.

11 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

ter

Questions

All questions during this conference shall be submitted in writing on the note cards provided.

NO phone calls will be accepted regarding this solicitation.

Questions in response to this solicitation shall be submitted by e-mail to Andrew.Christen@eu.dodea.edu no later than 09:00 AM (Central European Time) on 18 Aug 2014.

Questions and the Official Government Answers will be posted to the FBO website via amendment.

Company specific information will not be posted.

12 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

Firm Fixed Price Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Contract with a one (1) Year Base and two (2) Option years Anticipated Contract Period of Performance:

Base Year: 01 March 2015 through 29 February 2016 Option Year 1: 01 March 2016 through 28 February 2017 Option Year 2: 01 March 2017 through 28 February 2018

Note: Phase-in (Ramp up to full performance level) is anticipated to be from 01 January 2015 through 28 February 2015

Acquisition Overview: Contract Type

13 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

WELCOME

Mr. Mark Robbins Chief, DoDDS-E Procurement Division

DoDDS-Europe

Germany & Belgium School Maintenance Program (GBSMP)

TECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Dunnie Wingo PE GBSMP Program Manager

GBSMP Overview

DoDDS-Europe Facility Branch manages, directs, and oversees planning, staffing, support, and operations for all aspects of the DoDDS-Europe School/Office facilities.

The Contracting Officer has ultimate authority regarding all facilities contracting matters.

DoDDS-Europe

44 schools located in Belgium and Germany

Area Offices in Sembach

Two District Superintendent Offices Bavaria and Kaiserslautern

Three Schools in Belgium

Services to be performed:

Category I – Facilities Maintenance/Repair and Project Work

Category II – Grounds Maintenance Services

Category III – Custodial/Lunchroom Services

Unique Challenges

School Environment – Not a Business Environment

Cannot interrupt class while in session

Cannot access classrooms without prior communication with the appropriate school officials

Work Orders:

Routine Non-Routine Project Work Requests (PWR)

Contract Management Interface with District COR

Facilities Maintenance and Inspection Program The QASP (Attachment 7) is to be utilized by government personnel in the surveillance of contractor performance in the provision of the required services for covered locations within DoDDS-Europe.

Schooldude™

Mobile Direct

PM Direct

Maintenance Direct

Online Overview available during solicitation

Training: Government Furnished after award

Schooldude™ will be provided at no cost to the contractor

Partnership Requires Contractor & Government Commitment

Communication Proper/Appropriate/Timely Communication with Customers

Area Office / District Superintendent Offices (DSO) Schools

Base Access (PWS 4.8.1) Time required for base access turnaround

Contractor Management Communication with all parties is key Proper knowledge transfer for seamless transition

Contract Phase-In (Ramp up) (PWS 4.10.1)

PROPOSAL PREPARATION

OVERVIEW

Mr. Andrew Christen Contracting Officer

52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors

• Offerors shall not make any assumptions that DoDDS-E evaluators have any prior knowledge of their capabilities in performing the PWS requirements.

• Offerors should not simply restate the requirements or state that they will “conform to the requirements”

(See 52.212-1 and its addendum in the solicitation for exact requirements)

• Proposals shall consist of a written hard copy and an electronic version (CDs) as detailed in the solicitation.

• SF1449 and all amendments must be signed

• Offerors should organize their proposal as follows:

– Volume I – Technical Proposal

– Volume II – Past Performance and Similar Experience Proposal

– Volume III – Price Proposal

– Volume IV – Solicitation, Proposal and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

• Volume I – Technical

– Sub-Factor One: Technical Approach

• Maintenance & Inspection program for each category being proposed

• Narrative (who, what, where, and how the work will be preformed)

• Volume I – Technical, Continued

– Sub-Factor Two: Contract Management/Staffing Plan

• Develop a contract management/staffing plan in accordance with PWS section 5.1.9, which details an approach that includes specific management tasks to addresses staffing, manpower levels and allocation of resources to perform the required work at the DoDDS-E locations

– Sub-Factor Three: Quality Control Plan

• Provide a quality control plan in accordance with Section 7 of the PWS.

– Sub-Factor Four: Contract Phase-In (Ramp up) Plan

• The contract phase-in plan shall identify specific tasks that address how the contract will be phased-in over a 60-day phase-in period to ensure 100% operability at all required locations during the allotted timeframe and established start date for full performance as detailed in section 4.10 of the PWS.

• Volume II– Past Performance Information & Similar Experience

– Element 1 – Past Performance

– Element 2 – Similar Experience

• Volume III – Price Proposal

– Part I Schedule of Supplies/Services

Attachment 8 – Price Proposal Summary

– Part II Attachment 9 – Labor Category/Material Handling Rate Pricing Schedule

• Volume IV – Solicitation, Proposal and Award Documents, and Certifications/Representations

– Complete Attachment 6, “Offeror Proposal Information”

– Offeror shall complete all Certs/Reps and sign the original solicitation and each amendment.

Basis for Award (See 52.212-2 and its addendum in the solicitation for exact requirements)

It is the Government’s express intent to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract on an “all or none” best value basis to the responsive, responsible offeror giving consideration to the evaluation criteria listed herein.

In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, a trade-off technique will be used that allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. It permits trade-offs among price and non-price related evaluation factors in order to determine best value.

Technical (Factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 2), and all evaluation factors other than cost or price (Factors 1 & 2), when combined, are more important than Price (Factor 3). Proposals receiving less than an “Acceptable” rating for Technical (Factor 1) will not receive further consideration for award.

52.212-2 Evaluation

The Government will give consideration to making separate awards for the various categories of services provided for by the solicitation; any such award must be deemed to be in the Government’s best interest, and the attainment of best value still achieved by comparison to that attained for award made on an “all or none” basis.

Factor I – Technical This factor is the most important non-price related factor and is comprised of the sub-factors listed below, which are of equal importance. Technical proposals will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s proposed performance meets the Government’s requirements and what level of indication exists in terms of technical approach and understanding of requirements.

Sub-factor One: Technical Approach

The maintenance and inspection program supported by written technical narrative will be evaluated to determine performance capability and understanding of PWS requirements. The proposal will be evaluated for completeness in delineating who, what, where and how required services will be met. Processes, resources, equipment, manpower, schedules and materials will be evaluated for functionality, sufficiency and effectiveness as it directly pertains to proposed performance.

Factor I – Technical

Sub-factor Two: Contract Management/Staffing Plan

The contract management/staffing plan will be evaluated for functionality, sufficiency and effectiveness, management structure, approach to directing and managing operations at all levels, including subcontractors, and work force and communication structure.

The Government will assess risk management (including both identifying and mitigating risks), allocation of resources (i.e., distribution of staff, types of labor, subcontractors, etc.), and how prompt and continued staffing with thoroughly vetted, skilled, technically qualified personnel will be provided and maintained, including base access and certification requirements.

Sub-factor Three: Quality Control Plan

The quality control plan will be evaluated on approach to establishing and maintaining quality services for the proposed contract.

Sub-factor Four: Contract Phase-In (Ramp up) Plan

The contract phase-in plan will be evaluated on approach in assuming work-in-process, obtaining all needed qualified personnel, to include installation passes, and training and assuming full responsibility of all PWS requirements by an accepted the start of the fully operational period. The evaluation will consider the Offeror’s approach in demonstrating the ability to assume full performance responsibilities of the contract in a timely, efficient and effective manner.

Overall Technical Evaluation Rating: The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings as follows:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

Factor II – Past Performance and Similar Experience

This factor is less important than the Technical factor and is comprised of the sub-factors listed below, which are of equal importance. The past performance and similar experience evaluation is divided into two elements of equal importance.

Element 1 – Past Performance

The evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment of the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to successfully meet contract requirements, based on a demonstrated and relevant record of performance.

Factor II – Past Performance and Similar Experience cont.

Element 2 – Similar Experience

The Government will evaluate the offeror's experience submission to determine whether, during the past three (3) years, they have had the opportunity to learn about relevant work processes and procedures and about the nature, difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with performing the work that will be required under the prospective contract. Similar experience will be evaluated on the basis of the Offeror’s breath (experience and expertise), depth (number of contracts/projects), level (degree of participation) and relevance of Offeror’s experience during the last three (3) years working on projects/contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. “Similar in size, scope and complexity” means: similar in dollar amount, type of work and number of employees working on the contract as it relates to this solicitation. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the manner and extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an existing business presence or has the capability and readiness for business in the host nation.

The information presented in the Offeror’s written proposals, together with information from any other sources available to the Government, will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor.

If the offeror has no single experience that encompasses all types of experience defined under this factor, then the offeror may show relevant experience through a combination of projects/contracts which together show that work has been accomplished which is consistent in scope and complexity with this requirement.

Note: If the experience(s) described by the offeror as part of its proposal required subcontracting or other external resource usage, these relationships must be clearly explained.

Overall Past Performance and Similar Experience Rating:

Relevancy: The Government will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and experience within the last three years in providing similar work as anticipated under this solicitation. The Government will determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the solicitation.

Confidence: In conducting a performance and experience confidence assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the following Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings, the higher the offeror’s confidence assessment the greater chance that the offeror will perform the services in a satisfactory manner.

Relevancy will be rated in accordance with the following Relevancy Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Confidence will be rated in accordance with the following ratings:

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

Factor III – Price

• Completeness

• Price Reasonableness

• Balanced Pricing

CONTRACTING OFFICER

Mr. Andrew Christen

Andrew.Christen@eu.dodea.edu

Points of Contact

44 INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY 45

QUESTIONS?