NAVFAC P215 CON Industry Day Slides.pptx
PPTX presentation 429 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6945025R0006
About this file
This document is an industry day briefing slide presentation for a federal contract opportunity. The solicitation is for the design and construction of a five-story Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S) Command and Control Facility (C2F) at Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West, Florida. The construction project encompasses an operations area with specialized secure spaces, administrative areas, redundant mechanical and electrical systems, and supporting site infrastructure. The estimated contract value is between $250,000,000 and $500,000,000. The acquisition strategy utilizes a best value trade-off source selection process with evaluation factors including experience, past performance, safety, technical solution, and small business utilization. The anticipated solicitation release date is January 2025, with a planned award in March 2026. The project has a construction period of performance estimate of 2,690 calendar days from contract award. The industry day event on November 14, 2024 is intended to generate interest and provide information on this complex project to contractors with applicable NAICS codes and similar construction experience.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
NAVFAC SE ACQUISITION PROCESS INFORMATION
14 NOV 2024
P215 Industry Day, Doral, FL
CUI
Ground Rules THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE INFORMATIONAL AND FOR PLANNING / INTEREST GENERATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. NOTHING DISCUSSED TODAY WILL BE EVALUATED IN RESPONSE TO ANY FUTURE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.
DO NOT PROVIDE THE GOVERNMENT WITH ANY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, TRADE SECRETS, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION DEEMED SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE, OR ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU DO NOT WANT DISSEMINATED TO THE PUBLIC.
A RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS WILL BE MADE. IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / SIGN IN SHEET, INDICATING YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND CONSENT TO THE GOVERNMENT MAKING PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE A SUMMARY OF TODAY’S DISCUSSION, WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION TO PARTIES.
NAVFAC SE ACQUISITION PROCESS
• Sources Sought posted to SAM.gov Opportunities 11 Oct 2023 Anticipated Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price
SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS: BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF, FULL & OPEN COMPETITION:
| • The tradeoff methodology allows an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror |
| or the highest technically rated Offeror. The Government can pay a higher price to |
| receive certain perceived benefits (e.g., better past performance record providing |
| a lower risk of performance issues in executing our requirements). |
• DESIGN BID BUILD (DBB) PROJECT WILL UTILIZE THE ONE PHASE DBB PROCUREMENT PROCESS
• PROPOSED SCHEDULE:
| • Request for Proposals (RFP) Issue Date: January 2025 |
| • Planned Award: March 2026 |
• CONSTRUCTION:
• Period of Performance Estimate: 2,690 calendar days from date of award.
ACQUISITION LOGISTICS – POTENTIAL FACTORS
Experience:
Focuses on the experience an Offeror has on relevant projects. A relevant project will be one that is similar in nature to the RFP based on a comparison of the size, scope, and complexity.
Past Performance:
Focuses on how well the Offeror performed on relevant projects. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) specific to the relevant projects submitted at minimum. Other performance statements and CPARS in the system will be considered.
Safety:
Focuses on the safety record of the Offeror and how they will manage safety on this project.
Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) Evaluated (Typically 5 calendar years of data) Technical Approach to Safety (Narrative)
ACQUISITION LOGISTICS – POTENTIAL FACTORS
Technical Solution:
Focuses on the technical solution tailored to the unique project requirements within the limits outlined in the standard factors.
Small Business Utilization Additional documents to be submitted with Cost/Price:
Financial Responsibility Documents Project Labor Agreement
SOURCE SELECTION ADJECTIVAL RATINGS
A combined technical/risk evaluation includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings:
| Combined Technical/Risk Ratings | |
| Rating | Description |
| Outstanding | Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.
Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.
Past Performance: Three aspects: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).
| Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method | |
| Adjectival Rating | Description |
| Relevant | Present/past performance effort involved similar 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
SOURCE SELECTION – SUBJECTIVE DISCRIMINATORS
SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.
STRENGTH: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.
WEAKNESS: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
UNCERTAINTY: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).
DEFICIENCY: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.
Proposed Basis of Award
1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.
2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.
3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.
4. All technical factors when combined are of equal importance to the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating; and all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment (past performance) rating, when combined are approximately equal to price.
5. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-price factors and/or sub-factors will result in an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the non-price factors, unless corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions.
IMPORTANT WEB SITES
• SAM.gov Contract Opportunities
• https://sam.gov/content/opportunities
• Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module
• https://piee.eb.mil/
• NAVFAC web page
• www.navfac.navy.mil
GENERAL: RFP Response Helpful Hints RFP Responses:
| - Limit marketing “fluff” |
| - Number your pages |
| - Adhere to font size and page number requirements. |
| - Non-price Factors separate from Price |
NO Price information in Non-Price Factors Evaluation criteria responses:
| - Address ALL aspects of EACH factor. | ||
| - Identify aspects of your proposal that EXCEED the minimum RFP | requirements. | |
| - Explain why this is a VALUE to the government. | ||
| - Check all completion dates in project examples submitted to | ensure they fall within the dates specified in the RFP. |
GENERAL: RFP Response Helpful Hints
OTHER:
| - Adhere to Proposal Due Date & Time | |
| - Ensure any required bonds are filled out correctly and meet or exceed | the required minimum stated in the RFP. |
| - All proposals must be submitted electronically through the PIEE | website. Hard copies and email copies will NOT be accepted. |
| - If you have questions about the solicitation, specifications, drawings, | etc. be sure to utilize PROJNET. |
Note: This list is not all inclusive, these are the most common observations.
QUESTIONS?
image2.jpg image3.png image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .