SABER Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes.pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE MINUTES

SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION OF BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENT (SABER)

MOODY AFB

RFP # FA4830-23-R-0001

1. The pre-proposal conference convened on 06 Jul 2023, 0900 (EST), at Building 104 – Heritage Hall, on Moody AFB, GA.

2. Ms. Elizabeth Preston, Procuring Contracting Officer, 23 CONS/PKA, Infrastructure Flight, welcomed all attendees and introduced the Government panel comprised of individuals from 23 CONS and 23 CES to the attendees. See the Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit Attendance Sheet (Attachment 1) for complete list.

3. The purpose of this conference was to provide an overall understanding of the objectives of the above referenced acquisition, to discuss the requirement, to explain significant elements of the solicitation, to provide all attendees an opportunity to visit the seed project site, and to provide a platform for the Request for Proposal (RFP) related questions and answers. All questions and verbal answers provided during the conference are captured in the Consolidated Q&A1 (Site Visit) (Attachment 2).

4. Ms. Preston pointed out the following topics to supplement what’s shown in the briefing slides (Attachment 3) during the conference:

a. Rules of Engagement: Ms. Preston stated that she, 2LT Hannah Hidalgo, and Mr.

Steve Davis would be the sole points of contact for all communication regarding this source selection. Ms. Preston emphasized that all questions must be submitted in writing using the Q&A form provided in the RFP (RFP Atch 9) for official responses. She also pointed out that the terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged, regardless of any remarks, explanations, or answers given during the conference, unless the solicitation is formally amended in writing.

b. Administrative Comments: Referring to this subject, Ms. Preston notified all attendees that the briefing slides, the conference minutes, and the attendance sheet will be posted on SAM.gov.

c. Announcements: Several deadlines were pointed out, i.e., RFP release date, proposal due date, upcoming Amendment 0001 to remove the “bona fide branch office located in Region IV area” requirement and to provide temporary access to eGordian Construction Task Catalog (CTC) for building the seed project construction line items, and to build the coefficient. Amendment 0001 will also remove all “RSMeans, Unit Price Book, and e4Clicks” references from the RFP and all its attachments and replace them with eGordian information. Ms. Preston emphasized that the cost for purchasing e4Clicks software must not be included in building the offeror’s coefficient.

5. At this point in time, Mr. Jerry Fruth, 23 CES SABER Program Manager, provided a SABER program overview referring to the technical requirements of the SABER contract and the primary base/geographically separated units to be served as indicated on the briefing slides.

He further explained the procedure for the individual task orders (TO), including the roles of the TO negotiations via scoping meetings, reviews of Statement of Objective (SOO), drawings, and cost proposal once the basic SABER contract is awarded.

In addition, Mr. Fruth indicated that all TO work must be performed IAW SABER Specification (RFP Atch 1), Moody Design Guide (RFP Atch 2) & SABER Ordering Guide (RFP Atch 12).

After doing so, Mr. Fruth explained that a variety of multiple trades are required in horizontal and vertical construction and that the contractor shall furnish all management, supervision, labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals necessary for performance. Lastly, he notified the potential offerors of the requirement in which the SABER contractor must perform on the site, with its own organization, and work equivalent to at least an average of fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract.

6. Ms. Preston continued by pointing out the tentative milestones time schedule from the RFP issued/posted date up to the first TO issuance. She further explained the acquisition approach by indicating the type of contract, which is an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract w/ Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Task Orders. Ms. Preston also referred to the evaluation process and basis of award (Best Value Tradeoff between performance and price (PPT) among technically acceptable proposals). She also highlighted the Government’s intent to evaluate and award without discussions and then proceeded to detail the roles of the three independent evaluation teams (technical, past performance, and price) and how each team will conduct the evaluation.

7 . Several questions were raised regarding the way in which proposals are ranked and evaluated.

Ms. Preston explained that to ensure an efficient evaluation process, the Government will rank all proposals from the lowest to the highest priced offerors based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Ms. Preston then explained that if the evaluation results in an offeror receiving an “Acceptable” rating for technical, a “Substantial Confidence” rating for past performance, and the proposed coefficient is determined reasonable, the Government will stop evaluations & the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may decide to award without discussions. Lastly, she emphasized it is imperative each offeror provide the accurate/reasonable construction cost estimate under the technical volume and propose a reasonable / realistic coefficient rate in their initial proposal.

8. Ms. Preston continued highlighting several items of interest to remember such as the registration requirement in the System for Award Management (SAM) to be eligible for award.

In addition, the proposals shall not include unnecessary information. They shall be clear and concise with sufficient detail to allow for accurate and efficient evaluation. These reminders were followed by Ms. Preston explaining how to prepare each proposal volume and the definition of evaluation ratings for each evaluation factor. Rating definitions and samples of rating assessments were shared with the attendees for informational purposes as indicated on the briefing slides for past performance. Additionally, Ms. Preston also detailed Volume III, Price and Other Contracting Considerations, including the reminder to provide sufficient details on how the offeror had built the proposed coefficient and why the offeror think it is reasonable, to aid the Government’s determination for price reasonableness. Ms. Preston provided several suggestions for building a solid proposal, such as carefully reading Section L, thoroughly reviewing all RFP attachments, providing detailed past performance information, and ensuring

PPQs are turned in timely by following up with POCs, and double checking the reasonableness of their coefficients and justification.

9. Lastly, Ms. Preston informed attendees that one-on-one sessions are being offered after the conference to any attendees who wish to discuss some of the specific elements of their proposals.

10. The attendees asked several questions throughout the conference. All questions were recorded and transcribed into the Q&A format and posted as Attachment 2, Q&A 1 (Site Visit).

11. The conference concluded at 1100 hrs. The site visit to the seed project site, Bldg. 326 followed immediately after the conference.

12. Upon return from the site visit, the Government panel met with the five firms who signed up for the one-on-one session.

ELIZABETH H. PRESTON

Contracting Officer

Attachment 1: Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit Attendance Sheet Attachment 2: Q&A 1 (Site Visit) Attachment 3: Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing Slides