B.07 Pre-proposal Conference Site Visit Slides (25-R-A003).pptx

CONSTRUCT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT (vm/age) COMPLEX

SOLICITATION NO.: W50S8W-25-R-A003

PROJECT NO.: DPEZ 019000

LOCATION: 153D AIRLIFT WING, CHEYENNE, WY

DATE: 14-JAN-2025

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERNCE

Contracting Office (KO) Daniel Tatro Contract Specialist (KS) Rob Rodriguez-Santiago MSgt Chris Davalos MSgt Kris Kahle Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Samuel Hoekwater

INTRODUCTION

Your Name

Company

Your Position in Company

Are you a Prime or a Subcontractor

INTRODUCTION

Magnitude-$10,000,000 TO $25,000,000

A Firm-fixed Price Contract Will Be Awarded

100% Small Business Set-Aside

SYNOPSIS

On The Web – https://www.sam.gov

Solicitation Drawings Questions & Answers Document Amendments Check Regularly & Refresh Web Page Plans & Specifications- must be registered and request access in sam.gov.

SOLICITATION, PLANS & SPECS

Construction Period Is 180 Calendar Days After Receiving The Notice To Proceed

427 days after receipt of Notice to Proceed (NTP)

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

DISCLAIMER!!

**The following is a brief overview of the proposal requirements**

Offerors Are Strongly Cautioned To Carefully Read The Requirements Of The Solicitation And Comply Accordingly

DISCLAIMER

This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price Contract. The Government intends to award a single contract to a qualified Small Business Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to all the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation scheme set out in this solicitation. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms is relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is more important than the Present/ Past Performance and when combined, the non cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

SOLICITATION

Volume 1 – Price Proposal

Volume 2, Part 1 – Technical Capability Proposal

-Subfactor 1 - Site Superintendent Qualifications (limit resumes to 2 pages each) -Subfactor 2- Team Project Experience (limit to 3 pages) -Subfactor 3 - Key Subcontractor Experience (limit to 3 pages) -Subfactor 4 - Quality Control(limit to 5 pages) -Subfactor 5 - Progress Schedule(limit to 3 pages)

Volume 2, Part 2 – Past/Present Performance Information

** DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH FACTOR BEGIN ON PAGE 12 OF SOLICITATION**

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors are(1) Technical, (2) Past/Present Performance and (3) Price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed task and technical requirements within the required schedule.

EVALUATION PROCESS

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. This is a combined rating that includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating. Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level as well as an overall factor level rating. Based on evaluation results, the Government will assign a technical rating for each of the five (5) subfactors as well as the overall technical proposal. An offer which fails to provide information in any of the specified areas may be deemed incomplete, and eliminated from the competition and ineligible for further consideration for award.

TECHNICAL EVAL FACTOR RATINGS

RATING SCALE

*Below ratings are listed in descending order of importance

Important Reminder!!

The Government Intends To Award Without Discussion And There May Not Be A Chance For Discussions, Corrections, Or Revised Proposals

GOVT’S INTENTIONS

The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Plans and Specifications. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a "relevancy" rating and a "confidence" rating. Although there are subfactors listed below, the "confidence" ratings will be at the factor level only. Stated differently, the subfactors will be considered, but they will not receive individual confidence ratings. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Past/Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going (present)performance complete to 70% percent. Projects currently in progress for the National Guard will also be considered regardless of percentage complete. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; (2) use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources; from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;(3) interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (4) the information provided in the Offeror's Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire; and (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. The Government will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED(r) certification achievements. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed will also be considered. Relevancy will affect an offeror's overall Past Performance rating.

In assessing "relevancy" of an offeror's previous contracts the Government may evaluate an offeror's past performance for similarity of the construction methods, size, project scope, cost magnitude and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. ANG projects will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED(r).The location at which work was performed may also be considered. Relevancy weight will affect offeror's overall Past Performance Confidence rating. The more relevant the project is weighted the greater confidence there will be in the past performance assessment as a predictor of future performance.

The following apply to weighting relevancy considering all the elements listed above;

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.

Other Past Performance Considerations: Evaluators may also consider the following issues when evaluating an offeror's Past Performance. These issues may help provide additional guidance in deciding a descriptive performance confidence assessment (e.g., "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence") for a specific offeror if there is a question as to which adjective is most appropriate.

The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance confidence assessment. Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

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: 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.

A Bid bond is required with submission of the proposal. The bid bond is due on the date as stated on the SF1442 block 13. The bid bond must be on a SF24 form. Rejection of a bid bond shall be in accordance with FAR 28.101-4 Noncompliance with bid guarantee requirements.

Bid Guarantees in accordance with FAR 52.228-1 must be submitted no later than the date and time for proposal submission.

BID BOND

Proposal Due:

28-January-2025 10:00a.m. MST

Proposal Must Be Signed By Officer Of Your Company

No Facsimile Offers

Send or deliver to christopher.davalos.1@us.af.mil AND kristopher.kahle@us.af.mil.

PROPOSAL DUE DATE

Submit Questions NLT the 5th working day prior to solicitation closing date.

Do Not Call Technical Personnel

RFIs & QUESTIONS

All Questions, On A Non-Attribution Basis, And The Answers Will Be Posted To The Web Site https://www.sam.gov

If Necessary Addendums, Issued By An Amendment, Will Also Be Posted

Check Web Site Regularly And Don’t Forget To Refresh Web Page

RFIs & QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS

Let’s Go Visit the Site!!

SITE VISIT

image1.jpeg image2.png image3.png image4.png image5.png image6.png image7.PNG image8.wmf image9.wmf image10.png