Site_Visit_Slides_W911S8-15-R-0004_MATOC _5_May_2016.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Multiple Award Task Order Contract for Construction

Pre-Proposal/Site Visit Conference

Renee M. Krahenbuhl Contract Specialist renee.m.krahenbuhl.civ@mail.mil 10 May 2016

Agenda

• Administration

• Pre-Proposal/Site Visit Conference Rules of

Engagement

• Request for Proposal

• Proposal Volumes

• Submitted Questions

• Site Visit

• Points of Contact

Administration

• Welcome

• Sign-In

• Silence all Cell Phones

Pre-proposal/Site Visit Conference Rules of Engagement

• All communications shall be in writing through MICC-JBLM

– Points of Contact

• Renee Krahenbuhl, (253) 982-3468, renee.m.krahenbuhl.civ@mail.mil

• Linda Murphy, (253) 967-9888, linda.j.murphy.civ@mail.mil

• Briefing content & answers to questions do not qualify or change the terms of the solicitation.

– RFP, and its attachments, takes precedence over all verbal communications

• PHOTOGRAPHS of the site visit are ALLOWED! However, they cannot be posted to public sites. No video or audio.

• Upon conclusion of the site visit, attendees must exit the base

• Comments and/or questions during the conference/site visit will not be answered at the conference. (Reference Section J, Paragraph 1.11.2 of the RFP)

• Must submit all questions in writing – due no later than 16 May 2016, 4:00 p.m. PDT

Request for Proposal (RFP)

• Read the RFP and ALL attachments completely!

• RFP Section L outlines specific proposal preparation instructions

• RFP Section M outlines specific evaluation criteria

• Proposals are due 26 May 2016, 2:00 PM, Pacific Daylight Time

Request for Proposal, continued

• Ensure that the SF 1442 and SF30s are completed and signed when you submit your proposal

• To date, two amendments have been issued.

• Submit to address as specified in the RFP, Section L, Paragraph 4.2

• Ensure you allow enough time for your proposal to arrive before the closing date and time

• Electronic submissions via email or facsimile will not be accepted.

Proposal Volumes

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I General & Contract Documentation Original + 1

+ 1 CD‐ROM

No Limit

II

Technical Proposal ‐ Management Approach ‐ Experience ‐ Seed Project

Original + 1 +1 CD‐

ROM

Total 60 (Experience‐ 30 Pages; Management approach and Seed Project – 30 Pages)

III Past Performance Original + 1

+ 1 CD‐ROM

See Para 8.0

IV Price Original + 1

+ 1 CD‐ROM

No Limit

Submitted Questions The Government has posted questions and answers to the FBO website. The answers to the following question are still pending.

Once answered, the Government will post the questions and answers to the FBO website.

1. What furniture will remain for us to move prior to carpet demo?

2. Can we get a sample of the existing tile so we can match color, texture and aesthetics? What is the product name/number of the tile we are matching?

3. Has a hazmat survey of the existing carpet/tile been performed? What year was it installed?

4. Where is the staging area for this project?

5. Is the contractor required to have office near the base?

6. Is the contract open to all HubZone contractors across the country?

7. Reference Section L para 2.1.8.6 – Proposal Table of Contents file: Does this need to be its own separate file independent of the proposal volumes? This would require manually updating the Table of Contents as we assemble the proposal vs. embedding the TOC within the proposal volumes which can then be updated with the click of a button.

8. Section L para 2.1.8.7 indicates that data files should be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2007 or earlier). Is Microsoft Excel 2010 acceptable?

9. Section L para 4.2 provides the address for mailed and hand-delivered proposals. This address differs from the address shown in Block 7 on the SF 1442. Please confirm that proposals should be delivered to the address shown in Section L para 4.2.

10. Section L para 7.3.1.3 states that the Offeror shall provide a Staffing Plan that addresses the organizational structure of the Offeror’s proposed team… for this project.

Is this portion of Management Approach geared toward the seed project or the MATOC as a whole?

11. Section L para 7.3.4.1.2 requires the project schedule for the seed project to be submitted in either Microsoft Project or Microsoft Excel. We are currently using Primavera P6, which can be exported to Excel. We’re curious if the Government has the ability to open a P6 data file, which would provide a lot more information than an Excel file (i.e. schedule logic), and would prefer and/or accept a P6 data file in lieu of an Excel file?

12. Reference Attachment 3 (provided in Amendment 0001): Block 4 states “Describe the type of Protective Coating predominately done by your company for this effort.” Also Block 6 is asking us to include a copy of any cure notices.

• Are projects submitted for relevant experience required to include protective coatings?

• If the entity filling out this Attachment 3 did not self-perform protective coatings on the project(s) submitted, will this result in a negative impact to the rating for this factor?

• Please clarify why projects that included protective coatings are being singled out as “relevant” for past performance

13. Section L para 8.1 states that Past Performance information is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 50% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. Section M para 3.4 states that for the purpose of this evaluation, the term “Offeror” includes the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors. This paragraph also defines relevant contracts as projects consisting of any performance on multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property as well as contract compliance in supplying indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity construction services with a total contract value of at least $5,000,000.00.

• Is Past Performance information required for major subcontractors proposed for the seed project or is the Government only requiring Past Performance information for proposed major subcontractors that will team with the Offeror for the MATOC as a whole? (most flooring subcontractors do not have experience supplying IDIQ services).

14. The Past Performance Factor requires submission of Attachment 3 – Relevant Contract Reference Sheets, and Attachment 1 – Past Performance Questionnaires. Relevancy is defined in Section M as including projects consisting of performance on multi-discipline construction projects involving repair, alteration, or new construction of real property as well as contract compliance in supplying IDIQ construction services with a total contract value of at least $5,000,000.00.

• Both of these attachments are mostly tailored to a single project and do not lend themselves very well to providing information on IDIQs and their overall value, though there are a couple of fields that pertain to IDIQ type contracts.

For example, Attachment 3 asks for Original Completion Date, then asks for Option Period/Years… then asks for original and modified price and the reason for change in price. This is confusing and we’re not sure what kind of contracts the Government is looking for on these attachments (i.e. individual projects/task orders, IDIQ contracts, or a blend of information showing both). Furthermore if we are to include a combination of single contracts and IDIQs on Attachment 3, the corresponding PPQ (Attachment 1) does not accommodate this blending of information. Please clarify how the Government would like us to demonstrate relevant experience on single projects and experience on IDIQ contracts using these two sheets.

15. Section L para 8.1.5 directs us to submit Past Performance Questionnaires for the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference (Attachment 3).

• The quantity of projects/contracts that we should submit on Attachment 3 is not specified. Is there a minimum/maximum number or projects or contracts we should submit on Attachment 3?

• Are these to be the same projects submitted under Volume II Subfactor B? (keep in mind that Volume II Subfactor B has a maximum of five projects and does not ask for key subcontractor experience, where the Past Performance factor requires key subcontractor Past Performance).

16. We have submitted numerous proposals in the past with similar requirements to this solicitation and understand that requesting Clients to fill out Past Performance Questionnaires repeatedly for the same project(s) is very cumbersome. We respectfully request that completed CCASS/CPARS submitted with our proposal be acceptable in lieu of the Past Performance Questionnaires.

17. Section L para 9.2 directs us to provide a total lump sum price using Technical Exhibit 9, Attachment 1 (per Amendment 0001). TE 9 – Attachment #1 is a site map for the seed project.

Please advise.

18. Section L para 1.11.2 states that all comments and/or questions must be gathered and submitted via a SINGLE email per offeror. Typically this would result in us waiting until right before the deadline to submit questions (18 May 2016) as more questions tend to arise after initial questions are submitted. However, there are many questions that are time sensitive, requiring response/clarification well ahead of the proposal closing date (ex. clarification on PPQ requirements that must be submitted directly to the Government by the Client) which is why we’re submitting these questions right now. Please confirm that offerors will be allowed to submit questions through multiple emails if necessary up until the cutoff for questions.

19. We understand that the purpose of the extensive, very detailed, and very specific proposal preparation requirements for this solicitation are to ensure uniform proposal format among offerors, to provide ease of evaluation for the Government, and to demonstrate that the offeror can follow detailed instructions. We’ve been successful on many IDIQ contracts of greater magnitudes and complexity where the proposals were not as granular in their requirements. Our concern is the level of effort required to respond to RFPs under this MATOC may prove to be cumbersome for the relatively low magnitude of the task orders on this MATOC. Will the level of effort required to submit this MATOC proposal will be typical of the Task Order RFPs?

20. Were drawings for the seed project included in the documentation?

Site Visit

• Proceed to site visit location at building J00548 on McChord Field.

• Site visit will commence 30 minutes after the conclusion of the Pre-proposal Conference.

Points of Contact

Contract Specialist:

Renee M. Krahenbuhl

MICC-JBLM

Phone – (253) 982-3568 Email: renee.m.krahenbuhl.civ@mail.mil

Procuring Contracting Officer:

Linda J. Murphy

MICC-JBLM

Phone – (253) 982-9888 Email: linda.j.murphy.civ@mail.mil

Mission and Installation Contracting Command