SOO Utility Line Replacement Preproposal Present Final.pdf

SOO LOCKS

Sault Ste, Marie, MI

SOO Utility Line Replacement and Air Compressor Building

W911XK-09-R-0028

-- Submitting Questions -- E-mailed to LRE-Quotes@usace.army.mil

• Unrestricted

• The NAICS code is 237110, with a Small Business Size Standard of $33.5M in average annual receipts.

Competition

• Section 00100 – Instructions for submission of proposals

– Volume I:

• Section A: Technical Capability – Original and 5 copies

• Section B: Past Performance Information – Original and 5 copies

– Volume II: Pricing Information – 1 original

What to Submit

• Technical Proposal Contents:

– TAB 1- Quality of Equipment/Material/Structures/Systems

– TAB 2- Organization & Technical Approach

– TAB 3 - Key Project Personnel Capabilities & Experience

– TAB 4 - Schedule

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

Volume I – Section A Technical Capability

• TAB 1 - Quality of Equipment/Material/Structures/Systems - Identify level of proposed quality by catalog information for the following:

– Air Compressor System

– Steam Line System

– Compressor Building

– Air Line System

– Water Line System

– Electrical Power

– Electrical Controls and controls

– Underground Connecting Tunnels

– Stairways

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

• Quality of Equipment (cont) – Tabular Format

– Table should include

• Manufacturer’s name

• Model Number

• Length of Warranty

• Size/capacity (where available)

• Efficiency (where applicable)

• Other notes or information selected by offeror

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

• TAB 2 - Organization and Technical Approach

– Describe:

• Subcontractor and manufacturer resources

• Proposed management structure for team

• The technical approach

• The team’s quality control approach

• TAB 3 - Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience

– Provide a consolidated list of key personnel with name, position title, and description of project role

– Identify design team leader, whether employed by the prime or by a design subcontractor.

– For each person provide a brief résumé at the end of the section

– Offerors shall provide letters of commitment from all proposed key personnel not currently employed by the team members

• TAB 4 - Schedule

– Provide a schedule in chart format for:

– Design

– Equipment procurement

– Construction

– Equipment installation

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

• Completed by Offeror:

– Exhibit A, Past Performance Relevancy

– Exhibit B, Subcontractor Info & Consent

• Completed by references:

– Exhibit C, Past Performance Reference

– Must be sent from references only

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

Volume I – Section B Past Performance

• Contents:

– SF 1442, signed by an authorized representative of the company

– Proposed prices of each line item

– Section 0600, Representations and Certifications

– Make sure your registration is current at:

• Central Contractor Registration -- www.ccr.gov

• Online Representations and Certifications -- orca.bpn.gov

Volume II Pricing Information http://www.ccr.gov/

• Carefully review sections:

– 00100, Instructions, Conditions & Notices to

Offerors

• Due date/time, method of submission, etc.

– 00110, Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Proposal contents, format, length, etc.

– 00120, Proposal Evaluation & Basis for Award

Proposal Preparation

• RFP includes Davis-Bacon Wage Determination MI4 and MI90

• A bid guarantee is required, 20% of price or $3 million, whichever is less

• Performance and Payment Bonds in 100% of the contract value must be provided within 10 days of award notice.

• Subcontracting Plans for large businesses – in accordance with DFARS 252.219-7003

• Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the RFP instructions; NO faxed or e-mailed proposals will be accepted.

• Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in removal from consideration for award.

• “Best Value” Award Basis

– “Best Value” is defined as an award based on the greatest overall benefit to the Government in response to the requirement. Award is based on other factors in addition to price.

• Technical Capability is more important than Past Performance

• When combined, Technical Capability and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price

Proposal Evaluation

• Proposals will be given technical capability risk ratings based on the offeror’s technical approach, proposed schedule, qualifications and other considerations as described in the sub-factors. The four sub-factors, listed in order of importance, are:

– Quality of Equipment/Materials/Structures/

Systems

– Organization & Technical Approach

– Key Project Personnel Capabilities & Experience

– Schedule

• Evaluation will be at the factor level (i.e. rating will be given for Technical Capability as a whole)

• Ratings are source-selection sensitive

Proposal Evaluation - Technical

• Quality of Equipment/Material/Structures/ Systems – The material listed in TAB 1 will be equally evaluated using the five criteria below

– Maintainability – Ease of and minimization of routine maintenance

– Reparability – Ease of restoration to sound condition after damage or failure

– Compatibility – Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements in the system

– Durability – Capable of withstanding wear and decay

– Safety – Reduction of hazards

Proposal Evaluation - Technical

Technical Proposal Evaluation

ADJECTIVAL COLOR DEFINITION

Outstanding Blue

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with extensive detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a thorough understanding of the problems and offers numerous significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Good Green

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with adequate detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows an understanding of the problems and offers some significant strengths or numerous minor strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low to moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Acceptable Yellow A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with minimal detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a minimal understanding of the problems, with an overall moderate to high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal Orange A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with minimum detail to indicate feasibility of approach and shows a minimal understanding of the problem with an overall high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirement.

Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable

Pink

An approach which, as initially proposed, cannot be rated Marginal because of a minor error(s), omission(s) or deficiency(ies) which is capable of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

NOTE: A Susceptible rating cannot be a final rating. The final rating will either increase to a rating of Marginal or better or decrease to Unacceptable.

Unacceptable Red

A proposal that contains a major error(s), omission(s) or deficiency(ies) that indicates a lack of understanding of the problems or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk; and none of these conditions can be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

• Proposals will be given past performance risk ratings based on the relevance of past performance reference questionnaire responses and the Government’s own past performance rating system (CCASS).

• The five sub-factors are as follows:

• Management Effectiveness

• Quality Control

• Timely Performance

• Compliance with Safety Standards

• Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

• The sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance

• Evaluation will be at the factor level (i.e. rating will be given for Past Performance as a whole)

• Ratings are source-selection sensitive

Evaluation

• RELEVANCE

– VERY RELEVANT - Projects involved the magnitude of effort and complexities similar to this project.

– RELEVANT - Projects involved less magnitude of effort and complexities similar to this project

– SEMI-RELEVANT - Projects involved much less magnitude of effort and complexities similar to this project.

– NOT RELEVANT – Projects involved none or significantly less magnitude of effort and complexities than what this solicitation requires.

Relevancy may affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

Outstanding

Essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record.

Performance met or exceeded contract requirements. Quality was excellent. If minor problems were identified, contractor took satisfactory corrective action to resolve where appropriate. Performance was current and very relevant to relevant. High probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements.

Good

Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Performance met contract requirements. Quality was good. If minor problems were identified, contractor took corrective action to resolve where appropriate. Performance was current and very relevant to relevant. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements.

Adequate

Some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Performance met most contract requirements. Quality was adequate. Problems were identified however; contractor usually took adequate corrective action. Performance was current and very relevant to semi-relevant. Good probability of success with an average degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements.

Marginal

Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Performance met some or did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a somewhat serious nature. Contractor’s corrective action was sometimes marginally effective to ineffective. Performance was current and very relevant to semi-relevant.

Probability of success is questionable with a high degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements.

Poor

It is extremely doubtful that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on their performance record. Performance met some or did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a somewhat serious to serious nature.

Contractor’s corrective action was sometimes marginally effective to ineffective. Performance was current and very relevant to semi-relevant. Probability of success is questionable with an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements.

Unknown

The offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. No current and/or relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant Past Performance information for the offeror or key team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

• The Contracting Officer will e-mail the Award Notice to the awardee

• An award notice including the contract price and awardee name and address will be posted to FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov)

• No information regarding unsuccessful proposals will be released

Award Procedures

• All Plans and Specifications are posted at www.fbo.gov

• It is a prime contractor’s responsibility to provide its subcontractors with copies of the plans and specifications.

Plans and Specifications

• The Government intends to award without discussions - do not anticipate a chance to make corrections or changes.

• Your first proposal will probably be your only proposal.

• Read the solicitation requirements carefully.

• Consider using Section 00120 to “rate” yourself before submitting the proposal - Is it complete?

Important Reminders

• All RFP amendments will be posted on FedBizOpps

(FBO)

• Check FBO regularly for changes

• Be sure to register at FBO – this is the “bidders mailing list” and you will get automatic notices of changes in most cases

• Proposal are due 18 August, 2009, no extension is anticipated

• After the proposal due date, no information will be available until award

Important Reminders

• Questions must be submitted via email to LRE-Quotes@usace.army.mil no later than 7 August 2009.

• Submit questions to the Contracting Office only, do not call other Government personnel.

• Questions received late may be held and addressed after the RFP closing with those who submitted offers

• Questions and Answers will be posted to FedBizOpps.

Questions

Questions?

LRE-Quotes@usace.army.mil Proposals due:

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM Eastern

RFP, all amendments, drawings, specs, questions and answers are located at:

FedBizOpps www.fbo.gov

Search for:

W911XK-09-R-0028