Preproposal Conf Final 8.23.10.pdf

Detroit District

Soo Security Guard y Preproposal Conference Sault Sainte Marie MISault Sainte Marie, MI

W911XK-10-R-0032

August 2010 US Army Corps of Engineers

Competition

• Set aside for Small Businesses

• The NAICS code is 561612, with a Small Business Size Standard of $18 5 million inBusiness Size Standard of $18.5 million in average annual receipts.

• What to Submit??

• Section L – Instructions for submission of proposals V l IVolume I

• Section A: Technical Capability – Original and 5 copiesand 5 copies

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

P L k ff d 4 f il i 2008

Original and 5 copies Volume II: Pricing Information – 1 original

• Poe Lock suffered 4 failures in 2008

CLIN 0001

• Base Year: Highest Required Guard Posts (old fence in place)

- Post S1 – 8 hrs per day, 0800 – 1630, Mon – Friday, excluding Federal Holidays, 52 wks/year

- Post 1 – 24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk

- Post 2 – September 30 2010, 0600 – 2400, 7 days/wk; October and May, 0600 –

2200; November 2010 – April 2011, 0600 – 1800, 7 days/wk; June 1 – June 30, 0600 – 2400, 7 days/wk

- Post 3 – 0900 – 2100 7 days/wk September 30 through the 2nd full week ofPost 3 0900 2100, 7 days/wk, September 30 through the 2 full week of October and Mothers Day through June 30

- Post 4/ Post R2 – 24 hours/day, 7 days per week

- Post 5 – 1800 – 2100, Wednesday, first Wednesday in June until 30 June

- Post 6 – 0800 – 1600, last Friday of June

- Post R1 – 24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk

- Performance Period: 30 September 2010 – 30 June 2010

CLIN 0002, 4, 6, 8

• Option for Special Events/Extra Services - Years 2 through 5

(N f i t ll d)(New fence installed)

• In accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement (paragraph C.3)

• NOTE: Performance of indefinite quantity unit priced tasks for the BASE PERIOD in accordance with the Performance Work Statement, Section C. The quantities of 120 hours realistic estimates provided solely for the purpose of bid evaluation and are not h d h bpurchased hereby

CLIN 0003, 5, 7, 9

• Security Guard Services - Years 2 through 5

(N f i t ll d d d d t )(New fence installed, reduced guard posts)

- Post S1 – 8 hrs/day, 0800 – 1630, Monday – Friday, excluding Federal Holidays 52 weeks/yrHolidays, 52 weeks/yr

- Post 1 – 24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk

- Post 4/Post R2 – 24 hrs/day, 7 days/wk

Post 6 0800 1600 last Friday of June- Post 6 – 0800 – 1600, last Friday of June

- Post R1 – 24 hours/day, 7 days/wk

Performance Period: 1 July 30 June (depending on the- Performance Period: 1 July– 30 June (depending on the service year)

Volume I – Section A Technical Capability

• Technical Proposal Contents (in d di d f i t )

Technical Capability descending order of importance):

- Management Capability

- Equipment

- Vehicle

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

Technical Capability

• Management Capability – Contractor shall demonstrate that key personnel meet qualifications

Technical Capability demonstrate that key personnel meet qualifications and have satisfactory experience in related field (the following items will carry equal weight):

- Quality Control Plan

- Training/Certification Plan

- Resumes of proposed employees for Capt of the

Guard and Sergeant of the Guard positions V l I t NOT t i i i i f tiVolume I must NOT contain pricing information

Technical Capability

• Quality of Equipment – Contractor shall submit a list and maintenance plan for the equipment and demonstrate equipment meets/exceeds specifications required (theequipment meets/exceeds specifications required (the following items will carry equal weight):

• Uniforms B d A• Body Armor

• Firearms

• Radios

• Proof of ability to operate 800 MHz radios on the

Michigan Public Safety Communication System

• Electric Cart and Wagon• Electric Cart and Wagon

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

Technical Capability

• Vehicles – Contractor shall submit proof of following (each will carry equal weight):

• Make model and proof of ownership of vehicle that• Make, model and proof of ownership of vehicle that meets or exceeds the specifications outline in the Performance Work Statement

• Vehicle Equipment and Marking for vehicle that meets or exceeds the specifications outline in the Performance Work StatementPerformance Work Statement

• Vehicle maintenance plan to include maintenance schedule

Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

Volume I – Section B Past Performance

•Completed by Offeror:

E hibit A P t P f R l

Past Performance

- Exhibit A, Past Performance Relevancy

- Exhibit B, Subcontractor Info & Consent

•Completed by references:p y

- Exhibit C, Past Performance Reference

- Must be sent from references only

•Volume I must NOT contain pricing information•Volume I must NOT contain pricing information

Volume II Pricing Information

Contents:

• SF 33 signed by an authorized representative of g

• SF 33, signed by an authorized representative of the company

• Proposed prices of each line itemProposed prices of each line item

• Section K, Representations and Certifications

• Make sure your registration is current at:• Make sure your registration is current at:

Central Contractor Registration -- www.ccr.gov Online Representations and Certifications -- orca.bpn.gov

Caref ll re ie sections

Proposal Preparation

• Carefully review sections:

Section L: Instructions, Conditions & Notices to OfferorsOfferors

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

S ti L P l P ti I t tiSection L: Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Proposal contents, format, length, etc.

S ti M P l E l ti & B i fSection M: Proposal Evaluation & Basis for Award

Proposal Preparation

• 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.

• Proposals/contract subject to the Service Contract Act - Wage Determination 05-2279 (Rev 10 ).

Proposal Evaluation

• “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 b d th f t i dditi t ibased on other factors in addition to price.

• Technical Capability is more important than Past P f d h bi d thPerformance and when combined they are approximately equal to Price

Proposal Evaluation -Technical

• Technical Capability evaluation criteria will consist of the following 3 sub-factors (in descending order of importance):importance):

• Management Capability

• Equipment

• Vehicle

• Evaluation will be at the factor level (i.e. rating will be given for Technical Capability as a whole), see scale on next pagep g

• Ratings are source-selection sensitive

COLOR DEFINITION

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 significantBlue 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.

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 orGreen 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.

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with minimal detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows aYellow 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.

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 inunderstanding of the problem with an overall high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirement.

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 majorrisk; and none of these conditions can be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

• Proposals will be rated based on past performance information

Proposal Evaluation – Past Performance

• Proposals will be rated based on past performance information received and it’s relevancy. Offerors reference information (pulled from the Past Performance Questionnaire) will contribute to their overall rating. In addition, Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deemsand evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

• The following five sub-factors will be given equal weight consideration when assessing Past Performance:

• Management Effectiveness

• Quality Control

• Timely Performance

C li ith S f t St d d• Compliance with Safety Standards

• Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

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

• Ratings are source-selection sensitive

Proposal Evaluation – Past Performance

• RELEVANCE

- VERY RELEVANT - Projects involved the magnitude of effort d l i i i il hi jand 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 j g y less magnitude of effort and complexities than what this solicitation requires.

Relevancy may affect an offeror’s overall PastRelevancy may affect an offeror s overall Past Performance rating

Proposal Evaluation – Past Performance

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.

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

Good 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.

The offeror has little/no relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. No current and/or l f d i id ifi bl hi h b i f l f i k di i A h bl

Unknown 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.

Award Procedures

• 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

Important Reminders

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

• Your first proposal will probably be your only proposalproposal.

• Read the solicitation requirements carefully.

• Consider using Section M to “rate” yourselfConsider using Section M 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• Check FBO regularly for changes

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

• Proposal are due 10 September, 2010, no extension is anticipated

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

Questions

• Questions must be submitted via email to LRE- Q t @ il l t th 1 S t bQuotes@usace.army.mil no later than 1 September 2010.

• Submit questions to the Contracting Office only do notSubmit 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?