IDBIO_PMP-FY18_Template_(26Jun18).pdf_modernization.pdf

FY18 FE WARREN AFB BLDG MODERNIZATION, WY

26 June 2018

PROJECT

MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTEGRATED DESIGN-BUILD-INITIAL OUTFIT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN: FY18 BLDG MODERNIZATION, FE WARREN AFB, WY 26 JUN 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE & AUTHORITY

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Overview

2.2 Funding

2.3 Key Milestones

2.4 Acquisition Strategy and Project Delivery Method

3 COSTS

3.1 Overview

3.2 Planning & Design Costs (P&D)

3.3 Supervision and Administration (S&A)

3.4 Design During Construction (DDC)

3.5 Transferring Funds (The MIPR Process)

4 SCHEDULE

5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

5.1 Centralized Management

5.2 Subject Matter Experts

5.3 Tracking and Measuring Performance

5.4 Standardization – Project Tools & Templates

5.4.1 Facility Assessment Survey (FAS) Guide

5.4.2 Request for Proposal (RFP) Development Guide

5.4.3 Project Management Plan (PMP) Template

5.4.4 Request for Proposal (RFP) Templates

5.4.5 Architect-Engineering (AE) and Commissioning Agent (CxA) Support SOW Templates

5.4.6 Post Award Guide

6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

6.1 Pre-Award Activities

6.1.1 Project Management Plan Development

6.1.2 Defining Project Requirements/RFP Development

6.1.3 Biddability, Constructability, Operability, Environmental, Sustainability Reviews

6.1.4 3rd Party Contract Support

6.1.5 Pre-Proposal Site Visits

6.1.6 Bidder Inquiries & Responses

6.1.7 Current Working Estimates and Government Estimates

6.1.8 Source Selection/Task Order Evaluation Boards

6.2 Post Award Activities

6.2.1 The “Contract”

6.2.2 Weekly Reports & Risk Management

6.2.3 Design After Award

6.2.4 Order of Precedence and Document Applicability

6.2.5 Documenting Contractor Performance

6.2.6 Safety & Occupational Health

6.2.7 Change Management

7 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

7.1 The Agent – US Army Corps of Engineers

7.1.1 Agent Lead

7.1.2 Local District Support

7.1.3 AE-3 Support

7.1.4 Agent Key Personnel

7.2 The Defense Health Agency (DHA)

7.3 DOD Component - Air Force

7.3.1 Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC/CF) (AF MILCON Projects Only)

7.3.2 Air Force Health Facilities Division (Air Force Projects)

7.3.3 Component Key Personnel

7.4 IDBIO Contractor

8 ATTACHMENTS

8.1 Attachment 1: Project Management Plan (PMP) Matrix

8.1.1 Tab 1-Project Costs

8.1.2 Tab 2-IDBIO Deliverables and OPRs

8.2 Attachment 2: Contractor Performance Form

8.3 Attachment 3: Change Request Form

8.4 Attachment 4: IDBIO Request for Proposal (RFP)

9 REFERENCES

10 APPROVALS & SIGNATURES

1 PURPOSE & AUTHORITY

This Project Management Plan (PMP) provides the program and project management framework for the life cycle of the project – from inception through closeout. “It is a roadmap for quality project delivery. The Project Delivery Team (PDT) is to measure its success against the expectations documented in this PMP, which is an agreement between the Agent (US Army Corps of Engineers-Little Rock District) and the Customer (AF Medical Support Agency/Health Facilities Division). It defines project objectives and project-specific quality control procedures appropriate to the size, complexity, acquisition strategy, project delivery, and nature of each product. It is signed by all PDT members, including the customer; and documents their commitment to project success. To be an effective management and communication tool, the plan must be a living document that is updated as conditions change.” [Reference: ER 5-1-11 (1 Nov 06) Memo for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands, Districts, Centers and Lab (12 Jan 07)]

“Upon authorization and/or acceptance of a project, a project manager (PM) is assigned in accordance with local procedures and form a PDT, to include the customer’s representative. The PDT, led by the project manager (PM), will develop a PMP and will budget for all phases of the project through fiscal closeout based on project authorization and requirements. The PMP and budget will continually be updated as required. The PM is to assure that the customer is an integral part of these processes and fully cognizant of his/her funding obligations”. [Reference: CEMP-M/CERM-P Memorandum (26 Mar 03), Clarification of USACE Policy on Planning and Design (P&D), Construction Supervision and Administration (S&A) and Post Award Engineering and Design Services (DDC)]

The Military Department (AFMSA/SG8F) enters into the PMP agreement pursuant to the support agreement it holds with USACE-Little Rock District (USACE/SWL). [Reference: DODI 4000.19 Support Agreements]. AFMSA/SG8F is responsible for operation and maintenance (O&M) budgets, sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM), initial outfitting (IO), transitioning and excessing. They also are primarily responsible for requirements development and the Health Affairs/Defense Health Agency (HA/DHA) is responsible for the development of policies and standards. [Reference: Per DODI

6015.7 MHS Facility Portfolio Management (13 Jan 12)]

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

FE Warren AFB’s 90th Medical Group (90th MDG) modernization is a medical clinic located in Cheyenne, WY. The 90 MDG supports 9,711 beneficiaries with capacity to see 10,780, ranging from active duty to dependents to retirees. This project will include a large renovation to the main facility, an addition/alteration to the ambulance garage, and a new Minor Construction facility for a new Vet Clinic. The main facility (Building 160) is a single-story, approximately 88,140 SF, medical clinic that was originally built as a hospital in 1977. The main clinic has a large crawl space underneath which spans most of the clinic. Large amounts of hazardous materials (HAZMAT) have been discovered throughout the clinic. The asbestos which was discovered is considered to be non-friable and so long as it is not disturbed, does not pose a threat to staff or patients. The ambulance garage (Building 161) is a single story building on a slab-foundation, approximately 3,060 SF, which is currently used as storage. The existing Vet Clinic (Building 288), approximately 2,224 SF, currently serves 8 Military Working Dogs (MWDs) and sees personal pets on a space available basis. Building 160 has seen capital improvement projects over the past couple decades to adapt to changing mission requirements. Some of the more recent projects include:

2014-2017: modernized and right-sized RMO, Appointment Clerks, Education & Training, Physical Therapy, Dental Instrument Processing Center (DIPC) and Mental Health

2001: Converted from eight (8) bed hospital to clinic. Relocated Mental Health, Bioenvironmental Engineering, Tricare and Public Health from outlying facilities into the MTF.

The FY18 FE Warren Modernization project is an O&M funded project and includes relocating, realigning, and/or right-sizing several departments, constructing one (1) addition, replacement of mechanical systems in Building 160, and constructing a new Vet Clinic. Building 160 is in sight of the historic district and all exterior updates shall obtain State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) approval.

The ultimate objective of this project is to eliminate the HAZMAT within scope areas of Building 160 (refer to Attachment D:

Level of Alteration), modernize departments to meet criteria with world-class features, reduce Bioenvironmental Engineering (BE) response time, address functional and operational efficiency, and build customer loyalty."

2.2 FUNDING

A. The design and construction portion of project is funded with O&M (SRM) funds with an award amount of ~ $38.6M.

B. The initial outfitting portion of the project is funded with O&M (IO and OP) with an award amount of ~ $5.4M.

C. Government costs, to include P&D, S&A and DDC cost are outlined in Section 3 of this PMP.

2.3 KEY MILESTONES

A. Planning/RFP Development: Oct 2017-May 2018 B. Acquisition: May 2018-Sep 2018 C. Award: 30 Sep 18 D. Estimated Period of Performance: 1460 calendar days.

2.4 ACQUISITION STRATEGY AND PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD

This project will be executed via USACE-SWL and AFMSA/SG8F’s Design-Build (D-B) Medical Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) (i.e. D-type indefinite delivery contract). Reasons to execute via the D-B Medical MATOC include:

• the MATOC has adopted standardized tools, processes and protocols thereby decreasing costs and variance in interpretation and execution

• acquisition selection is based on planning factors outlined in ER 1180-1-9 D-B Contracting (31 Mar 12)

• great expense involved with an uncapped number of firms preparing/submitting technical proposals

• time and expense for government to evaluate an uncapped number of technical proposal is too great

• the MATOC is useful since the projects under this program are similar in scope

• qualified industry partners have been prequalified to participate on the MATOC based on their highly specialized experience on similar projects

The D-B Request for Proposal (RFP) under this program uses ‘nominal criteria’ where the government uses performance requirements/specifications, stating the purpose, function, and characteristics of the project in sufficient detail to delineate and characterize functional features and the visual appearance of the project. [Reference: ER 415-11 (1 Jan 13)]

USACE-SWL and AFMSA/SG8F prescribes to Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) where key PDT members collaborate on the project from inception to completion. The “Integrated Design, Build, and Initial Outfit” (IDBIO) project delivery model fully integrates the Government PDT, the Contractor and all their key subcontractors/personnel from award through project completion and integrates furniture, furnishings, medical equipment, low voltage systems and transition early in the design process.

3 COSTS

3.1 OVERVIEW

Based on DHA guidance and USACE policy and regulations, the Program Managers have established cost containment targets for Planning & Design (P&D), Supervision and Administration (S&A), and Post-Award Engineering and Design Services (DDC).

Refer to the project cost targets in Attachment 1: PMP Matrix, Tab 1-Project Costs.

“The PDT, led by the USACE PM, will develop a budget for all phases of the project through fiscal closeout based on project authorization and requirements. The PMP and budget will continually be updated as required. The PM must assure the customer is an integral part of these processes and fully cognizant of his/her funding obligations”. [Reference: Engineering and Construction Bulletin No 2007-11, Consistent and Uniform S&A and DDC Charging Practices on Design-Build Projects from Appropriations Subject to Flat Rate Procedures (e.g. MILCON/O&M) (15 May 07)]

The USACE PM shall ensure the “IDBIO Weekly Report” accurately documents the current costs of the project to include rough order of magnitudes (ROMs) and pending change requests and modifications. Refer to Attachment 4: IDBIO Request for Proposal, 01 10 12 Administrative, Appendix 1-Weekly Report.

Each Agency is responsible for the costs of its personnel, including pay and benefits, support, and travel. Each Party is responsible for supervision and management of its personnel.

3.2 PLANNING & DESIGN COSTS (P&D)

“P&D funds will be used for all pre-award activities up to and including construction contract award and provision of contract documents for field personnel. The PM must assure sufficient P&D funding is requested and available to fund construction personnel for their pre-award activities. For IDIQ and similar task order contacts, the initial preparation of each individual task order scope is a design function”. “P&D funds will be used for all activities, including preparation of the Request for Proposal, award of the design-build construction contract and reproduction of contract documents for construction personnel.” [Reference: CEMP-M/CERM-P Memorandum (26 Mar 03), Clarification of USACE Policy on Planning and Design (P&D), Construction Supervision and Administration (S&A) and Post Award Engineering and Design Services (DDC)]

3.3 SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION (S&A)

Post award activities funded with S&A are outlined in Attachment 1: PMP Matrix, Tab 1- Project Costs1. “Realistic S&A budget requirements to produce a quality product are to be developed initially without regard to the flat rate income generated by the project”. “The S&A rate for design-build contracts will be applied to the entire contract amount and contingencies to assure management and compliance with the contract specifications regarding design submittals, administration and normal S&A of construction”. S&A functions outlined on Attachment 1: PMP Matrix, Tab 1-Project Costs, “are necessary to ensure

1 ER 415-1-16 Construction Fiscal Management compliance with contract plans, specifications and provisions, and will be charged to the appropriate MILCON or O&M flat rate account”. [Reference: CEMP-M/CERM-P Memorandum (26 Mar 03), Clarification of USACE Policy on Planning and Design (P&D), Construction Supervision and Administration (S&A) and Post Award Engineering and Design Services (DDC)]

3.4 DESIGN DURING CONSTRUCTION (DDC)

“After award of a D-B contract, DDC will fund technical reviews of the contractor’s design submittals. The reviews will be for general conformity with the design performance criteria and any prescriptive requirements. The design reviews will not be duplicative of the Designer of Record (DOR) responsibilities and as such will not include checking all design calculations, but will focus on quality assurance of the design. Technical reviews will essentially be conducted to insure code compliance and technical compliance with the solicitation and accepted proposal. Responding to contractor Requests for Information (RFIs) and similar requests relating to the interpretation or clarification of design intent or performance specifications in a solicitation prepared in-house will also be funded with DDC”. [Reference: ECB No 2007-11, Consistent and Uniform S&A and DDC Charging Practices on Design-Build Projects from Appropriations Subject to Flat Rate Procedures (e.g. MILCON/O&M) (15 May 07)]

“An appropriate balance must be achieved between the level of effort and the cost to the project to perform post-award design reviews and the benefits received. The goal is to balance the costs incurred and the risks avoided by performing effective and efficient design reviews to accomplish USACE’s responsibility as the design and construction agent to ensure we acquire technically adequate facilities consistent with our fiduciary responsibility. USACE will determine the minimum level of effort and anticipated funding requirements for an appropriate allocation of DDC which must be included in the Project Management Plan well in advance of contract award. [Reference: ECB No 2007-11, Consistent and Uniform S&A and DDC Charging Practices on Design-Build Projects from Appropriations Subject to Flat Rate Procedures (e.g. MILCON/O&M) (15 May 07)]

“After construction contract award, construction funds will be used for technical review of the contractor’s design submittals and any further clarification of project scope, as required. The level of technical review and any post-award scope development or clarification will be coordinated with the customer throughout the PMP process and the estimated cost included in the project budget. The estimated cost for the government’s review and resolution of scope issues, as required, will be included in the current working estimate (CWE) as a sub-element of the DDC line item.” [Reference: CEMP-M/CERM- P Memorandum (26 Mar 03), Clarification of USACE Policy on Planning and Design (P&D), Construction Supervision and Administration (S&A) and Post Award Engineering and Design Services (DDC)]

“Additional DDC funds for the applicable functions in paragraph 7 below will be provided as part of the award CWE consistent with the estimate in the approved PMP at time of award. Justification of any amount in excess of 0.3% of the direct construction contract amount will be required and critically reviewed by HQUSACE and/or the project proponent, as appropriate.” [Reference: CEMP-M/CERM-P Memorandum (26 Mar 03), Clarification of USACE Policy on Planning and Design (P&D), Construction Supervision and Administration (S&A) and Post Award Engineering and Design Services (DDC)]

3.5 TRANSFERRING FUNDS (THE MIPR PROCESS)

[Reserved]

4 SCHEDULE

The overall project execution duration, or period of performance (POP) is based on the Contractor’s proposed and accepted proposal. The proposed schedule is the contractually binding project completion period. The durations and schedule logic represented in the design phase is fixed upon award and cannot be altered by the Contractor without prior approval by the Government. The only adjustment the Contractor is permitted to make in the design schedule post award will be for the actual notice-to-proceed (NTP) date versus the estimated date. Refer to the accepted Contractor’s proposal for the contract’s

POP.

A typical IDBIO Project averages a total 4-year duration – from planning through closeout. Below illustrates a typical resourcing timeline. AFMSA/SG8F (in blue) heavily resources the project during the pre-award and early in the design process, where USACE (green) increases its resources latter in the design and during the construction phase.

5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

A centralized program management framework exists between the USACE-SWL and AFMSA/SG8F. This program is in response to the Military Health System/Defense Health Agency (MHS/DHA) commitments to meet the requirements outlined in the MHS Facilities Planning Report to Congress (Jun 13, p 15) as well as meet the tenants described in ER 5-1-11 USACE Business Process. This framework strives to “establish and strengthen standards, business processes and performance measurements” and “decrease variance to decrease costs of designing, constructing, outfitting and operating MHS facilities”.

Specific objectives include:

5.1 CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT

The management of the AFMSA/SG8F O&M-funded program is centrally managed and executed by the Air Force Health Facilities Divisions and USACE-Little Rock District. The IDBIO program management office provides oversight and budget of the [AF] facilities portfolio, to include design and construction, initial outfitting (IO), transition/activation, energy, sustainability and operations and maintenance. It aligns acquisition [technical, budgeting and regulatory] functions to reduce redundancy, inconsistencies, and an inability to leverage resources. It has established joint regional and global contracts, conducts research and promotes innovation, and develops project-specific support agreements (i.e. PMPs) between parties.

5.2 SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS

The program provides a robust knowledge-base of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and sustains and collaborates with high performing Contractors/Industry Partners.

5.3 TRACKING AND MEASURING PERFORMANCE

Develop/manage metrics, analyze data, identify best practices and suboptimal performance and use this information to [recycle best practice] and improve asset management.

5.4 STANDARDIZATION – PROJECT TOOLS & TEMPLATES

The IDBIO Program has standardized its management framework, request for proposals/contracts, criteria and specifications, processes and protocols, and support contracts across all projects in the Program. The objective is to, 1) consolidate, set [and/or implement] standards related to design, construction, IO, transition/activation and operations and maintenance; 2) track the use of standards through performance metrics, and 3) provide training on standardized execution. The tools and templates available to the pre and post award IDBIO PDTs are outlined herein and are available on AFMSA/SG8F’s SharePoint site:

5.4.1 FACILITY ASSESSMENT SURVEY (FAS) GUIDE

The FAS Guide is to assist the Military Service, Agents and SMEs in collecting planning and technical information that will aid in the development of an IDBIO RFP. It is tailored to Task Orders (projects) awarded via the IDBIO MATOC.

5.4.2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) DEVELOPMENT GUIDE

The RFP Development Guide is to assist the Military Service, Agents and SMEs in the development of an IDBIO RFP. An RFP is the document used to procure D-B projects. This guide is tailored to MATOCs awarded via the AFMSA/SG8F IDBIO Contract.

IDBIO Task Orders are simply D-B projects that include IO-funded furniture, fixtures, equipment, low voltage systems and transition (or move) services. The graphic below illustrates the RFP development process.

5.4.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) TEMPLATE

The Project Management Plan (PMP) Template outlines the project information, the program and project management framework, and the government team’s roles and responsibilities, specifically tailored to IPD and IDBIO project delivery.

5.4.4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) TEMPLATES

The IDBIO RFP “Templates” have been jointly developed by the AFMSA/SG8F and USACE-SWL and includes over a decade of lessons learned, input and feedback from multiple federal agencies and industry (to include Construction Contractors, Designers of Record, and Initial Outfitting companies). UFC 1-300-07A Design-Build Technical Requirements and other key references were used in the development of these tools. The graphic below illustrates the key sections of an IDBIO RFP.

5.4.5 ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING (AE) AND COMMISSIONING AGENT (CXA) SUPPORT SOW TEMPLATES The AE 3 Templates outline the services required of a qualified 3rd party Architect-Engineer firm (AE3) who provide support and conduct technical reviews for the duration of the IDBIO Contract.

5.4.6 POST AWARD GUIDE

This guide outlines standardized processes and protocols use in executing an IDBIO project.

6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The project management framework is illustrated below. It highlights key personnel from the Agent, DOD Component and Contractor – all who remain involved for the life-cycle of the project.

6.1 PRE-AWARD ACTIVITIES

6.1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT

“All work is managed using the PMP and all PDT members share this responsibility. The PM and PDT will develop and maintain the PMP at a level of detail commensurate with the scope of the project. PMPs should be concise and succinct, but address all processes and areas necessary to ensure effective project execution.”2 The PMP will be developed and coordinated for signature following the planning phase of the project.

6.1.2 DEFINING PROJECT REQUIREMENTS/RFP DEVELOPMENT

“Defining project requirements for the D-B delivery method is significantly different from requirements definition under the D-B-B method of delivery. Use of the D-B delivery method and contracts requires that the customer be able to define effectively the project's functional requirements. USACE, with the customers’ input, involvement, and concurrence, defines the design technical requirements needed to ensure achievement of the project’s defined functional requirements.

Preparation of the technical portion of the RFP for a D-B acquisition is considered design services, which must be performed either by in-house designers or prepared by an A-E firm procured under the Brooks Act procedures”3. AFMSA and USACE- SWL leadership agree AFMSA’s ‘in-house’ personnel will prepare both the functional and technical requirements for this project. AFMSA employs functional and technical SMEs who are qualified and experienced in healthcare design, construction and initial outfitting. The graphic below illustrates the process for RFP development.

6.1.3 BIDDABILITY, CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, SUSTAINABILITY REVIEWS4 The PM will ensure BCOES’ are scheduled and conducted for the project. Adequate time and funding is required to conduct an effective BCOES. The BCOES will be allocated 5-calendar days. The BCOES certification will include certification by the assigned PM and confirmation by the District Value Engineering (VE) Officer that all statutory and regulatory requirement for VE haven been completed and results incorporated or waived by legal waiver authority. BCOES reviews are subject to the requirements of ER 1110-2-1156 and/or EC 1165-2-214.

6.1.4 3RD PARTY CONTRACT SUPPORT

Using the AE3 Templates, the PM will work with the Project Officer to determine what support and services are needed from the Architect-Engineer (AE3) and Commissioning Agent (CxA). Refer to the AE3/CxA SOW.

2 ER 5-1-11 (1 Nov 06) Memorandum for Commanders, Major Subordinate Commands, Districts, Centers and Lab (12 Jan 07)

3 ER 1180-1-9 Design-Build Contracting (31 Mar 12)

4 Per ER 415-1-11 (1 Jan 13), this is required to be incorporated into the PMP

6.1.5 PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISITS

The PM will draft an agenda for the pre-proposal site visit and provide installation access instructions. Contracting will provide an overview of the solicitation and the Project Officer (PO) will provide an overview of the project’s scope. The PO, with the assistance of the PM, will coordinate the site visit agenda and actions with the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) representatives.

6.1.6 BIDDER INQUIRIES & RESPONSES

Bidder inquiries and responses are managed through ProjNet. The rules of engagement are as follows:

1. Version Control: PMs will ensure advertised documents (the same ones the Offerors have) are posted to AFMSA/SG8F’s SharePoint site.

2. Government Evaluators: PMs will ensure the following Government Evaluators (Subject Matter Experts) have ProjNet permissions:

• Project Officer

• IDBIO Integrator

• Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing SMEs

• Medical Equipment SMEs

• Transition Planning SME

• Interior Design SMEs

• Communication SMEs

3. Notifications: PMs will notify Government Evaluators when ProjNet is opened and closed.

4. Evaluations: POs & SMEs are to evaluate inquiries for their respective discipline.

5. Quality Control: The PM, with assistance from the IDBIO Integrator, will quality control against the latest version and Amendments, and de-conflict any possible contradictions to other parts of the RFP - prior to PM releasing the responses to the Offerors.

6. Release Responses to the Offerors: PMs will work with Contracting to review & release to the Offerors.

7. All responses/evaluations need to be done through ProjNet in lieu of e-mail.

6.1.7 CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES AND GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES

The Agent is responsible for preparing a Current Working Estimates (CWE) and Government Estimates (GE) in accordance with UFC 3-740-05 Handbook: Construction Cost Estimating and ER 1110-3-1300 Military Programs Cost Engineering (1 August 1999/September 2005). The Cost Engineer is a member of the PDT and shall work closely with the PM to ensure they have the most current information for preparing and updating the cost estimates.

The CWE is defined as the latest design, construction and initial outfitting cost estimate, which includes the estimated contract cost, contingency, S&A/SIOH and DDC costs. The CWE will be submitted to the Government PDT for review/comment prior to project Advertisement.

The GE is defined as design, construction, initial outfitting and transition cost estimate prepared by the government for cost control and bid evaluation. The GE does not include construction contingency or S&A costs. The term "fair and reasonable cost estimate" is used when referring to the GE. Using the GE, Senior Advisors from both Customer and Agent will assist the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of the Offeror price proposals. The GE is “For Official Use Only” therefore access to the estimate and its contents is limited to those persons whose duties require knowledge of the estimate. The KO will make this determination.

6.1.8 SOURCE SELECTION/TASK ORDER EVALUATION BOARDS

The Agent is responsible for chairing the Task Order Evaluation Boards (TOEB). The Agent will assign 2-3 Board Members, and the Customer will assign 1-2. Ideally the TOEB should consist of members who are familiar with the projects and the contents of the IDBIO RFP.

6.2 POST AWARD ACTIVITIES

Post award activities are detailed on Attachment 1: PMP Matrix, Tab 2-IDBIO Deliverables and Office of Primary Responsibility.

The Project Manager will coordinate with the USACE and AFMSA Program Manager to determine who will serve as the primary and secondary OPR.

6.2.1 THE “CONTRACT”

The Government PDT needs to understand the components of the Contract in order to administer, and enforce, the contract.

The graphic below illustrates key sections of an IDBIO Task Order Contract.

6.2.2 WEEKLY REPORTS & RISK MANAGEMENT

The Contractor is required to maintain a “Weekly [Risk] Report” (refer to Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Appendix 1-Weekly Report) and document project information and weekly issues. The purpose of this report is to keep management and the PDT informed of issues relative to cost, schedule and scope, and enable key personnel to proactively manage issues and minimize the risks to the project. The USACE Project Manager is responsible to ensure all information is current and accurately reflects issues/information. The report shall be updated weekly by the Contractor’s Project Manager and provided to the PDT prior to the Weekly Progress Meetings. The Contractor’s Program Manager is required to review it prior to release to stay abreast of localized and systemic issues and assure the information is thoroughly updated. It’s critical that Weekly Reports reflect current information and all data fields are complete. Failure to maintain this document could adversely impact the project, programming decisions, prompt resolution, change management, etc. and ultimately affects contractor final performance evaluations. Additionally, this document serves as a repository for both relevant and historical information and is used extensively for studies, analysis, and senior level reporting. At the Weekly Progress Meetings, the PDT shall review each tab of the Weekly Report. Changes, updates, and edits shall be documented by the Contractor’s life cycle Project Manager.

The Weekly Report (Risks) is a tool to document, manage and resolve risks as they become apparent. It requires the PDT to identify risk and attempt to resolve it before it impacts scope, schedule, cost, safety, or quality. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to identify and document risks. As soon as the risk presents itself, the Contractor is required to document the risk on this tab. They shall document the date the risk was identified, the title of the risk, the plan to minimize the risk, planned resolution date, the date it was resolved, possible impact to the critical path, possible cost exposure, and whether the risk requires the owner or the contractor to run point.

If the contractor continually fails to update and manage the Weekly Report and the PDT has exhausted all avenues for resolution, the PM will bring this issue to the COR/ACO for resolution with the contractor. If the issue remains a recurring situation, the SWL Program Manager and Contracting Officer will assist in resolving the issue through the contractor’s upper management.

6.2.3 DESIGN AFTER AWARD

The graphic below illustrates key design milestones and who is responsible.

6.2.3.1 MEETINGS AND SUBMITTALS

Refer to Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 13 Design After Award.

6.2.3.2 ACCEPTED DESIGN

For purposes of complying with FAR 52.236-5006 Deviating from the Accepted Design, “Accepted Design” for IDBIO Task Orders is considered the “Final Corrected Construction Documents”. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 13 Design After Award].

6.2.3.3 THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION AND LIFE SAFETY REVIEWS

6.2.3.3.1 THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION

DODI 6055.06 (2006) defines the AHJ as "The organization, office, or individual responsible, designated by the DOD Component for approving equipment, materials, and procedures for DOD Component fire departments."

UFC 1-200-01 defines the terms “Building Official” and “Authority Having Jurisdiction” (AHJ) as used in the codes and standards referenced in this UFC means the component office of responsibility, i.e., U.S. Army, HQ USACE/CECW-CE; U.S.

Navy, NAVFACENGCOM HQ Code CHE; U.S. Marine Corps, HQMC Code LFF-1; and U.S. Air Force, \1\ AFCEC /1/. The enforcement of the codes and standards as they pertain to facility projects can be delegated to the local Components Office’s Chief Engineer’s Technical Representative at the discretion of the components aforementioned office."

For Air Force projects, the role of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is designated to HQ USAF/A4C (reference AFI 32- 2001). For this program we recognize the Base File Marshall as the AHJ as long as they meet the requirements outlined in the DODI, UFC and AFI above.

6.2.3.3.2 REQUIRED LIFE SAFETY REVIEWS

A certified fire inspector and a fire protection engineer are required to review project plans. Plans may be reviewed by the local agency's certified fire inspector. Interpretations are within the lane of the AHJ informed by the opinion of fire protection engineer(s).

According to DODI 6055.06, E7.1.1. Engineering and Plans Review, "The plans for all military construction projects, facility modernization, rehabilitation programs, or self-help projects shall be reviewed by a certified fire inspector to ensure that all construction contains the fire protection and life safety features required by Reference (f) and applicable NFPA codes. The UFC requires a registered fire protection engineer to conduct a technical design review. Fire inspectors do not conduct technical design reviews (hydraulic calculations, occupant load/exit calculations, etc.), but review plans to ensure all required features are present and local emergency response elements are incorporated." The AE3 may fill the role of the registered fire protection engineer as long as it’s included in their scope of work.

Per UFC 3-600-01, 1-5, "Projects involving design or modification of, fire rated construction, fire detection, fire suppression, or life safety systems require the services and review of a qualified fire protection engineer."

Per AFI 32-2001, "The Air Force (AF) Civil Engineer provides Fire Emergency Services (FES) program policy and resources that enable FES capability to protect AF personnel, property and the environment. The AF Civil Engineer is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for Air Force FES guidance." Further, AF 32-2001 tasks the Fire Emergency Services (FES) flight with code enforcement (2.3.1.).

6.2.4 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE AND DOCUMENT APPLICABILITY

In the event of conflict or inconsistency between any of the provisions of the contract, the order of precedence is set forth in contract clause 52.236-5000 DESIGN-BUILD ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. Within the provisions of the solicitation, 01 10 11 Criteria outlines the order in which the criteria apply. If a criterion or document states a requirement that imposes a higher standard of performance and quality, then the higher standard applies. If the higher criteria and document is silent on an issue or requirement, then the next level applies. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 11 Criteria]

6.2.5 DOCUMENTING CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

Contractors are evaluated on their performance for the duration of the project. The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for documenting performance and maintaining the “Performance Form” (refer Attachment 2: Contractor Performance Form) with input from the Project Officer and the Agent’s field team. This document is tailored to the IDBIO program and is not submitted in CCASS. Contractors have been notified of this process in the RFP [reference 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 3].

The PM will ensure there is adequate supporting documentation to support the ratings provided for all ratings other than satisfactory (i.e. Weekly Reports, Confirmation Notice/Meeting Minute Responses, ProjNet documentation, Serial letters, Cure Notices, MFRs, etc.).

This process is critical to the program. This documentation will be used during the source/task order selection process of future task orders and may impact a contractor’s ability to successfully compete. The PM will provide a completed copy to the USACE and AFMSA Program Manager at each key milestone of the project:

1) Completion of Submittal 1 and 2

2) Following transition of the first two major phases (renovation projects) or 50% construction complete (on new construction);

3) Final Inspection

The Contractor is permitted to resolve or address the rating(s) within the timeframe outlined in 01 10 17 SCHEDULE, Table 1:

Schedule Constraints. The Contracting Officer, or their appointed representative, will concur/non-concur with the final ratings within the timeframe outlined in 01 10 17 SCHEDULE, Table 1: Schedule Constraints. The Performance Form will be forwarded to the Contractor, PM and COR. The COR will maintain the form in the Contracting Officer Representative Tracking Tool (CORT). The Government will also be responsible for filling out the CPARS forms in accordance with USACE guidelines.

The Agent is responsible for ensuring the Contractor, DOR and key subcontractor performance is provided in CPARS.

The local District will be also responsible for filling out the CPARS forms in accordance with USACE guidelines. The Agent will ensure the A-E of Record’s performance is included within the context of CPARS.

6.2.6 SAFETY & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

The Accident Prevention Plan (APP) will be reviewed for accuracy and applicability. The Activity Hazard Analysis/Analyses (AHA) will state the controls necessary to minimize or mitigate the risk for each identified hazard/risk. These shall be reviewed by USACE for accuracy and accepted prior to the start of that phase of work. AHA's and APP's are living documents that will be updated and amended as necessary. The COR will coordinate safety activities on the project. Initial accident investigation will be conducted by the COR when a reportable accident occurs. The investigation results will be coordinated between the Safety Office in the Resident Office and the servicing District Safety Officer. In the event of an OSHA visit or investigation, the Resident Office shall take the lead on coordination with OSHA and the Installation’s safety officials, but shall keep the servicing District Safety Office informed. The Resident Office will initiate the Preliminary Accident Notification (PAN) when required and assist with completion of the Accident Report (ENG 3394).

6.2.7 CHANGE MANAGEMENT

The following mandates, processes and protocols are all outlined in the RFPs/Contracts. The Agent (ACO, COR and PM) will ensure the PDT adheres to these processes when managing change. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 7, Change Management Process]

6.2.7.1 COMMUNICATING CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS

The Project Manager is required to address and review change management protocols with the PDT early in the project, specifically during the Pre-Charrette conference. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 13 Design After Award]

6.2.7.2 RISK MANAGEMENT AND WEEKLY REPORTS

The Contractor is required to clearly identify any design adjustments which may have a potential cost, schedule, scope, safety, and/or quality component. The objective is to complete the design & construction within the awarded firm-fixed price and within the defined scope of work. Should a cost, schedule, scope, safety, and/or quality component be identified, the Contractor is required to immediately notify the contracting officer in writing. The Weekly [Risk] Report shall be used to generally inform the PDT of these potential risks. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, DIVISION 00, Contract Clauses]

The Weekly Meetings and Weekly Reports are the tools the PDT uses to track risk and potential change. On a weekly basis, the Contractor is required to inform the PDT of any potential and/or pending cost, schedule, scope changes or impacts to the project. They also are required to inform the PDT of any changes to the Contractors key personnel. The PM will ensure this is addressed at each weekly meeting and included as a standing agenda item. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 3, Weekly Meetings, and Section 4 Weekly Reports]

6.2.7.3 SUBMITTAL UPDATES AND REVISIONS

The Contractor is required to clearly communicate ALL changes from the original proposal and the previously submitted version via highlights, bubbles, colored text, etc. This includes any changes to the PFD, PRCL, IO Price Schedules, and all technical disciplines (i.e. quality of materials). [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 13 Design After Award]

6.2.7.4 DESIGN RESOLUTION CONFERENCES & CHANGES

At the close of each design resolution conference, the Contractor is required to clearly identify potential scope changes. Any comments that may present a risk to scope, cost or schedule are required to be clearly identified on the Weekly Report.

[Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 13 Design After Award]

6.2.7.5 CHANGE IN PERSONNEL

The Contractor is required to notify the Government of any changes to their key personnel per contract clauses. They are required to address these changes at the Project Kick-Off Meeting (refer to Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 13 Design After Award]. They are required to provide resumes of key personnel that have changed since the Contractor’s proposal. If the individual project solicitation did not request resumes/qualifications, then the resumes of the individuals or firms that were identified and accepted at the time of the base contract proposal will be used to evaluate the acceptable level of qualifications and experience. Key personnel changes will be approved by both USACE-SWL PM and AFMSA/SG8F Project Officer. The qualifications of all replacement personnel must comply with the same level of experience and qualifications outlined in the Contractor’s accepted proposal and the IDBIO RFP. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 10 SOW, Section 7, PDT]

6.2.7.6 DOCUMENTING POTENTIAL CHANGES

At the close of each meeting, the Contractor is required to clearly identify any design adjustments which may have a potential cost or schedule component. The objective is to complete the design and construction within the awarded firm-fixed price and within the defined scope of work. Should a cost or schedule component be identified, the Contractor is to immediately notify the Contracting Officer, or their appointed representative, in writing. The Weekly Report is to be used to generally inform the PDT of potential costs. The Contractor is required to document discussions in meeting minutes. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 3]

6.2.7.7 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

Content within an RFI cannot change or modify the contract. If an RFI discusses an issue that amounts to a change in the contract, a modification must be issued to formalize the change. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 4, RFIs]

6.2.7.8 ARCHITECTURAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (ASIS)

An ASI is generated by the DOR to further clarify a question in the design, or to offer details for a proposed design enhancement. ASI’s shall not change the contract and may not be used as the basis to prepare a contract modification.

Material changes to the Construction Documents shall NOT be documented on an ASI. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 4, ASIs]

6.2.7.9 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - REVISIONS/AMENDMENTS

The Contractor is required to revise the Construction Documents and reissue to the PDT if there are any amendments. Revised documents are required to be marked up and newly signed and sealed by DOR and include: 1) new issuance date; 2) updated revision block written with the signature at the stamp (matching the revision date in the revision block); 3) clouded drawing and/or specification, 4) narrative summarizing revisions, and 5) Index reflecting all current changes. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative]

6.2.7.10 CHANGES WITHIN SUBMITTALS

The Government will review DOR design submittals for conformance with the technical requirements of the solicitation and the accepted Contractor proposal. The Government has the right to reject any submittal that is not in compliance with the contract (to include the Government solicitation and accepted Contractor proposal) and any submittal that would result in a constructive change to the contract. If approved, an appropriate contract modification will be executed unless the variation is minor or does not involve a change in contract price, quality, or time of performance. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 5, Submittal Reviews]

6.2.7.11 REVISIONS TO THE ACCEPTED DESIGN

Accepted design corresponds to Submittal 2 which is the DOR stamped & sealed drawings which the Government has reviewed and all comments have been resolved. Once the Final Design submittal(s) have been accepted by the Government and released for construction, the Contractor is required to not revise the design or delete any item from the project shown on the Final Design without prior Contracting Officer approval. The Contractor is required to provide all items shown on the Final Design Submittal, as accepted and released for construction. Contracting Officer’s review or acceptance of design submittal packages including the Final Design shall not be construed as a waiver from requirements where those requirements may have been erroneously expressed or omitted from the Contractor prepared design documents, unless the Contractor has specifically noted such variations and the Contracting Officer has accepted them in writing. These documents shall define the construction for this project. The Contractor must obtain both the approval of the Designer of Record and the Contracting Officer concurrence for any Contractor proposed revision to the Government reviewed and concurred Final Design. Unless the Government initiates a change to the Task Order requirements, or the Government determines that the Government furnished design criteria are incorrect and must be revised, any Contractor initiated, proposed change to the Task Order requirements, which results in additional cost, shall not be accomplished. The Contractor is required to track all approved revisions to the reviewed and accepted design and shall incorporate them into the as-built design." [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, DIVISION 00, Contract Clauses]

6.2.7.12 CHANGES TO FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

In the event that revisions are required to the Construction Documents, at the Contracting Officer, or their appointed representative, discretion, the Government reserves the right to require the Contractor to resubmit the complete revised Construction Documents at no additional cost to the Government. All design and engineering documentation shall be stamped and sealed by the DOR. Electronic stamp and seal is acceptable. [Reference Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Section 5, Changes to Final Construction Documents]

6.2.7.13 FURNITURE, FURNISHINGS, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS (AKA RPIE/PP AND CES) The Contractor’s proposed and accepted “IO/OP Price Schedule” and “JSN Price Schedule” (refer Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, CLIN Schedule-Contractor Proposal) and the advertised “Project Room Contents List” (PRCL) (refer to Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 10 SOW, Attachment B: PRCL and 01 10 13 DESIGN AFTER AWARD, Appendix 1: Example PRCL) are the ‘legacy documents’ used to track cost and scope adjustments for the project's duration. With each Design Submittal, the Contractor is required to highlight all changes from their original proposal. They are to highlight all adjustments as a result of design development and document overarching changes/adjustments made since the proposal and last submittal.

The only adjustments permitted are for Government issued modifications driving a change in quantity, a change requiring a previously unlisted item, or a change deleting the need for an item. The Contract is firm-fixed-price and the Contractor is not authorized to exceed the contract price without a modification. The Contractor is required to summarize and highlight any adjustments made at each submittal on legacy documents. Adjustments may drive a cost or no-cost modification.

6.2.7.14 SUBMITTING A CHANGE REQUEST

Change requests must be originated by either the Project Officer or the Project Manager using the attached “Contract Change Request Form”. All potential and pending changes are required to be well documented on the Weekly [Risk] Report. The information found in the Weekly Report supports the information found on the Change Request form. [Reference Attachment 3: Change Request Form and Attachment 4: IDBIO RFP, 01 10 12 Administrative, Appendix 1-Weekly Report]

The process to execute a change request is as follows:

1. The PM/Project Officer completes the Change Request Form. The form includes project information, contract references, change request details and approvals and signatures.

2. The Originator of the form must coordinate/obtain concurrence with the PDT members listed on the form.

3. The Originator clearly marks up the Contract documents that requires a change and attaches it to the Contract Change Request.

4. The PM then works with the ACO to solicit a “Request for Proposal” from the Contractor and the Cost Engineer to develop a Government Estimate for the change.

5. The RFP should request a technical proposal and all costs related to the design, construction, outfitting AND Transition. The Contractor should not be given more than 30-calendar days to provide a proposal. (Why: Contractor’s are only given 45-calendar days to provide a proposal for the entire scope of work, therefore, it should not take longer than necessary to provide a viable proposal).

6. The ACO then issues a “Modification” to the Contract (note, the Contracting Officer is required to issue a modification that exceeds $500K).

7. The PDT agrees to make every attempt to turn change requests into modifications within a 60-calendar day period so not to compound costs and time due to inaction.

6.2.7.14.1 IN SCOPE VS OUT OF SCOPE CHANGES

“In scope”…