B.07.01 W912EP21R0003 VIANG Veh MTX Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation 20220628-CDM.pptx

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

SOLICITATION NO. W912EP21R0003

National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop Addition/Alteration, Est. Nazareth Military Compound, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

Thank you for joining, we will begin shortly.

Please mute your microphone.

Working Today to Build a Better Tomorrow

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: AGENDA

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT INFORMATION

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Q&A SESSION

CLOSING REMARKS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: PROJECT INFORMATION

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912EP21R0003

PROJECT TITLE: National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop, Addition/Alteration, Est. Nazareth Military Compound, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The Scope of Work for this project consists of constructing a 4,762 SF expansion and minor repair to the existing 3,410 SF National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop that supports both organizational and support maintenance to repair combat and tactical vehicle requirements for the VIARNG. This facility will be built on Territory Land. 100% Design will be completed prior to advertisement.

This is an addition/alteration of the existing National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop. It will result in restoration and hardening of the existing site with an addition of a special purpose wash bay, battery charging area, and bulky equipment storage. This facility will be designed to meet Industry Standards as well as all local, State, and Federal building codes and as per Public Law 90-480. Construction will include all utility services, information systems fire detection and alarm systems, roads, walks, curbs, gutters, storm drainage, parking areas and site improvements. Note: Project consists of Options

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W912EP21R0003

OPTIONS: Optional work includes installing and procuring Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E), epoxy floor coating, a bridge crane, work-bay HVLS fans, water purification system, compressed air system, overhead doors, renovations to an existing VMS building.

MAGNITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION: $1,000,000 - $5,000,000.00

TYPE OF SOLICITATION & NAICS CODE: This is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The NAICS Code for this Project is 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. The Small Business Size Standard is $39.5 Million.

PROJECT LOCATION: This project location will be in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI

52.211-10 COMMENCEMENT, PROSECUTION, AND COMPLETION OF WORK (APR 1984):

The Contractor shall be required to (a) commence work under this contract within 30 calendar days after the date the Contractor receives the notice to proceed, (b) prosecute the work diligently, and (c) complete the entire work ready for use not later than 730 calendar days after the Contractor receives the notice to proceed. The time stated for completion shall include final cleanup of the premises.

52.211-12 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--CONSTRUCTION (SEP 2000):

If the Contractor fails to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, the Contractor shall pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount of $1,693 for each calendar day of delay until the work is completed or accepted.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION: EVALUATION: The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors described below. The Contracting Officer will use a trade-off process to determine which offer represents the best value to the Government. This process allows the Contracting Officer to consider making award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Merit Factor and Small Business Participation Factor. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror or the highest technically rated offeror.

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

FACTOR 3 – Price

FACTOR 1 – Technical Merit

This factor evaluates the Organizational Chart, Key Personnel Capabilities and Experience, Quality Control.

The narrative must be evaluated based on the understanding of events identified at the beginning of this section and the offeror’s capability to complete the schedule within the contract duration.

A letter of commitment (Attachment 2) must be provided as established under Factor 1 for each Major Subcontractor and each for individual submitted under the Key Project Personnel. Failure to provide a letter of commitment from a proposed major subcontractor or key personnel will be noted as a deficiency.

Factor 1 “Technical Merit” shall be limited to 35 single-sided pages using a minimum font size of 11 and a minimum margin of one-half inch on all sides; larger page layout will be accepted ONLY for the Organizational Chart and Graphic Schedule required under this Factor. Letters of Commitment will not be accounted as part of the 35 pages.

RATING SYSTEM

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP). An adjectival rating shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

The offeror’s technical solution will consist of a combined rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

Offerors shall submit 3-4 project of similar scope, size, and locations as a prime contractor. Each project must have a completed Company Specialized Experience Form – (Attachment 1), and one NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), (see Attachment 3), completed and signed by an Owner of the Project (Client) point of contact or “POC” for each of the projects submitted under Factor 2.

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate whether the offeror’s submitted past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired.

a. If a demonstrated corporate technical experience submitted in Factor 2, is determined to be Acceptable, it will also be determined to be recent and relevant in Factor 3.

b. This assessment considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last five years) and relevant past performance information in supplying products/services that meet the solicitation requirements.

CONT. FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed a demonstrated corporate technical experience submitted in Factor 2.

a. The offeror must receive a past performance rating of Satisfactory or better to be considered acceptable.

b. A Satisfactory Rating is defined in the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire.

c. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Merit Factor, and a rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor.

CONT. FACTOR – Past Performance This factor will be evaluated on Relevancy and Confidence.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, shall be considered “acceptable.”

RATING SYSTEM

After listing proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, the SSEB will assign an adjective rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” to each factor to reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's technical ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP). An adjectival rating shall be assigned, using the following criteria, which incorporate a proposal risk assessment:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

The offeror’s technical solution will consist of a combined rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

FACTOR 3 – Price

This factor is not rated. Price is evaluated for reasonableness.

The Offeror’s volume for this factor shall be fully completed and will include the following price and price related information:

a. Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4)

b. Standard Form 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) and Section 00010A (Line Items and Pricing Schedule)

CONT. FACTOR 3 - Price

c. Section 00101, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

d. In accordance with FAR Clause 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, an electronic copy of the bid guarantee shall be submitted with the offer while the original must be received within two calendar days of the proposal submission date.

e. Determination of Responsibility Form (Attachment 5)

FACTOR 3 – Price Evaluation

The Proposal Data Sheet (Attachment 4) is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

The Standard Form 1442 and completed Section 00010A will be checked for minor clerical errors and/or mistakes. After resolution of minor or clerical errors and/or mistakes, the Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal.

Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and any other pricing tools necessary.

FACTOR 3 – Price Evaluation

Section 00101 is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal. The information requested in this section shall be fully completed.

The Bid Guarantee will be reviewed for acceptability. Any offeror whose bid guarantee is unacceptable may be eliminated without further consideration unless the Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer later determines that discussions are necessary and decides that the offeror’s proposal should be included in the competitive range.

The Determination of Responsibility Form (Attachment 5) is not considered for evaluation but is required as part of the offeror’s proposal. In addition to other proposal information, the Contracting Officer shall use the information provided in the Determination of Responsibility Form in making an affirmative responsibility determination for award to the Successful offeror, in accordance with FAR Part 9.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE:

Common ERRORS FOUND IN PROPOSALS

List of noted errors that are commonly found in proposals.

Notes for Factor 1: Technical Merritt Letter of Commitments Submit all letter of commitments for key personnel and subcontractors Clearly identify the name and position of the person committing to perform the duties in the letter of commitment, especially for sub-contractors

Organization Chart Read the specifications within the solicitation. Make sure all communication and authority lines are clearly identified.

Follow the requirements for the org. chart and key personnel (which has specific requirements)

Organizational and Management Plans Safety and Quality Control requirements are within the contract and specific to USACE.

When approach to something is required, a list will not suffice. Describe the approach.

Resources, roles, and responsibilities are required for all contractors, including sub-contractors.

Resumes Ensure to follow the instructions; projects and dates to confirm experience are required.

Personnel submitted for consideration shall demonstrate in the resume that they have the experience required in the solicitation.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE:

Common ERRORS FOUND IN PROPOSALS

CONTINUED: List of noted errors that are commonly found in proposals.

5. Ensure to schedule for the duration required in the contract

6. Bid Options shall be clearly identified in the schedule as described in the solicitation.

7. Schedule shall be in calendar days. Read carefully how it will be prepared and how it will be evaluated.

8. Include all milestones and activities specified in the Solicitation; the contract provides detailed information for each item listed.

9. A single bare fore Pre-Construction submittals is not acceptable.

10. Government review periods are established in the contract; read the specifications.

11. Offeror shall provide a thorough narrative to touch on all points required in the solicitation.

Notes for Factor 2: Past Performance Ensure specialized experience complies with the requirements; otherwise, it cannot be considered as relevant.

There are additional requirements for projects submitted which are at 80% completion; ensure to provide all information required.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SUBMISSION METHOD:

The Offeror’s proposal must be received by the Government no later than the date/time specified in the solicitation and cited above. Offerors shall submit their proposal using the following link: https://piee.eb.mil/

For instructions on how to post an offer, please refer to the Posting Offer demo in the following link: https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml

Please submit proposals utilizing the link above to Contracting Officer William Wallace at William.J.Wallace@usace.army.mil and carbon copy (CC) Contract Specialist, Halis chad.d.manson@usace.army.mil. (See 00100A Proposal Requirements and Submission Format paragraph).

SUBMISSION TIME & DATE: Offers are due on July 12, 2022 at 2:00PM, EST

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS:

ProjNet closes on today, July 1, 2022 at 10:00 pm, Local Time.

Inquiries must be entered into ProjNet for an official answer.

PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BONDS: must be furnished within 10 calendar days after award.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

AMENDMENTS:

Amendment 0001 issued on 28 June 22

All Amendments must be acknowledged on the SF1442.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: Q&a

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE: CLOSING REMARKS

PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM:

William Wallace, Contracting Officer

Chad Manson, Contract Specialist

Kimberly Daniel-Ray, Deputy Small Business Program image8.png image9.png image10.png image11.emf image12.emf image13.emf image14.emf image15.png image16.svg image1.png image2.png image3.tif image4.tif image5.png image6.png image7.png