FINAL_PPC_Slides_25APR19.pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

W912GB19R0002 & W912GB19R0021

FY19 DB/DBB IDIQ MATOCS

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENSE OPERATIONS

IN THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

Presented by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District

25 April 2019 Sheraton Hotel Poznán, Poland

USACE TEAM INTRODUCTIONS

Mr. Tré Santos Contracting Officer

Ms. Allison Blount Program Manager

Ms. Jennifer Aldridge Strategic Engagement Coordinator

Ms. Leslie Reed Assistant Counsel

Information Provided for this Pre-Proposal Conference

Any content of this presentation, remarks or explanations provided are for general information and do not change the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

DISCLAIMER

AGENDA

Registration / Check-in 0900

Welcome / Introductory Remarks 0935-0940

About The USACE / NAU 0940-0950

Solicitation Overview, Proposal Submissions & Source Selection 0950-1030

Break – 20 Minutes 1030-1050

U.S. Procurement Law and Overseas Contracting 1050-1120

Questions & Closing Remarks 1120-1150

THE UNITED STATES ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS &

THE EUROPE DISTRICT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mission: USACE provides vital engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to secure our Nation, energize the economy, and reduce risks of disasters.

USACE is globally engaged and regionally aligned

NAU Commander: Colonel John K. Baker, P.E.

Headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany Six broad portfolios: Enduring Base Support, Forward Basing and Posture, Medical Facilities, School Facilities, Defense Security Cooperation, and Missile Defense.

Central Area Office – Sembach, Germany Ramstein AFB RO

Spangdahlem AFB PO Kaiserslautern RO

Germersheim PO Baumholder RO

BENELUX RO - Mons, Belgium Brunssum PO Netherlands Brussels PO - Brussels

Hessen Area Office –Wiesbaden, Germany Wiesbaden RO

CIC PO

Grafenwoehr RO

Ansbach PO Hohenfels PO Garmish PO

Stuttgart RO

District HQ – Wiesbaden Special Projects RO

(AFRICOM/EUCOM)

ROBMC (Hospital) Area Office*

Poland MD Area Office (Redzikowo, Poland)

•500+ Employees •25% Local Nationals •More than 30 field offices in 14 countries

Israel Area Office North RO

Haifa PO Central RO South RO

RO: Resident Office PO: Project Office *Planned Office

Northern Europe Area Office (Poznan, Poland) Powidz RO – Powidz, Poland Lask PO – Lask, Poland Riga RO – Riga, Latvia

Tallinn PO – Tallinn, Estonia

Southern Europe Area Office (MK, Romania) Romania RO – Mihail Kogalnicheanu (MK)

Campia Turzii PO – Romania* Romania MD PO – Deveselu, Romania NSTA PO – Bulgaria

Mediterranean RO – Vicenza, Italy Aviano PO Livorno PO TUSEG – Incirlik AB, Turkey Caucasus PO – Tbilisi, Georgia

EUROPE DISTRICT OFFICES

SOLICITATION, PROPOSAL

SUBMISSIONS AND

SOURCE SELECTION

• Summary Information

• Procurement Timeline

• Registrations & ID Numbers

• Federal Business Opportunities

• Pre-Proposal Inquiries & ProjNet

• Instructions: Proposal Format

• Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

• Source Selection Approach

• Debriefings

• RMS / QCS

• Final Comments

OVERVIEW

• Two Solicitations resulting in the award of up to five contracts for each MATOC.

• Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures (FAR 36.303)

After Phase ONE evaluation, the Government will select a maximum of seven (7) of the most highly qualified Offerors to submit competitive proposals in Phase TWO.

After Phase TWO, the Government intends to award a target of five (5) IDIQ Contracts and one SEED Task Order.

• Shared Capacity

• Base Ordering Period of 5 years or when combined capacity is reached, whichever occurs first.

• Source Selection Approach: Best Value Tradeoff Process (FAR 15.101-1)

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Solicitation # W912GB19R0002 W912GB19R0021

Title DB/DBB "Large" MATOC DB/DBB "Small" MATOC Total Shared Capacity $249,500,000 $49,950,000

Min Guarantee $3,000 $3,000 Task Order Limitations* $5,000,000 to $49,000,000 $250,000 to $7,000,000

Factor 1: Projects between $5,000,000 to $49,000,000 minimum of $2,000,000 Seed Task Order DB Railhead in Powidz TBD, Phase Two.

BLA/BLG Amount 25% of proposed SEED Project Price 25% of proposed SEED Project Price

Bidder Inquiry F4P29E-776HBP QE3TJC-9B8P7P FBO Link https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/COE/DA

CA90/W912GB19R0002/listing.html https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/COE /DACA90/W912GB19R0021/listing

.html *KO reserves the right to RFP above or below the min/max amts.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE: The purpose of this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) is to provide for Design-Build (DB) and Design-Bid-Build (DBB) construction requirements for new facilities and real property repair and maintenance in support of defense operations in Poland. The work may include, but is not limited to:

general building renovation, vertical construction, anti-terrorism force protection of new and existing facilities, horizontal construction, and incidental work.

1.3 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION: The geographical region covered under this scope is the country of Poland with locations including, but not limited to Swietoszow, Boleslawiec, Zagan, Poznan and Powidz.

for Design-Build and Design-Bid Build Construction new facilities and real property repair and maintenance in support of defense operations in Poland.

TWO PHASE DESIGN-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES (SEE FAR 36.303)

Phase ONE:

Offerors shall submit specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully perform task orders under the awarded contract.

The Government will evaluate the qualifications in accordance with the criteria described in this

Solicitation and intends to select a maximum of seven (7) of the most highly qualified Offerors to submit competitive proposals in Phase TWO.

Phase TWO:

Those Offerors selected for Phase TWO will be provided the technical requirements package for a

Seed Task Order that will be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

The Government will evaluate both technical capability and price. Only those Offerors who receive a written notification that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase TWO of this Solicitation are invited to submit a Phase TWO proposal.

The Government intends to award a target of five IDIQ contracts resulting from Phase TWO.

MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACTS (MATOCS)

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 Instructions

Phase ONE

• Solicitation Issued – 05 APR o Amendment 0001 – 29 APR

• Pre-Proposal Conference – 25 APR

• Pre-Proposal Inquiries Due – 02 MAY

• Proposals Due – 09 MAY

TIMELINE

Phase TWO

• Solicitation Issued – 30 MAY

• PPC & Site Visit – Week of 10 JUN

• Proposals Due – 08 JUL

• Award of Contracts & SEED Order/ Min. Guarantee – AUG/SEPT

Up to 7 most highly qualified offerors

Blue = Actual Red = Planned

SOLICITATION

W912GB19R0002

IDIQ AWARD

Company A

W912GB19DXXX1

IDIQ AWARD

Company E

W912GB19DXXX5

IDIQ AWARD

Company D

W912GB19DXXX4

IDIQ AWARD

Company B

W912GB19DXXX2

IDIQ AWARD

Company C

W912GB19DXXX3

Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX3-

W912GB19FXXX3

$3,000.00

Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX2-

W912GB19FXXX2

$3,000.00

Min. Guarantee Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX5-

W912GB19FXXX5

$3,000.00

Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX4-

W912GB19FXXX4

$3,000.00

SEED Project

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX1-

W912GB19FXXX1

€ / $ Bid Price

SOLICITATION

W912GB19R0021

IDIQ AWARD

Company F

W912GB19DXXX6

IDIQ AWARD

Company J

W912GB19DXX10

IDIQ AWARD

Company I

W912GB19DXXX9

IDIQ AWARD

Company G

W912GB19DXXX7

IDIQ AWARD

Company H

W912GB19DXXX8

Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX8-

W912GB19FXXX8

$3,000.00

Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX7-

W912GB19FXXX7

$3,000.00

Min. Guarantee Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXX10-

W912GB19FXX10

$3,000.00

Min. Guarantee

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX9-

W912GB19FXXX9

$3,000.00

SEED Project

TASK ORDER

W912GB19DXXX6-

W912GB19FXXX6

€ / $ Bid Price

Shared Capacity

NTE $249.5M

over 5 years, whichever occurs first

Shared Capacity

NTE $49.95M

over 5 years, whichever occurs first

NTE = Not To Exceed

REGISTRATIONS & IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS

System Description Website General Timeline

DUNS Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS):

Unique nine-digit identification number for each physical location of your business http://www.dnb.com 24-48 hours

CAGE /

NCAGE

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code http://www.dlis.dla.mil/ cage_welcome.asp https://eportal.nspa.na to.int/AC135Public/def ault.aspx

7-11 business days

SAM System for Award Management (SAM) is a registration database required for all US Federal Government Contracts https://www.sam.gov/ 2 weeks to go active

FBO Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) a web-based portal which allows vendors to review U.S. Procurement Opportunities and submit proposals https://www.fbo.gov/ Immediate

• Provisions/clauses require all contractors to register and maintain an active SAM entity registration in order to be eligible for contract awards, as prescribed by the regulation at FAR Subpart 4.11.

Solicitations Provision: FAR 52.204-7 SAM or FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items

Contract Clause: FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance or 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions-- Commercial Items.

• Contractors are required to update SAM registration ANNUALLY.

• In order to eligible for the contract award resulting from this solicitation, Offerors are advised to take immediate action to ensure your SAM entity registration is current and/or will be current at the time of proposal receipt by this contracting office.

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

• U.S. Federal Government mandates contractor registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to the award of a Federal contract.

• How does your company register in SAM? Go to: https://www.sam.gov/

• The website contains a video overview briefing and user guides for assistance.

• For Help with SAM or FBO, Contact the Federal Service Desk: www.fsd.gov

Live Chat or Web form or via Phone U.S. Calls: 866-606-8220 International Calls: 334-206-7828 Hours of Operation: Monday - Friday 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET

SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Dorota MIRECKA

Phone: +48 261 877 858 / 898 Fax: +48 261 877 888 E-mail: ncbpl@ron.mil.pl

POLAND POINT OF CONTACT

• All Requests for Proposal (RFP) documents and amendments are available for viewing at the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website http://www.fbo.gov

• It is the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

• The FBO vendor user guide has information & instructions on how to utilize FBO, accessible via the following web URL:

https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf

SOLICITATIONS & AMENDMENTS

• The Bids/Responses feature is enabled by the Buyer (USACE) for this solicitation. Offerors shall submit an electronic response through document upload.

• Pay special attention to stated proposal deadlines. Late proposals in nearly all cases will not be considered.

• Vendors must login to be able to submit/review electronic responses.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

FBO REGISTRATION

Enter DUNSEnter DUNS

Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet.

Bidder Inquiry Keys:

Large: F4P29E-776HBP Small: QE3TJC-9B8P7P

The Bidder Inquiry System will be closed to new inquiries seven (7) calendar days prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES VIA PROJNET

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

Select USACE

Enter Email

See Section 00 21 00

• File Size Limitations. Offerors are advised to follow the FBO instructions for uploading files larger than 10MB (java upload).

• File Name. Each filename shall begin with the solicitation number, followed by the word “RESPONSE”, followed by your firm’s name, and finally a brief file description. EXAMPLES:

(1) “Firmname Volume I W912GB19R0026 RESPONSE .pdf”

(2) “Firmname Volume I Part 1 W912GB19R0026 RESPONSE .pdf”

(3) “Firmname Volume I Part 2W912GB19R0026 RESPONSE .pdf”

(4) “Firmname Volume I diagramsW912GB19R0026 RESPONSE .pdf”

(5) “Firmname Volume II W912GB19R0026 RESPONSE.pdf”

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

• File Organization, Formatting, and other instructions.

Although hard copies are not accepted, each file shall be clearly indexed, and logically assembled. Font size shall be 10 or larger. Pages shall be letter sized--larger page sizes (such as 11x17 foldouts, etc.) will be counted as two pages.

Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language.

Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors.

Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented.

Files shall be submitted in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

• Upload Completion & Deadline.

Interested parties shall submit responses no later than the date specified on solicitation document.

The time & date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion / delivery time & date recorded within FBO.

Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process and troubleshooting.

• Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of Provision “FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e).

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 10 - Evaluation

PHASE ONE

The following Factors will be evaluated in Phase ONE and are of equal importance to each other:

Factor 1: Experience Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Management Approach

The distinction between experience and past performance is experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity.

Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL & EVAL FACTORS

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

Section A - Executive Summary. Include a one page cover letter and any applicable fully-executed joint venture agreements.

Section B - Factor 1, Experience. Include a completed Summary sheet and an Experience Information Sheet for each project.

Section C - Factor 2, Past Performance. Include completed CPARS records and/or completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Forms for each project submitted under Factor 1.

Section D - Factor 3, Management Approach. This section shall include a narrative describing the Offeror’s proposed management approach. Limited to 20 pages.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME I

VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

1. Section A – Cover Letter. Offerors shall submit a cover letter in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(2), including:

i. The solicitation number.

ii. The Offeror’s name, address, and phone/email contact information.

iii. A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered.

iv. Names, titles, and telephone / email contact information of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

v. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority.

2. Section B – Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments). Offerors shall submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 1442 using a printed copy of the SF 1442 included in this solicitation. If applicable, Offerors shall also submit a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment, acknowledging all the amendments.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II

VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Continued)

3. Section C – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications. Offerors shall submit the following:

i. A completed clause FAR 52.204-8(d).

ii. A copy of their current “Entity Registration” in the System for Award Management (SAM) as recorded at www.sam.gov, showing the following sections: “core data, “assertions”, and “POCs”.

iii. A copy of their current “FAR & DFARS Report” that demonstrates all their completed representations and certifications as recorded at www.sam.gov.

4. Section D - Financial Information (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and or number, bank name, and POC, etc).

PROPOSAL FORMAT (CONT)

KEY DEFINITIONS

STRENGTH:

• An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

WEAKNESS:

• A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS:

• A flaw that substantially increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

DEFICIENCY:

• A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 01 - Evaluation

Submit a minimum of 5 and maximum of 7 projects that meet the following definition:

i. The contract was awarded to the Offeror as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a JV, the contract must have been awarded to either member of the JV as the prime contractor. In the case of an Offeror that is a prime-sub team (see previous paragraph on teaming arrangements), the contract must have been awarded to the prime or the key sub-contractor.

ii. The contract was completed no earlier than six (6) calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or has been ongoing for at least one year before the closing date of this RFP.

iii. The contract is fundamentally for design-build or design-bid-build construction work.

iv. Projects with a cost of $5,000,000 to $49,000,000 [W912GB19R0002] or Projects with a minimum cost of $2,000,000 [W912GB19R0021].

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE – SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

For the purposes of evaluation under this factor, more consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates greater depth and breadth of experience that involve the following (listed is in no order of importance). Projects that demonstrate experience….

i. with both project delivery methods (DB and DBB). Note: An offeror that does not demonstrate at least one DB and one DBB project will be considered unacceptable for this factor.

ii. working in Poland.

iii. working in European Union countries.

iv. working with the United States Government.

v. working in both new construction and major renovations of existing buildings.

vi. working in both horizontal and vertical construction.

vii. with multiple projects concurrently involving multiple trades.

viii. working with proposed Key Subcontractors and/or the proposed JV Partners.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE – EVALUATION CRITERIA

FACTORS 1 & 3 RATING

NON-PRICE FACTOR COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 00 - Evaluation

Risk levels as described in the adjectival ratings in the combined technical/risk rating table will be assessed according to the following guidelines:

NON-PRICE FACTOR TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

RISK LEVELS

For each project submitted under Factor 1, Offerors shall include completed CPARS record or completed Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form.

If available, a completed record from the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be accepted for evaluation under this factor. An interim completed CPARs rating will be considered if a final record is not available. If a completed CPARS record is not available at all, Offerors shall complete and provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form, provided as an RFP Attachment.

The completed PPQ shall not exceed 4 pages per contract.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE – SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Ref: RFP Attachment 3

PPQ FORM

• The SST will evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine how likely Offerors will be successful on the work under this solicitation.

• The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated based on performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 Experience, as well as other projects not submitted by the Offeror, to include the past performance of any Subcontractors or JV partners the Offeror may have submitted.

• This assessment will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance.

• Key focus areas will include the following (see PPQ): Quality, Schedule/Timeliness of Performance, Customer Satisfaction, Management/Personnel/Labor, Cost/Financial Management, AND Safety/Security

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE – EVALUATION CRITERIA

• Past Performance Relevancy Rating. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

• Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. In conducting the confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified on NEXT SLIDE.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONT)

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to ‘successfully perform the required effort.

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 (see FAR 15.304(a)(2)(iv)). If an Offeror has no relevant past performance history, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan, which shall include at a minimum:

i. An organizational chart and narrative description of the Offeror’s overall structure and management of the project team from the Offeror’s Headquarters to the Offeror’s site office(s). The chart and narrative must:

identify all offices involved in this contract identify all positions by title, organization, and physical location, including subcontractors and consultants include lines of reporting and technical areas of responsibility under the contract clearly show the lines of authority of the Offeror’s Project Manager, Quality Control and Safety

Organization, including all JV Partners and subcontractors, when applicable

ii. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure quality consistently across the team.

iii. Discuss quality control lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

iv. Discuss how the Offeror will ensure safety consistently across the team. Discuss safety lines of authority between subcontractors and prime.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

v. Discuss the Offeror’s plan to obtain, retain, coordinate, and manage subcontractors. Include any established relationships with organizations qualified for work within the scope of this RFP, including number of projects that have been completed together and/or number of years of partnering. Identify the significant aspects of the work that are to be self-performed and those that will be subcontracted. Identify the nature and overall percent of work that will be performed by the Prime Contractor and all key sub-contractors. Offerors are reminded of the requirements of 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor.

vi. Discuss the Offeror’s Criteria for selection of the Designer(s) of Record for types of work to be accomplished under this contract.

vii. Discuss knowledge of engineering and design in Poland to include coordination with host nation authorities and the ability to communicate in Polish and English.

Offerors should identify any additional and/or unique management advantages their proposal provides to the Government.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (CONT)

The Management Plan/Approach will be evaluated as one factor. This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method for accomplishing work under this MATOC. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements associated with the design, construction, and administration responsibilities associated with projects for the US Government as spelled out in the documents and demonstrate their ability to accomplish those requirements.

The Offeror’s Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, risk, and logic.

The Government will evaluate whether and to what extent the management plan:

i. Clearly defines the planned organization structure and presents a logical, viable approach to perform the work described in the RFP documents and achieve the desired quality.

ii. Delineates lines of authority appropriately including the relationship between the headquarters’ office and the site office, including all involved with the management of the contract including subcontractors and joint venture partners (where applicable) and identifies which personnel are identified to communicate with the Government.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – EVALUATION CRITERIA

iii. Comprehensively describes the duties, roles, major responsibilities, and authorities for key personnel, including roles of authorities for subcontractors and joint ventures.

iv. Describes management for performance of a potential task order including Offeror’s planned approach to the following:

quality control staffing (both management and labor to perform a typical design and construction project) obtaining, retaining, coordinating, and managing subcontractors.

v. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough knowledge of engineering and design in Poland to include coordination with host nation authorities.

vi. Whether the Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of certification and registration requirements for companies in Poland and the ability to meet the requirements along with the demonstrated ability to communicate in Polish and English.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – EVALUATION CRITERIA (CONT)

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 10 - EvaluationSee previous slide 35 for combined technical/risk rating.

PHASE TWO

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 20 - Evaluation

The following Factors will be evaluated in Phase TWO:

Factor 4: Technical Approach – Seed Project Factor 5: Price – Seed Project

Phase ONE evaluation ratings will continue into Phase TWO. All non-price factors (Factors 1-4) are of equal importance to each other; and all non-price factors (Factors 1- 4), when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price (Factor 5).

PHASE ONE PROPOSAL & EVAL FACTORS

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

Section A – Factor 4, Technical Approach – Seed Project.

VOLUME II, PRICE

Section A – Cover Letter

Section B – Completed Solicitation Form (and amendments).

Section C – Bank Letter of Assurance or Bid Bond. Bank Letter of Assurance or Bid Bond equivalent to 25% of the proposed price. See format provided as RFP attachment.

Section D – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications.

Section E – Factor 5, Price – Seed Project

PROPOSAL FORMAT – PHASE TWO

• The Offeror must demonstrate the capability and flexibility to plan and schedule the complete project to meet the required contract completion period stated on the schedule.

• Schedule shall be prepared in Primavera P6 and submitted in native XER format and shall be specifically-tailored to the SEED project. The schedule shall include all of the major portions of work, including submittals, reviews and approval periods.

• The schedule shall address long lead-time items and shall take into consideration all major portions of work.

• For the purposes of this section only, the Offeror shall use the date of *To Be Determined* for Notice to Proceed (NTP) and should prepare the schedule assuming that all base line items and options will be awarded on that date.

FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH – SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 20 - Evaluation

Provide a Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule describing the proposed approach to executing the work required by the RFP documents for the SEED Project.

The written Technical Approach Narrative shall include all of the following:

a. A description of the Offeror’s plan for executing the work from start to finish, which meets the contractual milestone dates and performance requirements defined in Section 01 10 00 Summary of Work (SEED Project).

b. A description of activities along the two most critical paths of the schedule explaining how durations were determined and logic developed.

c. A description of any construction work to be performed during the late fall, winter, and early spring, with special consideration being given to cold an inclement weather conditions that may be encountered during this time period and any special measures that the Offeror has considered in their proposal.

d. Identification of the 5 (five) main areas of risk identified by the Offeror in their schedule, along with the measures they have incorporated to mitigate the risk.

e. Clearly identify any constraints on the schedules presented (e.g., labor or material availability, permits, weather, etc.).

FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH – SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS (CONT)

The Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule will be evaluated as one factor. The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative and schedule will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and risk associated with the proposed schedule as compared to the Solicitation requirements.

• In assessing reasonableness, the Government will take into account how well the proposed summary schedule supports the contract duration as compared with the Solicitation requirements and how well it supports and correlates to the work plan narrative. Further, the Offeror’ schedule must specifically demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the milestones specified in the price schedule and specification sections. In addition, the Government may use independent judgment concerning logic, constraints and typical construction durations.

• The length of the schedule must be equal to the contract duration.

• The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess conformance with the Solicitation requirements, the strength of understanding of the project scope, and restrictions, which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., long lead items, critical milestones, logic of proposed phasing, etc.). The Government will evaluate the strength of understanding of events associated with the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH – EVALUATION CRITERIA

See previous slide 35 for combined technical/risk rating.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: The Offeror is required to submit a complete Price Proposal Form that includes completion of all contract line item numbers (CLINs).

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but rather the Government will evaluate price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

The Contracting Officer may require additional Other than Cost and Pricing Data to support analysis. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the Solicitation.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

FACTOR 5: PRICE – SEED PROJECT

The Government intends to award the seed project to one of the successful MATOC awardees at the same time as the MATOC award.

The basis for award for the seed task orders will be best value tradeoff and will use the same non-price evaluation criteria and relative importance as the MATOC award decision.

The Contracting Officer will individually select the awardee that presents the best value to the Government for each seed project.

Minimum guarantee task orders will be issued to each successful MATOC awardee that is not selected for a seed task order.

The minimum guarantee is over the full term of the contract.

Upon the award of a subsequent task order, the minimum guarantee will be deobligated.

SEED TASK ORDERS / MINIMUM GUARANTEE

What is a Debriefing?

A Debriefing under FAR Part 15 is an opportunity for an offeror to better understand the basis for an agency’s selection decision.

Debriefings give you a chance to hear from the agency regarding:

the evaluation process;

how your proposal was evaluated in relation to the evaluation criteria;

what was successful in your proposal;

what was lacking in need of improvement in your proposal; and reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether the source selection procedures were followed.

Offeror must submit a debriefing request to USACE within 3 calendar days after notification of exclusion from the competitive range or contract award.

DEBRIEFINGS

The Government Staff will use the RMS program and the Contractor Staff will use the associated QCS program.

RMS Support Center YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_ID-JmaZgePmlrb2zdUOqg

RMS 3 Contractor Mode User Manual:

https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMS3CM.

pdf Download RMS 3.0 Contractor Launcher:

https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMSLaun cherSetupKtr25.exe Installing RMS 3.0 Contractor Mode https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/Installing %20RMS%203.pdf

RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RMS)

The Resident Management System (RMS) and the Quality Control System

(QCS) are quality management and contract administration programs designed by Resident Engineers. The systems provide an efficient method to plan, schedule, and control all aspects of construction.

Ref: Specification Sections 01 45 00 & 01 45 01

What is QCS:

The Quality Control System (QCS) is a user-friendly comprehensive system for the expedient and effective management of construction contracts through tracking and documentation of all facets of a contract being administered for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction field offices.

Purpose of QCS:

The Quality Control System (QCS) is the Contractor’s Quality Control module of the

Government’s Resident Management System (RMS) and was developed to assist contractors in providing contract-required data to the Corps of Engineers. Furthermore, by taking advantage of the monitoring and reporting aspects of this program, the contractor can perform quality control activities more consistently and within the requirements specified by the Corps of Engineers.

QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM (QCS)

FINAL COMMENTS / REMINDERS

• Offerors with technical inquiries shall submit their inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. Bidder Inquiry Key:

W912GB19R0002: F4P29E-776HBP

W912GB19R0021: QE3TJC-9B8P7P

• You may be disqualified for submitting a proposal that does not meet all of the requirements.

• Proposals must be submitted using Bids/Responses feature on

FBO

• REMEMBER: Clearly Organize and properly label your proposal.

Mr. Tré Santos Contracting Officer Email: Dayon.T.Santos@usace.army.mil

POINTS OF CONTACT

U.S. PROCUREMENT LAW &

OVERSEAS CONTRACTING

MS. LESLIE REED

ASSISTANT COUNSEL

• US Procurement Regulations and Important Clauses

• Joint Ventures

• Bonding Requirements

• Compliance with Local Labor Laws and Defense Base Act Insurance

• Prime Contractor Project Management

• Miscellaneous Points

OVERVIEW

Contracts are awarded and executed under United States Procurement laws and regulations.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm

Army FAR Supplement (AFARS) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfafara.htm

U.S. PROCUREMENT LAW AND REGULATIONS

DFARS 252.233-7001

This contract shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the United States of America. By the execution of this contract, the Contractor expressly agrees to waive any rights to invoke the jurisdiction of local national courts where this contract is performed and agrees to accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and the United States Court of Federal Claims for the hearing and determination of any and all disputes that may arise under the Disputes clause of this contract.

CHOICE OF LAW (OVERSEAS)

USEUCOM CLAUSE 52.000-4004

The contractor agrees to indemnify and save harmless the United States Government against all claims and suits of whatsoever nature arising under or incidental to the performance of this contract by any subcontractor against the United States Government. The Contractor further agrees to waive his rights to bring suit or other legal action against the United States Government, except as provided in the Disputes clause of this contract and in the United States Federal Statutes.

IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL PROCESS

• The U.S. Government is very concerned that laborers on our projects receive working conditions and wages in accordance with Host Nation laws and regulations

• “Compliance With Local Labor Laws”, provides that contractors must comply with all host nation labor laws and regulations including laws and regulations relating to hours of work and compensation.

• Be aware that this applies to subcontractors as well as the prime contractor – the prime contractor is responsible for ensuring that all workers on the project are properly paid, regardless of whether the workers are employed directly by the prime contractor, principal subcontractor or subcontractors at any tier.

• The Government will always hold the prime responsible.

COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LABOR LAWS

• DBA Insurance coverage is required for work performed under U.S.

contracts in Poland by all contractors and subcontractors. No other insurance can serve as a substitute.

• Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance is commercially available from carriers and self-insured employers authorized by the Department of Labor (DOL). The DOL table of authorized carriers and self-insured employers is available at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lscarrier.htm

• Refer to FAR Clause 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) (July 2014) and 52.000-4133 Workers Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) – Countries with Waivers (March 2017) for more DBA Insurance information and how to obtain DBA Insurance

DEFENSE BASE ACT (DBA) INSURANCE

• Typically US government requires 100% Performance and Payment bonds issued by approved US surety companies (See FAR 52.228-15)

If specifically allowed in the RFP (which it is here), a Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA) and after award a Bank Letter of Guarantee (BLG) must be submitted.

• The Government must be able to draw on the BLGs upon request without the need to take any legal action or obtain the consent of the contractor or any other proof or action.

Note: If a Joint Venture (JV), the Bank Letter of Assurance must cover the JV, not just one member of the JV.

BONDING REQUIREMENTS

If submitting a proposal as a joint venture (JV), the experience and past performance for each joint venture partner will be considered for the joint venture entity. JVs shall submit the following:

– A legally binding joint venture agreement signed by an authorized officer from each of the firms comprising the JV.

– Shall identify the chief executive of each entity identified

– Shall be translated into English

– Shall include a detailed statement outlining, in terms of percentages, the relationship of the JV in terms of ownership, capital contribution, profit distro/loss sharing; bonding responsibilities; party having overall control, etc.

Note: The JV agreement must show that joint venture members are jointly and severally liable for any obligations under the contract.

JOINT VENTURES

See RFP Section 00 21 00 for exact Instructions

- During Source Selection, prime contractors can receive credit for the experience, past performance and capabilities of a teaming partner provided the proposal includes an agreement with full disclosure of the teaming arrangement and company relationships, which must be signed by authorized representatives of all team members.

- The proposal must explain the major or critical aspects of the work to be performed by each team member (to include identification of team members, a full description of roles and responsibilities of team members, and the duration of the agreement).

TEAMING AGREEMENTS

• The U.S. Government contracts are with the prime contractors.

• USACE expects the prime contractor to actively manage the project and ensure the work meets contract requirements and the U.S. Government will hold the prime contractors responsible for contract execution.

• When issues arise, the U.S. Government deals with primes, not subcontractors.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Provision “Compliance With Host Country Rules and Customs” provides that the contractor is responsible for:

– Adequately manning and staffing the project.

– Obtaining any necessary visas, permits, clearances for workers.

– The contractor assumes the risk and cost of obtaining the necessary labor to execute the project.

– The U.S. Government will not compensate you if labor turns out to be more expensive than you expected.

– This is true even if the reason for the added expense is a change in HN laws and regulations that increases your labor cost.

– The U.S. Government may not have any influence over the HN in regards visas or work permits and may not provide any assistance.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT (CONT.)

• During Source Selection, prime contractors can receive credit for the experience, past performance and capabilities of a subcontractor provided the proposal includes a letter of commitment signed by authorized representatives of both the prime and subcontractor. These commitments should be used only for those key subcontractors that you anticipate using on all task orders because you will be expected to use the committed subcontractors for the work you perform.

• Similarly, when a proposal specifies prime personnel by name you are expected to use those personnel for the work performed.

• Substitutes of key personnel or key contractors after award are allowed only with Contracting Officer approval.

PRIME CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT (CONT.)

Information Provided for this Pre-Proposal Conference

Any content of this presentation, remarks or explanations provided are for general information and do not change the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

REMINDER DISCLAIMER

CLOSING COMMENTS