A.08.02_MATOC_PPC_Slides_Italy_2019.04.17_FINAL.pdf

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

SOLICITATION #: W912GB19R0031

FY19 DB / DBB IDIQ MATOC IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENSE OPERATIONS IN ITALY.

Presented by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District

16 April 2019 Vicenza, Italy

AGENDA

Registration / Check-in 0900

Welcome / Introductory Remarks 0935-0940

About The USACE / NAU 0940-0945

Procurement Matters: Timeline, Systems, Solicitation, Proposal Format & Submission, Evaluation Criteria, Debriefings, etc.

0945-1030

Break – 15 Minutes 1030-1045 Resident Management System (RMS) 1045-1100

Final Comments / Closing Remarks / Questions 1100-1130

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

THE UNITED STATES ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS &

THE EUROPE DISTRICT

JOSHUA MUELLER

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

PROCUREMENT MATTERS

MR. JOSHUA MUELLER

CONTRACTING OFFICER

• Procurement Timeline

• Registrations & ID Numbers

• Federal Business Opportunities

• Pre-Proposal Inquiries & ProjNet

• Instructions

• Proposal Format

• Evaluation Criteria

• Source Selection Approach

• Debriefings

• RMS/QCS

• Closing

OVERVIEW

TIMELINE

Phase I – Determines most highly qualified.

Phase II – MATOC awardees selected amongst most highly qualified from Phase I.

Date

1-Apr-2019

16-Apr-2019

28-Apr-2019

8-May-2019

3-Jun-2019

13-Jun-2019

28-Jun-2019

3-Jul-2019

26-Jul-2019

2-Aug-2019

6-Sep-2019

Milestone

So lic ita tio n (P ha se

I) Phase I RFP

Phase I Pre-proposal Inquiries Due

Phase I Proposals Due

Phase I Pre-Proposal Conference

Phase II Revised Proposals Due (tentative)

Phase II Open Discussions (tentative, and only if necessary)

Phase II RFP (tentative)

So lic ita tio n (P ha se

II

Anticipated Award (tentative)

Phase II Proposals Due (tentative)

Phase II Site Visit (tentative)

Phase II Pre-proposal Inquiries Due (tentative)

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 http://www.dnb.com/ http://www.dlis.dla.mil/cage_welcome.asp https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/default.aspx https://www.sam.gov/ https://www.fbo.gov/

• 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 Contract Clause: FAR 52.204-13 SAM Maintenance

• 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

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions https://www.sam.gov/ http://www.fsd.gov/

• 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 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

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions http://www.fbo.gov/ https://www.fbo.gov/downloads/FBO_Vendor_Guide.pdf

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

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

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

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

FBO REGISTRATION

Enter DUNS

Offerors shall submit inquiries via “Bidder Inquiry” in ProjNet at www.projnet.org\projnet. See the solicitation for ProjNet registration instructions.

Bidder Inquiry Key:

RH675A-FFGS94

Bidder Inquiries will be closed to new inquiries TEN calendar days before the proposal due date in order to appropriately respond and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES VIA PROJNET

Ref: RFP Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

Select USACE

Enter Email http://www.projnet.org/projnet

• TASK ORDERs

– Minimum Task Order €50,000.00

– Maximum Task Order is limited to €5,000,000.

However, smaller and larger dollar value projects may be considered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer

• Total maximum ordering value $49,950,000 over Five Years

– Base Ordering Period: One Year

– Four Additional One-Year Option Ordering Periods

W912GB19R0031

• 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) “W912GB19R0031 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I.pdf”

(2) “W912GB19R0031 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 1.pdf”

(3) “W912GB19R0031 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I Part 2.pdf”

(4) “W912GB19R0031 RESPONSE Firmname Volume I diagrams.pdf”

(5) “W912GB19R0031 RESPONSE Firmname Volume II.pdf”

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Reference Section 00 21 00 Instructions

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.

GENERAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION (CONT)

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

Section A - Executive Summary. Cover letter and any joint venture agreements.

Section B - Factor 1, Experience. Experience Overview sheet and a completed Experience Information Sheet for up to seven projects.

Section C - Factor 2, Past Performance. Completed CPARS records and/or completed PPQ for each project submitted under Factor 1.

Section D - Factor 3, Management Approach. A narrative limited to 20 pages.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME I (PHASE I)

VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

1. Section A – Cover Letter. A cover letter including the following:

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). A completed SF 1442 and a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II (PHASE I)

VOLUME II, PRICE & ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Continued)

3. Section C – SAM Registration, Representations & Certifications.

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: Financial information For example, past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings, and/or bank name, number and POC, etc.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II (CONT )

VOLUME I, NON-PRICE

Section A – Factor 4, Technical Approach – Seed Projects. Executive Summary. A Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule describing their proposed approach to executing the SEED projects.

- Only for those firms invited into Phase II

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME I (PHASE II)

VOLUME II, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

1. Section A – Cover Letter. A cover letter including the following:

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). A completed SF 1442 and a completed SF 30 for each solicitation amendment.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II (PHASE II)

VOLUME II, PRICE & ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (Continued)

3. Section C – Bank Letter of Assurance (BLA). The BLA must demonstrate BLG capability up to €2,500,000 (amendment pending). See format provided as RFP attachment.

4. Section D – 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.

5. Section E – Factor 5, Price – SEED Projects. The Offeror is required to submit a complete Price Proposal Form that includes completion of all contract line item numbers (CLINs). An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal for each of the seed projects may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

PROPOSAL FORMAT – VOLUME II (CONT)

Trade-off Process (FAR 15.101-1) In the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

Factors include:

Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Experience (PHASE I) Factor 2 – Past Performance (PHASE I) Factor 3 – Management Approach (PHASE I) Factor 4 – Technical Approach – SEED Projects (PHASE II)

Price Factor Factor 5 – Price – SEED Projects (PHASE II)

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-priced factors, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price.

SOURCE SELECTION APPROACH

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 00 - Evaluation

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 00 - Evaluation

EVALUATION FACTORS

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 10 - Evaluation

SOLICITATION

PHASE I

For Factor 1 evaluation purposes, the definition of a recent and relevant contract must meet the following conditions:

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 subcontractor.

ii. The contract was completed no earlier than six (6) calendar years before the closing date of the RFP or is at least 50% complete as of the closing date of this RFP.

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

iv. Projects with a minimum cost of $500,000.

RECENT AND RELEVANT CONTRACTS

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 10 - Evaluation

The SST will evaluate Offerors under this factor to determine the depth and breadth of the Offeror’s experience that demonstrates the ability to accomplish the work specified under this solicitation. Offerors must submit no more than seven projects meeting the criteria in Paragraph 1.b of PHASE I for Recent and Relevant Contracts.

The Experience Information Sheet shall not exceed 4 pages per contract.

For Offerors submitting as a Teaming Arrangement, each firm/contractor in the Teaming Arrangement, whether JV or prime/key sub, shall submit a minimum of one

(1) project. If more than five projects are submitted by an Offeror, the Government will only review the first seven (7) projects. The projects will be reviewed in the order in which they are received in Offeror’s submitted proposal.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

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).

i. Projects that demonstrate experience 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. Projects that demonstrate experience working in Italy.

iii. Projects that demonstrate experience working in European Union countries.

iv. Projects that demonstrate experience working with the United States Government.

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

vi. Projects demonstrating experience working in both horizontal and vertical construction.

vii. Projects demonstrating experience with multiple projects concurrently involving multiple trades.

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

NOTE: Offerors are cautioned that the SST may assess weaknesses against experience examples that are not verifiable, and/or where the Offeror or their proposed subcontractor were subcontractors and their role in the project was minor in comparison to the whole project.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE (CONT)

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.

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

• 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.

• The Government’s past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on any and all relevant past performance. NOTE: The evaluation for this factor uses a much broader definition of what is relevant as compared to Factor 1 Experience.

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

• Also include performance recognition documents received for the Factor 1 projects such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition. Offerors shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received by the Offeror for each submitted project and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

• The Government may verify information provided by the Offeror with any source available and has the right to contact points of contact other than those listed by the Offeror.

• In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or committed subcontractors performing key elements of the project. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE (CONT)

• 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.

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.

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.

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 Italy to include coordination with host nation authorities.

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

See previous slide 35 for combined technical/risk rating.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

SOLICITATION

PHASE II

EVALUATION FACTORS

Ref: RFP Section 00 22 20 - Evaluation

The Technical Approach Narrative and Schedule will be evaluated as one factor for all SEED projects. The Offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative and schedule for each SEED project 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 for each SEED project 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’ schedules must specifically demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the milestones specified in the price schedule and specification sections for each SEED project. 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 for each SEED project.

The Government will evaluate the schedules to assess conformance with the Solicitation requirements, the strength of understanding of the project scopes, and restrictions, which must be considered in the schedules (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 for each SEED within the proposed contract duration and the realism of the schedule.

The Government reserves the right to request proof of ownership or binding commitments from equipment suppliers to provide any equipment identified prior to awarding a contract.

See previous slide 39 for combined technical/risk rating.

FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH

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.

An Offeror that fails to submit a complete price proposal for each of the seed projects may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration.

FACTOR 5: PRICE – SEED PROJECTS

The Government intends to award the seed project(s) to one or more 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, including option years.

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 Resident Management System (RMS 3.0) is a quality management and contract administration program designed by Resident Engineers. The system provides an efficient method to plan, schedule, and control all aspects of construction.

The Government Staff will use the Government Mode and the Contractor Staff will use the Contractor Mode.

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/RMSLauncherSetupKtr25.exe

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

RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (RMS 3.0)

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_ID-JmaZgePmlrb2zdUOqg https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMS3CM.pdf https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/RMSLauncherSetupKtr25.exe https://rms.usace.army.mil/datafiles/rmsdocwebsite/files/Installing%20RMS%203.pdf

What is RMS 3.0:

RMS 3.0 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 RMS 3.0 Contractor Mode:

The RMS 3.0 Contractor Mode is the Contractor’s Quality Control module of the Government’s Resident Management System (RMS 3.0) 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.

RMS 3.0 CONTRACTOR MODE

FINAL COMMENTS / REMINDERS

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

Bidder Inquiry Key: RH675A-FFGS94

• 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 http://www.projnet.org/projnet

Jason Malak Contract Specialist Phone: +49 611 9744 2278 Email: jason.r.malak@usace.army.mil

Joshua Mueller Contracting Officer Phone: +49 611 9744 2127 Email: joshua.d.Mueller@usace.army.mil

POINTS OF CONTACT

Reference Section 00 00 00 - Procurement and Contracting Requirements mailto:Jason.r.malak@usace.army.mil mailto:joshua.d.Mueller@usace.army.mil