B08-Pre-Proposal Conference Charts_20230322.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUOThis document contains proprietary or procurement sensitive information related to the conduct of a federal agency procurement and shall not be disclosed to any person other than a person authorized by the contracting officer to receive such information.

VICENZA MILITARY COMMUNITY (VMC)

CONSTRUCTION MULTIPLE AWARD TASK ORDER

CONTRACT (MATOC) RE-COMPETE

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

22 MARCH 2023

Presented by:

U.S. Army 414th Contracting Support Brigade Regional Contracting Office – Italy (RCO-I) Jeffrey S. Morris, Contracting Officer

INTRODUCTIONS & ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

• RCO-I Team

- Jeffrey Morris, Contracting Officer

- Ingrid Smith, Contract Specialist

- Elisa Marchetti, Contract Specialist

- Matthew McNease, Counsel

• Mute / Silence cell phones

• Correspondence in English, translation support

• Avoid sidebar discussions

• Comfort and Restroom Facilities

• Ground Rules – No technical discussion

AGENDA

• Who we are

• Current Situation

• Request for Proposal (RFP) Walkthrough

• Critical Dates / Milestone Schedule

• Q&A Session

• Closing Remarks and Path Forward

WHO WE ARE…

• Regional Contracting Office – Italy: RCO-I supports the Vicenza Military Community (VMC) consisting of Caserma Ederle, Longare, and Del Din

•RCO-I comprised of four acquisition divisions:

- Construction

- Services

- Supplies

- Livorno

CURRENT SITUATION

• Five MATOCs awarded in 2018 to perform Design Build (DB) and Design Bid Build (DBB) requirements, max ceiling of $49M

• Four (4) MATOC holders currently active

• Current customer (DPW) requirements solicited among 4 MATOC holders

• Contracts expire 30 July 2023

• Lesson Learned: opportunity exists for competition and performance improvements across a larger population of MATOC holders

RFP WALKTHROUGH (OVERVIEW)

• Review of entire RFP document by Section

• Detailed presentation on Sections H, L and M

• Focus understanding on Government’s requirements

- PROPOSAL CONTENTS / DOCUMENTATION

-EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

-CRITICAL DATES

Potential offerors shall review the RFP in its entirety and understand/comply/respond to ALL requirements.

Proposals that fail to comply with the proposal submittal requirements may be deemed unacceptable, and therefore, ineligible for award

SECTION A – GENERAL INFORMATION

• Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build requirements across VMC

• NAICS 236220 - Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

• Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Firm Fixed Price contract type

• Five-year contract with potential for six-month option per FAR 52.217-8

• Up to eight (8) contracts may be awarded using Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) source selection approach

• Total maximum value of all MATOCs shall NOT exceed $20M

• Each MATOC includes a guaranteed minimum of $500.00

SECTION B – SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

• No Bid Schedule for Basic IDIQ / MATOCs

- Schedule B shall be established via individual Task Order requirement

• Labor Hour price proposal requirements discussed at Section L

• Minimum Guarantee

- $500.00 at time of MATOC award

- Includes attendance at Post Award Conference AND submission of Mobilization/Demobilization Schedule for future Task Orders

• No MATOC awards shall result until minimum buy requirements are fully funded

• Task Order Min / Max

- $500.00 / $2M

• Government estimates average TO value magnitude is, IAW FAR 36.204(d) between $250K-$500K

SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK

• Basic IDIQ SOW is incorporated as Attachment 1

- Includes all requirements that apply, regardless of individual TO requirements

- Streamlines SOWs to be included in individual Task Order Purchase Requirements (TOPRs)

• Additional SOW requirements at C.2

• TOPR shall include SOW for individual requirement, the “Part 3” of the

IDIQ SOW

- Any exceptions or additions to IDIQ shall be specified at TOPR

SECTIONS D-F

• Section D Packaging and Marking

- Not anticipated, but if applicable, see TOPR

• Section E Inspection and Acceptance

- Acceptance at Destination, to be specified in each TO

• Section F Deliveries or Performance

- Delivery or Period of Performance shall be specified in each TOPR and negotiated if/as appropriate

SECTION G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

• Invoices (partial AND final) shall include:

- itemized amounts tied to scope of work

- amount and value of subcontracted work (by sub), and previous payments

- subcontractor payment verification (via invoice)

- additional substantiation of subs payment for final invoice may be required

• DURC (or equivalent for non-Italian) <90 days from invoice

• See RFP for various payment clauses (i.e., tax exemptions, WAWF, etc.)

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

• Order Placement Procedures

- Fair Opportunity to compete for all Task Orders (TO) exceeding micro-purchase; see FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)

- Fair Opportunity at FAR 16.505 DIFFERENT than Source Selection at FAR 15.3

- Evaluation criteria limited/specific to the TO requirement; may be:

Price only in many cases, but may be technical capability, schedule, or other criteria as suitable to the complexity or urgency of the specific Task Order Proposal Request (TOPR)

• Interchanges MAY be conducted with all, some, one, or none of the MATOC contractors

• The Contracting Officer (KO) may elect to utilize FAR 15.3 procedures IF appropriate, but TOPR shall specify use

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS CONT’D

• Subcontracting

- Requests for subcontracting any portion of work shall be submitted to the KO, and include info/docs at H.2.1

• Anti-Mafia Law

- No award shall be made to an offeror subject to disciplinary actions or proceedings or mafia-related matters (Italian Law No. 646); if occurs after award, the MATOC will NOT be considered for TOs, and may be subject to termination

• Minimum Insurance

- Comprehensive General Liability € 1.5M, per occurrence

SECTION H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS CONT’D

• Performance and Payment Bonds

- FAR 52.228-15 tailored to 10% of the original TO price

• Time Extensions for Unusually Severe Weather

- See schedule at H.6.2

• Warranty of Construction, in addition to FAR 52.246-21

- 10 year from final acceptance – Roof work

- 2 years from final acceptance – any other work

SECTION I CONTRACT CLAUSES

• FAR and DFARS Clauses

• Clauses Incorporated by Reference

- See https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52 or https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/subpart-252.2-text-provisions-and-clauses for Full Text

• Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

- Ensure KO fill-ins are reviewed, as appropriate

SECTION J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Basic SOW

- Work requirements that apply to ALL TO requirements issued under the Basic MATOC; generally, Parts 1-2, and 4-5

2. SOW Project E8-41139-1J “Replace Roof of Building 249”

- 1 of 2 sample project SOWs for use in meeting Technical subfactor requirements, discussed further in Section L

- No TO shall result for this SOW/requirement (at this time)

3. SOW Project E8-44024-2J “Repairs in Mechanical Room Building 108”

- 2 of 2 sample project SOWs for use in meeting Technical subfactor requirements, discussed further in Section L

- No TO shall result for this SOW/requirement (at this time)

4. Past Performance Survey

- Survey for Offerors to submit to POCs for Past Performance

5. Anti-Mafia Certification

- Self-certification / Declaration of anti-mafia communication

UNCLASSIFIED/FOUOSECTION K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

• Offerors shall ensure annual representations and certifications are completed electronically via https://www.sam.gov

• Submission of a proposal is Offeror verification the reps/certs posted (that apply) to this solicitation are current as of the last 12 months and are current, accurate and complete

• FAR 52.204-7(b)(1) states “An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and through final payment of any contract, basic agreement, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchasing agreement resulting from this solicitation.

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

• Offerors shall strictly adhere to the Section L Instructions and Requirements

• All proposals in English

• Government does NOT reimburse costs associated with proposal preparation

• Failure to comply with Section L Requirements may render a proposal unacceptable, and therefore, ineligible for award. Read, Re-Read, and Read It Again

• Proposals shall be submitted by: 3:00 PM Central European Time (CET) on 18 April 2023

• Proposals received after this date & time will be handled IAW FAR 15.208

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

• Offerors shall monitor information and updates via the solicitation posting at https://sam.gov/content/opportunities

- Amendments

- Weekly RFI postings (Last RFI submission, 4 April)

- Pre-Proposal Conference charts

• Proposal Volumes

• Hard copy Volume submission with CD, NO ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION AUTHORIZED

Volume Volume Title Original + Copies Page Limitations Volume I Mission Capability &

Technical 1 + 3 40

Volume II Past Performance 1 + 3 15 Volume III Price & Contract

Documents 1 + 1 25

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Proposal Format and Organization

• Clear, concise and sufficient detail for effective evaluation and to substantiate the offeror’s claims

• Do NOT restate the Government’s requirements

• Do NOT assume the evaluator has any prior knowledge of offeror’s organization or capabilities

• Follow page format, size and limitations at L.2.2*

• Each Volume shall have its own properly labeled binder

• Mark proposals IAW FAR 52.215-1(e) and FAR 3.104-4, as appropriate

*See Amendment 0001 (A0001)

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Proposal packages may be mailed via approved courier (see A0001) OR hand-delivered to solicitation POC IAW L.3.2 instructions

• A0001 specifies the following delivery address and recommends use of a base-access-approved courier service such as DHL

414th Contracting Support Brigade Attn: Jeffrey Morris or Ingrid Smith Caserma Ederle, Building 3 Viale Della Pace, 193 36100, Vicenza Italy

• Hand-delivery may occur between 9-11 or 1-3 CET with prior coordination with Contract Specialist/POC

• Receipt will NOT occur after proposal due date

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Evaluation Factors

• Factor 1: Technical

• Factor 2: Mission Capability -Subfactor 1: Project Management Plan -Subfactor 2: SOA Certifications

• Factor 3: Past Performance

• Factor 4: Price

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 1 Technical (L.4.1 and subparts)

• Describe and Detail Technical Approach to sample projects, Attachments 2 and 3

• Describe and Detail a single technical approach to complete both DB requirements in accordance with all SOWs, at the same time

• Describe Technical Approach for both projects to include a Gantt chart outlining all Definable Features of Work – include a logical sequence of events to complete construction for full duration of projects

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 1 Technical (cont’d) (L.4.1 and subparts)

• Detail personnel anticipated within its own firm and subs utilized ‒ If common personnel used, describe how work efforts are integrated to ensure no delay to either project

• Identify risks associated with completion of projects AND mitigations of each risk identified

• Identify recommendations regarding SOW details to demonstrate an understanding of the work scope for each project and potentially improve project timeline and/or final construction

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 2 Mission Capability (L.4.2)

• Offerors shall address all elements/requirements of the Mission Capability Subfactors (Project Management Plan and SOA Certifications)

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Subfactor 1 Project Management Plan (PMP) (L.4.2.1)

PMP for implementation of this MATOC

• Executive Summary discussing management approach for multi-disciplinary construction, restoration, repair and demo ‒ Process from RFP/TOPR through closeout and turn-over of site to customer, along with management of potential concurrent awards

• Organizational Chart(s) – management, design, construction teams, key personnel ‒ Organization levels and location, lines of authority ‒ Show interrelationship between all levels of leadership to include contract management and on-site project teams

• Detail total project team management approach of design and construction teams, to include subcontractors, design firms, support staff* ‒ Management/Accounting of fluctuations in workload, subcontract management, execution of architectural and design requirements throughout the life of the contract

* See A0001

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Subfactor 1 Project Management Plan (PMP) (L.4.2.1)

PMP for implementation of this MATOC (cont’d)

• Resumes*

- Project Manager, Site Superintendents, Quality Control Manager, and Site Safety Health Officer

- Shall include relevant experience and/or certifications to demonstrate personnel’s ability to successfully oversee MATOC projects

• Describe Monitoring and Control Mechanisms to deliver a quality project AND to effectively manage subs, and coordinate all work throughout each phase of construction

• Address resolution of differing site conditions or design deficiency discovered during construction

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Subfactor 1 Project Management Plan (PMP) (L.4.2.1)

PMP for implementation of this MATOC (cont’d)

• Describe Comms Plan during design and construction ‒ Address authorities and delegations (reflect on org chart) ‒ Describe previous teaming experience between proposed team members Describe work the offeror will perform (and what team members will)

• Describe resources available and capabilities to support concurrent TOs with on-going and/or new work ‒ Describe resources available (i.e., in-house design & construction personnel, subcontractor personnel, ability to partner with other firms) ‒ Describe capabilities to manage and execute concurrent TOs possibility located throughout Italy VMC

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Subfactor 2 Societa Organismi di Attestazione (SOA)

Certifications (L.4.2.2 and subparts) Offerors shall provide SOA Certificates as follows:

• Primary Category

‒ OG1: Edifici civili e industraili “Civil and Industrial Buildings Construction” Classification II (or higher)

• Minor Categories ‒ OG3: Strade, autostrade, ponti, viadotti, ferrovi, metropolitan

“Roads, motorways, bridges, railways, underground railways” Classification I (or higher)

‒OG6: Acquedotti, gasdotti, oleodotti, opera di irrigazion e di evazcuazione “Water, gas and oil pipelines and irrigation and drainage works” Classification I (or higher)

‒ OG11: Impianti tecnoligici “Technological Plants Utility Systems” Classification I (or higher)

‒ OG12: Opere ed impianti di bonifica e protezion ambientale “Remediation and environmental protection works and systems” Classification I (or higher)

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 3 Past Performance (L.4.3 and subparts)

• Provide up to 5 RECENT and RELEVANT contracts

‒ Recent: contract performance to 100% completion* within the last 5* years, starting from RFP close date

‒ Relevance: same or similar magnitude, work scope and complexity to the requirements of the MATOC task orders anticipated

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 3 Past Performance (L.4.3 and subparts) Recent and Relevant Contracts shall include:

1. Customer POC, Title and Email

2. Contract Number

3. DB or DBB (specify) construction projects which include at least two of the following: comprehensive building reno, vertical construction, electrical distribution, HVAC, lighting, telephone and comm systems, security systems, plumbing, fire protection, interior reno, anti-terrorism/force protection, roofing, landscaping, and/or irrigation. Provide a summary of contract work scope.

4. Minimum contract value of € 250K, Maximum of € 1M, at time of contract award*

5. Performance in Italy

6. Offeror performance as the prime contractor

7. Period of Performance to construction completion

8. Summary of modification and rationale for, if applicable (contract value increase/decrease and rationale shall be specified)

9. Customer completed, by POC at #1 above, Past Performance Survey at

Attachment 4 (surveys are excluded from the page limitations)

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 3 Past Performance (L.4.3 and subparts)

• Minimum of 3 (of 5 total) cited contracts shall be with the U.S.

Government ‒ Remaining contracts may be with local governments or commercial entities

• At least one DB and DBB project shall be included

• Contracts submitted in excess of 5 will NOT be evaluated

• Government may contact POCs for additional past performance data

• Additional past performance data may be reviewed (CPARs, FAPIIS, eSRS, interviews/surveys, etc.)

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Factor 4 Price (L.4.4 and subparts)

• Propose an Hourly Direct (unburden) Labor Rate for the following Labor Categories:

‒ Project Manager ‒ Site Superintendent ‒ Quality Assurance ‒ Safety and Health Officer ‒ General Laborer

• Microsoft Excel format

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS CONT’D

Contract Documentation (L.5 and subparts)

• Signed SF1442

‒ Signed solicitation, completion of any blocks requiring response

• Executed Clauses & Provisions, Reps & Certs ‒ Completion of any blocks requiring response

• Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC) ‒ Aged <90 days from close date, with required statement per RFP ‒ DURC equivalent authorized for EU countries (with certification of such)

• Certificate of Chamber of Commerce ‒ “Certificato di Iscrizione alla Camera di Commercio» <6 months old to RFP close date

• Anti-Mafia / White List ‒ Complete/Submit Attachment 5 ‒ Recent White List screening/listing, offeror shall include screen print of site

• Consorzio Certification* ‒ A0001 adds L.5.5 requiring notarized document from all firms subject to Consorzio

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

• Best Value Continuum Source Selection IAW FAR 15.101 and DoD Source Selection Procedures

• Highest Technical Rated Offeror (HTRO) source selection approach

• Government will select the HTRO proposals that are ALSO found to have a reasonable price with NO trade-off between price and technical (i.e., non-price factors)

• HTRO selects the highest rated offerors based on the non-price factors of the RFP, and awards to those highest rated proposals that ALSO offer fair and reasonable prices

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• Up to eight (8) contracts may be awarded to offerors deemed responsible IAW FAR, who meet the solicitation’s requirements, AND, based on the evaluation factors (and subfactors), represents the best value as the HTROs

• Government MAY award without Discussions ‒ Submit your BEST offer first!

‒ Do NOT assume you’ll have an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise your proposal

• Competitive Range (CR) ‒ If KO determines Discussions necessary, only those most highly rated proposals will be retained in the CR; Discussions will ONLY be conducted with those Offerors in the CR ‒ Upon conclusion of Discussions, KO requests Final Proposal Revisions

(FPRs) for final evaluations and HTRO source selection decision

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• Evaluated IAW evaluation factors and adjectival ratings

• Award made to (up to 8) HTROs, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors:

Relative Order of Importance: Non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance, with the two subfactors being equal in importance.

As there is no trade-off of Price to occur, solely the KOs fair and reasonable price determination via the HTRO process, price has no relative order of importance in this source selection

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Factor One: Technical Factor Two: Mission Capability

Subfactor One: Project Management Plan (PMP) Subfactor Two: SOA Certifications

Factor Three: Past Performance Factor Four: Price

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• The following shall be documented to support adjectival ratings and the source selection decision:

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Proposal Aspect Definition

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. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness* A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty Any aspect of a proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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.

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

*Definition corrected in A0001

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and /or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• Color / Adjectival Ratings apply to:

‒ Factor 1 Technical (M.3.3) ‒ Factor 2 – Mission Capability (M.3.4 and subparts) Subfactor 1 PMP (M.3.4.2.1 and subparts) Subfactor 2 SOA Certifications (M.3.4.2.2)

• Each Factor / Subfactor is evaluated IAW the corresponding Section L requirements and identified proposal aspects that supports the assigned rating

• Factor 2* Mission Capability is assigned the Color / Adjectival rating based on the two subfactor ratings; a subfactor rating of “Red- Unacceptable” for EITHER subfactor will render Factor 2 Mission Capability as “Red-Unacceptable”, and unawardable

* A0001 corrects typographical error at M.3.4.2; Mission Capability is Factor TWO.

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• Subfactor Two SOA Certifications

‒ Primary SOA qualification level required (L.4.2.2.1): OG 1: Edifici civili e industraili “Civil and Industrial Buildings Construction” Classification II (or higher)

Submission of Primary SOA Qualification Certificate results in a “Green- Acceptable” rating

Submission of Minor Category SOA (L.4.2.2.1) Qualification Certificate(s) may result in proposal strengths

Failure to submit the Primary SOA Qualification Certificate shall result in a deficiency, and a “Red-Unacceptable” at the subfactor level, REGARDLESS of Minor Category SOA Certification submissions, thus rendering Factor Two, Mission Capability “Red-Unacceptable” and the proposal unawardable

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present / Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of efforts and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present / Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present / Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present / Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Factor 3 Past Performance (M.3.5 and subparts):

Relevancy Rating

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Factor 3 Past Performance (M.3.5 and subparts):

Confidence Assessment

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• Relevancy of Recent Efforts Proposed (rating at Chart 42)

• Degree of Confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of this solicitation based on the demonstrated record of past performance of the proposed (and to be evaluated) recent/relevant contracts (rating at Chart 43)

• No Past Performance?

‒ Not rated favorably/unfavorably and assigned a Confidence rating of

“Neutral” ‒ SSA may determine “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” rating

• Additional Past Performance may be evaluated: CPARS, FAPIIS, eSRS, interviews, etc.

Factor 3 Past Performance Evaluation

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• After selection of the highest technically rated proposals based on the evaluation and comparative assessment of the Non-Price factors, the HTRO source selection process evaluates Price proposals for purposes of a fair and reasonable determination, by the KO

• Labor Category pricing is evaluated using price analysis techniques as prescribed at FAR 15.404-1(b) with the exception of competition

• Up to 8 highest technically rated proposals that are ALSO found to have a F&R price, shall be deemed the HTROs and next, subject to KO Responsibility Determination and Contract Documentation completion/acceptability

Factor 4 (M.3.6 and subparts) Price Evaluation

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONT’D

• Signed SF1442

• Executed Clauses & Provisions, Reps & Certs

• Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC)

• Certificate of Chamber of Commerce

• Anti-Mafia / White List

• Consorzio Certification*

Failure to submit ANY required document or complete required actions may be deemed an incomplete, non-responsive proposal, and therefore, excluded from proposal evaluations, and thus, not considered for MATOC award.

Contract Documentation (M.4)

CRITICAL DATES / MILESTONE SCHEDULE

Milestone Target Completion Date (No Discussions)

Target Completion Date (Discussions)

PROPOSALS DUE 4/18/2023 4/18/2023

PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS 5/5/2023 5/5/2023

ESTABLISH COMPETITIVE RANGE (CR) 5/10/2023

NOTIFY EXCLUDED OFFERORS 5/12/2023

DEBRIEFINGS (PRE-AWARD), IF REQUESTED 5/15/2023

PRE-NEGOTIATION OBJECTIVE MEMORANDUM (POM) 5/15/2023

PROVIDE EVALUATION NOTICES TO CR OFFERORS 5/22/2023

CONDUCT DISCUSSIONS 6/2/2023

REQUEST FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS 6/7/2023

EVALUATE FINAL PROPOSALS 6/16/2023

FINAL SSEB REPORT 5/17/2023 6/21/2023

POM-PNM OR PRICE NEGOTIATION MEMORANDUM (PNM) 5/23/2023 6/23/2023

SSA SOURCE SELECTION DECISION DOCUMENT (SSDD) 5/26/2023 6/28/2023

AWARD DECISION 5/31/2023 6/30/2023

AWARD REVIEWS 6/14/2023 7/14/2023

AWARD (UP TO 8 MATOCS) 6/19/2023 7/19/2023

DEBRIEFINGS (POST-AWARD), IF REQUESTED 6/27/2023 7/27/2023

POST-AWARD CONFERENCE TBD TBD

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION / QUESTIONS

• RFIs received to date posted to https://sam.gov/content/opportunities via an update / attachment to the original solicitation posting

– To continue to post weekly (by Friday) pending the volume of RFIs submitted

• Questions?

– RFIs received today shall be posted to the link above, along with today’s briefing charts

• Offerors are reminded the solicitation will remain unchanged unless it is specifically amended in writing

– Amendments posted to the same SAM.gov link above A0001 issued 20 Mar 2023; changes discussed in relevant charts