Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JUNE 22, 2002 FBO #0202
SPECIAL NOTICE

38 -- Information and Discussion questions formn a recent Industry Day concerning the proposed MACC Contract at Grand Forks AFB, ND.

Notice Date

6/20/2002
 

Notice Type

Special Notice
 

Contracting Office

Department of the Air Force, Air Mobility Command, 319 CONS, 575 Tuskegee Airmen Blvd, Building 418, Grand Forks AFB, ND, 58205
 

ZIP Code

58205
 

Solicitation Number

MACC-GFAFB
 

Response Due

8/30/2002
 

Archive Date

9/14/2002
 

Point of Contact

Richard Brenamen, Contract Specialist, Phone (701) 747-5311, Fax (701) 747-4215, - Graham Pritchett, Team Lead (B1), Phone (701) 747-5345, Fax (701)747-4215,
 

E-Mail Address

richard.brenamen@grandforks.af.mil, graham.pritchett@grandforks.af.mil
 

Description

2 Industry Day Sessions for Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) at Grand Forks AFB, ND Four identical industry day sessions were held on 16 and 21 May at the Chamber of Commerce in Grand Forks, ND. Total attendance for the fours sessions was 38 people representing 30 construction and A&E firms. Note, attendance at any of the sessions was not mandatory for contractors. The industry sessions were simply held in order to put out word that MACC is being pursued by Grand Forks AFB, to ascertain contractor interest in MACC, obtain feedback from contractors on MACC, etc. If you are interested in obtaining a copy of the attendance rosters please submit your email (no telephonic requests) requesting such to: richard.brenamen@grandforks.af.mil A copy of the draft RFP for MACC will be posted to EPS within the next few weeks. We invite you to review it and provide any feedback concerning it. INFORMATION FEEDBACK/DISCUSSION/DECISIONS - There was considerable discussion concerning design-construction build projects of competitive nature in reference to cost burden on contractors in preparing proposals for such. It was emphasized we will not be doing any large scale projects similar in scope and magnitude to the to new commissary project currently being solicited here at Grand Forks AFB. The anticipated maximum task order for MACC is $2million (minimum $25K) but we anticipate any design-construction build projects done being approximately $1/2 to $1 million. - Regarding the cost to contractors for preparing design-construction build proposals, there was one suggestion to paying a small stipend to each firm who submits such offer. This was discussed but there was also feedback that it is not a ?huge? cost and is simply a cost of doing business, therefore firms should accept it. It?s most likely there would not be such stipend included in MACC although there will likely be a small minimum guarantee to each contractor to help offset (albeit minimally) such cost. Additionally, to further help minimize proposal preparation costs, we would use a phase 1 (would include price) and phase II or 15% to 35% & 95% design (what constitutes/defines such would be spelled out in the specifications) design submittal. Thus, only the selected offeror for award would go to submit more detailed designs beyond the initial submittal, while those not selected based on initial submittal would stop there. - Another issue concerning design-construction build projects of competitive nature concerned comparing of ?apples to apples? versus ?apples to bananas?. The dilemma in a competitive environment is contractors need to know what the customer wants while at same time it can?t be too detailed/specific or the cost for proposal preparation is a burden. But if the customer?s specs (wants/needs) are not detailed enough (point correctly made by one firm that cost, size, and quality determine price) then offers received by the government may not be compared equally in terms of price and/or quality. No real solution or resolution was reached on this issue and one representative from an A&E firms commented that this dilemma is also a continuing challenge in the private sector when doing competitive design-construction build. It?s recognized that we will need to specify a percent for design (e.g. 15% submittal) to minimize design costs but will need to be aware ?apples to apples? are compared between competing offers. - Question arose as to who owns the designs? Response was the government does if it pays for them. In response to a concern, the government has no intent to incorporate the best features from each design within the final design with the selected awardee on a design-construction build project. - Payment for construction design build would normally be one lump sum price. - In reference to use of sub contractors on projects, they would not have to be ?approved? up front as part of the initial MACC award to receive work later on under task orders. While they would need ?approval? on individual task orders, just like on any other construction contract, they do not have to be part of any teaming arrangement or joint venture up front. This was in response to concern from sub contractors they might be locked out of future work. - In response to a question concerning performance rating, if a contractor chose not to bid on any task orders we would likely not exercise the next MACC option on them but we would not assess them a negative performance rating because of such though (would be assessed ?none? or ?neutral? for MACC purposes). - During these sessions the government expressed its intention was to incorporate one actual (funded and real) seed project that would actually be used for MACC award selection purposes and would be awarded up front to the top rated firm based on price, past performance, mission (technical) capability, and proposal risk rating. (Note, the intent is that the three referenced non-price factors will be considered equal in importance and, when combined, considered significantly more important than price for award evaluation.) In reference to using an actual seed project for initial MACC award purposes, contractor representatives in one session voted unanimously to instead use a dummy/sample project instead (price is only evaluated as acceptable/fair versus unacceptable). Following a government internal teleconference between Grand Forks AFB and Ellsworth AFB, who just awarded their MACC contract using a sample/dummy project, we are now highly considering doing the same here as it may provide the best means to evaluate qualified contractors. - It was emphasized that many or most of the contractors who are interested in being in the pool of contractors awarded the MACC contract would likely need to formally team up or joint venture with other firms. In order to be considered for MACC award, a construction build only firm would most likely need to team up with an A&E to demonstrate design-construction build capability (same for an A&E firm with no construction build experience). Those construction build firms who also perform design most likely would not need to team up or joint venture with another firm. - At these sessions it was communicated that the intent/hoe was to award MACC to a pool of six to eight contractors, with approximately half the awards set-aside for 8(a) contractors. However, the latest decision is to solicit MACC unrestricted, with 8(a) firms simply competing among all firms for award. Its important to note though that without or without MACC Grand Forks AFB will still be required to meet 8(a) goals, thus projects may be diverted from MACC for such purposes to offer to 8(a) contractors. Should this change and MACC is set-aside for some 8(a) contractors, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 19.1102 there would not be a 10% evaluation factor for award purposes on individual task orders. - Concern was expressed by several sub contractor/specialized type firms (e.g. electrical, mechanical, HVAC, etc.) that one MACC is in place they would not be aware of nearly as many sub contracting opportunities as projects estimated greater than $25K and procured through MACC are not synopsized. It was suggested that once MACC is awarded perhaps projects when procured could be provided to them or posted so they are aware of the sub contracting opportunities available and can ?knock on the doors? of the primes. This will be taken into consideration. - As previously stated, it is intended to provide a minimum guarantee (possibly $5K) over the life of the contract to each MACC contractors. In reference to off setting costs most contractors expressed this is peanuts essentially, while a few stated every little bit helps. Available funding is the issue here as to the amount (if any) is guaranteed. - It was noted that MACC is intended to compliment or supplement SABER. There is a SABER contract at Grand Forks AFB and current plans are to exercise the remaining options on it. The purpose of MACC is to allow for quicker contract execution (in comparison to longer lead time to execute contracts on the open market) as oftentimes sorely needed dollars are offered by command but pulled and used elsewhere if award cannot be executed within required timelines. And in comparison to SABER it is hoped that pricing will be slightly more competitive as contractors will be competing for individual task orders. Another added benefit is award of individual task orders under MACC can also be based in part on performance. - It?s anticipated that our MACC template RFP will be posted on line at EPS.GOV by the end of June ?02. Contractors are invited to review it and provide to this office any feedback, suggestions, criticisms, etc. We intend to issue the actual RFP in Aug ?02 and are shooting for Jan ?03 award. This timetable is preliminary though and may change depending on several factors. GRAHAM PRITCHETT Contracting Officer 319 CONS/LGCB
 

Place of Performance

Address: 319th CONS, 575 Tuskegee Airman Blvd, Grand Forks, AFB ND

Zip Code: 58205

Country: US
 

Record

SN00096919-W 20020622/020620213846 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |