Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF JANUARY 27, 2017 FBO #5544
MODIFICATION

C -- Value Engineering IDIQ for Louisville District

Notice Date

1/25/2017
 

Notice Type

Modification/Amendment
 

NAICS

541330 — Engineering Services
 

Contracting Office

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE District, Louisville, Attn: CELRL-CT, PO Box 59, Louisville, Kentucky, 40201-0059, United States
 

ZIP Code

40201-0059
 

Solicitation Number

W912QR-70101307
 

Point of Contact

Monique Jordan, Phone: 5023156207
 

E-Mail Address

monique.e.jordan@usace.army.mil
(monique.e.jordan@usace.army.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Total Small Business
 

Description

Value Engineering and Value Management Services within the Corps of Engineers Mission Boundaries. Solicitation Number: W912QR-70101307 Agency: Department of the Army Office: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Location: USACE District, Louisville Section 1 - Summary of the Solicitation A. General NAICS code for this procurement is 541330. To be eligible for contract award, firms must be registered in the Federal Government's System for Award Management (SAM). Register via the SAM internet site at http://www.sam.gov or by contacting the DoD Electronic Commerce Information Center at 1-888-227-2423. All responses to this announcement must be received no later than 2:00 p.m. local time on 16 February 2017. No other general notification to firms under consideration for this pre-solicitation will be made. Facsimile transmissions will not be accepted. Solicitation packages are not provided and no additional project information will be given to firms during the announcement period. Submit responses to US Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Monique Jordan, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Pl., Room 821, Louisville, KY 40202-2267. Contracting Point of Contact: Monique Jordan at (502) 315-6192. Email: Monique.E.Jordan@usace.army.mil. Release of firm status will occur within 10 days after approval of any selection. Contracting Office Address: USACE District, Louisville, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place, Room 821 Louisville, KY 40202-2230 Place of Performance: USACE District, Louisville, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place, Room 821 Louisville KY40202-2230 Point of Contact(s): Monique Jordan, 502-315-6207 B. Purpose of the Solicitation The Louisville District is seeking up to three (3) highly qualified firms (the "Consultant") to provide VE services for workshops of a wide range of project types typically for but not limited to various military, environmental, and civil works projects. The work will be performed under task order contracts that are negotiated based on scope. The work will be performed by negotiated Firm Fixed Price Task Orders issued under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract. C. Contract Terms The term of the contracts awarded from this solicitation will be for a period of five (5) consecutive years commencing upon the Agency's notice to proceed. This announcement is set aside for Small Business Only, with at least ONE of the awarded firms being a Women Owned small business. If you are a women owned business please ensure this is clearly indicated. The base contract maximum cumulative value is $3,000,000.00 for each awarded firm. Task orders are expected to range from approximately $20,000 to $250,000; however, larger task orders up to the maximum contract value may be awarded. The base contract cumulative total dollar amount cannot be guaranteed since the task orders are on an as-needed basis. Task orders may be assigned for any work within the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Contract capacity may be shared with other Districts throughout the US Army Corps of Engineers. D. Schedule It is anticipated the base contract(s) award will be approximately April/May 2017. E. Acronyms and General Definitions Value Engineering (VE), Value Analysis (VA), Value Management (VM), Certified Value Specialist (CVS). VE, VA, and VM are all synonymous. Studies and Workshops are synonymous.   Section 2 - Scope of Services A. Agency Goals and Objectives The Louisville District's goal is to use the Value Engineering/Value Management process to ensure the project(s) needs and required functions are met in the highest value possible; where value is defined as functions divided by resources. The overall goal is to have a viable VE program by performing VE work that our customers appreciate, respect and actively seek the involvement of value management. The objective is to analyze and then optimize, via VE studies, both the capital cost of a project and the long-term operating costs. This is achieved by finding alternatives to elements within the project's design which maximize the function to resource ratio. The Louisville District VE Program seeks to help projects achieve a full scope award, within budget, and on schedule while maintaining quality features that are aesthetically pleasing, have a low maintenance requirement, a long term replacement period, and low operations cost. Therefore, the VE methodology used for work with the Louisville District shall be grounded in function analysis. B. Agency Requirements of Consultant Approach to Value Engineering Studies VE, VA, and VM workshops will follow the formal SAVE International approved job plan as well as the USACE VE Standard (COVE 2015-02). The Consultant/Agency contractual relationship will be a partnership to achieve the goals and objectives stated above; thus, acceptance of a task order scope of work implies agreement to the approach; otherwise, a written alternative approach is required prior to the award of a task order. The CVS team leader is the primary point of contact (POC) for assigned project task orders, after the contract has been negotiated and awarded, and will be responsible for all contract matters, task management, and assuring the successful execution of the scope. All CVS team leaders shall be accredited by SAVE International. C. Partnering Conference All successful firms who are awarded a base IDIQ contract with the Louisville District will be required to attend an initial two-day partnering workshops, to define the Government's expectations of the A/E, create a positive working atmosphere, encourage open communication, and identify common goals. Cost for these sessions will be borne by the selected firms. The firm(s) must bring at a minimum: the primary POC for the firm and at least one senior CVS team leader. D. Standardized VE Software/Forms The Louisville District has been working to develop standards for the execution of VE workshops which has translated into a standard Louisville District workshop template. All successful firms must learn and adapt to these forms and workshop report format. The Louisville District Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will provide all training necessary to assure successful adoption of this workflow. E. Workshop Types The task orders will include performance of formal VE studies, value-based program/project planning/design charrettes, risk analysis including mitigation plans, large program (versus project) level and business process review workshops, lessons learned reviews and after action reviews. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has six (6) different types of VE workshops/levels of effort; Level 1 - Level 6 (Chief Office of Value Engineering COVE 2015-03). The VE requirement may also be addressed by "Bridges and Scans" (COVE 2015-03). The various levels of effort are intended to meet the intent of OMB Circular A-131 as well as comply with USACE policy by scaling the VE approach to match the project complexity and anticipated value opportunity. Although the VE approach is generally defined by the VEO, the firm shall assemble teams and implement the VE methodology in a scalable fashion based on levels of effort while still achieving results. F. Project Types Projects and programs requiring services under this contract may include but are not limited to large variety of military facilities, complex navigation and flood risk management projects, and extensive environmental restoration projects. These projects may use design/build, adapt/build, design/bid/build and other project delivery methods. Additionally, specialty workshops for headquarters-level program assessments and evaluations of agency-wide engineering business procedures may be required. G. Relevant Projects Projects that are considered most relevant to the typical work performed by the Louisville District are: Army Reserve Centers, Schools, Barracks, highly specialized labs for the Military, Fire Stations, Hangars, the design and repair of major civil works infrastructure projects like locks and dams, flood protection system, levees, and pump stations. It is not required for the submitted projects to be for the military or the US Government to be considered relevant; however, those who offer a variety that includes both military and civil works type projects may be considered more relevant. H. Work Assignment Protocol It is anticipated that work will be distributed on a semi-rotational basis. Some of the factors that may affect an even distribution of work is but not limited to the following: the consultants' availability, the consultants' responsiveness, experience with the type of work being performed, and performance on previous task orders on this contract. I. Core Value Project Team Structure Generally speaking each value team will be comprised of the following core team members: a CVS team leader (may be senior or junior based on project complexity), administrative assistant or assistant team leader, a cost engineer and the principle in charge of the overall federal contract. The remaining team is typically comprised of technical team members who are experts and active/current in their area of expertise. The Louisville District has found the quality of the technical team members provided has a profound effect on the success of the VE workshop and therefore we place value in getting the right people. All value project team members will be approved by the COR and hired on a task order basis based on the direction in the scope of work.   Section 3 - Selection Criteria A. General This solicitation will be evaluated based on the Primary Selection Criteria first. Secondary selection criteria will be used by a selection board as a tie-breaker, if necessary, in ranking the most highly qualified firms. B. Primary Selection Criteria The following minimum requirements must be demonstrated by the firm. Failure to meet these minimums will result in non-selection. 1. Two senior Certified Value Specialists (CVS) defined as having at least 10 years of experience as a CVS facilitating VE workshops. This means they have been facilitating VE workshops with their CVS for at least 10 years. 2. One senior CVS shall be a registered professional Engineer/Architect 3. One junior CVS defined as having at least two years but less than 10 years of experience facilitating VE workshops as a CVS. Junior CVS's with an engineering or architectural bachelor's degree from an ABET accredited school will be given additional consideration. A junior CVS with several years of diverse work experience will be given additional consideration. 4. All CVSs shall be certified by SAVE 5. The three minimum CVS team members must demonstrate VE workshop facilitation within the last three years. i. Demonstrating could be a statement from other customer(s) or a list of projects recently performed ii. The intent is to not only select recent projects to demonstrate current activity because they may or may not be the projects that best represent the proposer. There is latitude given to prove this. 6. The three minimum CVS team members must demonstrate having at least three of their five submitted projects as relevant (SF330 Section E Resumes of Key Personnel Proposed for This Contract). Team members with more than three relevant projects will be given additional consideration. 7. One project must be performed for another customer other than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SF330 Section F Example Projects Which Best Illustrate Proposed Team's Qualifications for This Contract.) 8. All submitted projects must have been performed by the firm and led by one of the CVSs submitted in the proposal. In addition to the above minimum requirements. The primary selection criteria is broken into three parts: Professional Qualifications, Technical Competency and Specialized Experience, Capacity and Past Performance. Professional Qualifications is the most important criteria followed by Technical Competency and Specialized Experience, and then Capacity and Past Performance. 3-1 Professional Qualifications: Beyond the minimum requirements defined in section 3 paragraph B, the following information will be used to further evaluate the team member's qualifications, listed in order of importance for part 3-1: 3-1-1 Quality of Function Analysis: Each CVS team leader will be evaluated based on how the function analysis discussion allowed the value team to find more creative solutions that lead to true value alternatives. The function analysis work will be evaluated to ensure it has "unique and meaningful functions" and not "cursory functions". This portion will be evaluated based on a well written discussion that explains how the function work led the team to achieve more creative ideas that pushed the project to achieve higher value. 3-1-2 Leadership in the Value Engineering Profession: Each CVS team leader will be evaluated based on their involvement with and contributions to the VE Profession. More recent contributions may be evaluated more favorably. 3-2 Technical Competence and Specialized Experience: Beyond the minimum requirements defined in section 3 paragraph B, the following information will be used to further evaluate the firm's specialized experience and technical competence, listed in order of importance for part 3-2: 3-2-1 Mastery of the Value Methodology: The Consultant's response to the sample VE workshop summaries is expected to demonstrate a true understanding of function analysis, how the function analysis contributed to the final value engineering solutions, how the solutions resulted in true value alternatives, and how the results yielded measurably significant value contributions to the overall sample project being studied. Terminology & Definitions: a. Demonstration of a "true understanding of function analysis" would be in the form of project specific functions (not cursory or general) that are active verbs and measureable nouns that define the essence of the project in a fundamental way. The functions should define "What the project must do to be successful". b. True value alternatives are alternatives that maximize the Value expression of Functions divided by Resources without sacrificing quality. A true value alternative would maintain quality or enhance quality while maintaining function or increasing function while reducing resources or maintaining resources. True value alternatives are not cost cutting options. A true value alternative has a high probability of being universally recognized as a value enhancing alternative. c. Significant value contribution means it was accepted by the customer, it was implemented into the project, and changed the direction of the project in a positive way. 3-2-2 Effective Communication: The Consultant will be evaluated on how effective they are at succinctly conveying ideas, setting the context behind an idea by including all the salient or relevant back ground elements, and selling the idea. The submitted sample Value Engineering Workshop Summaries will be used to evaluate this factor. Terminology & Definitions: a. Selling the idea means presenting the True Value Alternative in narrative form in a succinct way that effectively demonstrates why the value alternative is better than the original idea. 3-2-3 Management Plan: The Consultant will be evaluated on the firm's management approach; management of subcontractors (if applicable); quality control procedures (for all products including reports and electronic documents); procedures to insure that internal resources are not over-committed. The Louisville District typically has a very active workload with overlapping schedules. This creates management challenges for the limited US Army Corps VE staff, therefore the successful firm(s) must have organized management procedures. An organizational chart showing the inter-relationship of management and various team components (including subcontractors) is required. This organizational chart is required in Part 1 section D of the SF330. 3-2-4 VE Experience: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a narrative that discusses the volume of value engineering studies conducted in the last 36 months that followed the SAVE standard and were greater than 24 hours in length; illustrating how many studies the firm typically performs simultaneously. The firms who demonstrate a high volume of VE workshop experience on an annual basis will be given additional consideration. 3-2-5 Team Member Selection: One of the basic functions of Value Engineering is to "Supplement Knowledge" by infusing expertise. The Consultant will be evaluated based on their process (approach) in selecting individuals (technical team members) for a value engineering study. The Consultant will be evaluated based on the various companies your firm has a relationship (Portfolio Diversity) with that has served as a source for quality technical team members and how long your firm has worked with these companies. The Consultant will also be evaluated based on your firm's ability to find unique or specialized team members for a value engineering study. The Consultant will be evaluated based on the quality of the sampling of technical team members listed in the proposal. Terminology and Definitions: a. Senior Level: Technical team member expertise is critical to the overall success of value studies. The Louisville District defines senior level to be a minimum of 15 years' experience actually performing the work as a credentialed professional and not just managing it. Any technical team member listed shall be experts in design and construction as represented by the types of projects they designed rather than being team members on value studies or having VE credentials. b. Quality of Technical Team Members: The evaluation factors that will be used to gauge the quality of the technical team members are: relevant expertise applicable to the type of work the Louisville District typically does (defined in Section 2 paragraph G), successful demonstration that team members are experts in his or her field (authored papers/books/codes or their efforts are directly advancing their industry or recognized in the industry as the authority on the subject). c. Unique/ Specialized Team Members: The Consultant will also be evaluated on their ability to use members from disciplines outside of the "core" technical disciplines (Civil, Architect, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural, Geotechnical) in a way that adds expertise to the team and successfully contributes to its value studies. d. Portfolio Diversity: The Consultant will be given a more favorable rating for having a diverse portfolio of technical team members in which to pull from, for having a long relationship with these sources, and for having an active relationship defined as working on project(s) together within 2 years or less e. Valuable Technical Team Member Expertise: Based on the type of work the Louisville District has performed in recent years, the following experience will be considered valuable and will be given additional consideration: expertise that specializes in the design and construction of high performance buildings that can demonstrate actual building performance with post occupancy Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 30% or more below the ASHRAE 90.1 2010 baseline code minimum without photovoltaic (PV) or wind energy, site design expertise that specializes in the design of complicated building sites with challenging features (environmentally sensitive areas, significant utility infrastructure conflicts, grade challenges whether excessively flat or steep, hydraulic challenges), architectural expertise that specializes in the design of efficient architectural floor plan (net to gross ratio of 60% or better), expertise that specializes in the rehabilitation or replacement of critical infrastructure that must reliably function 24/7/365 but in harsh environments with minimal maintenance. 3-2-6 Sample Approach: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a narrative description of the approach to executing VE Workshops for the two sample projects in Attachment A and the rationale for why that approach sets the workshop up for success. The Consultant will be evaluated based on how the approach meets the intent of the SAVE job plan and the USACE VE Standard. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate the workshop duration and the proposed technical team members as well as the associated expertise of those disciplines and how they will contribute to having a highly effective VE workshop. 3-2-7 Effective Process: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes what makes your process/studies effective. The Consultant will be evaluated based on demonstration of how function analysis techniques assure the correct questions are being asked and the correct solutions are being provided. 3-2-8 Workshop Planning: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes their experience planning, coordinating, staffing, executing and reporting value engineering studies/workshops for complex military, environmental, and civil works programs and projects. Consultants who demonstrate a higher number of relevant VE workshops in which they were responsible for planning will be given additional consideration. Consultants who also demonstrate a variety of planning relevant VE workshops will be given additional consideration. The Consultant will be evaluated on the firms' procedures that insure a successful VE workshop. 3-2-9 Consensus Building: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes the firms experience coordinating/organizing large diverse groups with various agendas (some contentious) and how facilitation skills allowed were utilized to arrive at a common list of objectives and requirements for programs and projects. 3-2-10 Experience Diversity: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that describes the firms experience doing the following: 1. Organizing nontraditional approaches using the Value Methodology and specifically Function Analysis to identify solutions to complex problems i. Nontraditional is defined as something different than a 3-5 day consecutive VE workshop following the 6 step job plan 2. Applying the Value Methodology to programmatic level efforts 3. Leading/facilitating planning and design charrettes 4. Application of the value engineering methodology in a non-conventional or non-standard workshop for which the CVS team leader developed the approach. Additionally, indicate the outcomes of this application. 3-3 Capacity: Beyond the minimum requirements defined in section 3 paragraph B, the following information will be used to further evaluate the Consultant's Capacity, listed in order of importance for part 3-3: 3-3-1 Multi-Tasking Capability: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that demonstrates the available capacity to complete two independent VE workshops simultaneously in two different geographic locations. The Consultant will be evaluated based on their ability to handle multiple task orders concurrently with two weeks or less from receipt of the notice to proceed to workshop commencement and two workshops in two different locations nationwide at the same time. 3-3-2 Diversity of VE Work: The Consultant will be evaluated based on a brief narrative that discusses the diversity of the firm's client base in which they perform VE work. 3-4 Past Performance: The Consultant will be evaluated based on CPARS rating, if available, as well as a brief narrative that describes the firm's past performance on DoD and other contracts with respect to cost control, quality of work and compliance with performance schedules. D. Secondary Selection Criteria The secondary selection criteria are listed in descending order of importance: Equitable Distribution of DoD Contracts: Volume of DoD A-E contract awards in the last 12 months, with the objective of effecting an equitable distribution of DoD A-E contracts among qualified firms, including SB and SDB.   Section 4 - Submission Requirements A. General Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit one paper copy and one electronic copy in PDF format on CD of the entire proposal. The PDF shall be appropriately book marked to facilitate an expeditious review according to the format listed below. Proposers shall provide all information required in this solicitation. The proposal must be typed on 8 ½"x11" paper with a minimum font size of 10 points or larger and paginated. The proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its content, not length. Each printed side of a sheet will count as one page. Any firm with an electronic mailbox responding to the solicitation should identify such address in the SF 330, Part I. Please identify the Dun & Bradstreet number of the office(s) performing the work in Block 5 of the SF 330, Part I. Dun & Bradstreet numbers may be obtained by contacting 1-866-705-5711, or via the internet at www.dnb.com. B. Proposal Format The function(s) of a standard proposal format is "simplify review", "ensure consistency", "elevate key-information". The Louisville District has outlined a structure for all Consultants to follow. The SF330 will serve as the starting point for this standardized proposal format and will be supplemented as defined below; Page 4 Section G doesn't need to be submitted. The Consultant is strongly encouraged to arrange the information within the proposal in order of importance within each section. In other words, the most qualified person first or the most relevant project first or the most critical information first. The following outlines the proposal structure: Tab 1 - General: The SF330 is a standard form the Government utilizes and again will serve as a starting point. This proposal format breaks the SF330 up based on function/information rather than page order. Tab 1 can have up to 4 pages total in addition to page 6 of the SF330. • Page 1 of the SF330 shall be placed in tab 1. o Page 1 identifies the company name and contact information as well as the company make up/organizational structure. o Page 1 section C (Proposed Team) lists all your core VE related staff that are critical to the success of the overall VE effort, not technical team members. o Page 1 section D (Organizational Chart) illustrates the organizational structure of the company. Clearly illustrate who the contract manager is. The contract manager is considered the primary point of contact for the overall contract and the person(s) that will discuss scope, schedule, budget, and negotiate the task order contracts. The organizational structure shall clearly illustrate if the core staff are company employees or consist of subcontracted employees. If core staff consist of subcontracted employees, clearly indicate the organizational structure between prime and subs. • Page 6 of the SF330 shall be placed in tab 1 o This is the area that highlights small business status, among other things. Tab 2 - Core VE Team Professional Qualifications: The function(s) of this section is to "demonstrate compliance", "highlight member-experience", "illustrate member-relevance", and "highlight member-quality. Standard Form (SF) 330 section E is the initial page that will be used and shall be placed in tab 2. This solicitation does not have a maximum submitted core VE team member count however the maximum page count for tab 2 is (32) pages. • Page 2 section E of the SF330 shall be submitted for each team member required in this solicitation as well as any additional core team members submitted beyond the minimum. o Note: Clearly indicate license (PE/RA, etc.) and certifications (CVS) along with the year the licenses and certifications were obtained. It is critical to include the length of time the CVS has been certified and facilitating VE workshops. o Note: Page 2 section 19 of the SF330 shall demonstrate the experience of each team member and their experience relevant to the type of work the Louisville District typically performs. A maximum of five projects in section 19 is allowed per person. o Note: Page 2 section 19 of the SF330 Brief Description: Make sure to clearly illustrate the person's role on the project. • Additional pages may be added for each team member. Describe why the individual is critical to the team. What differentiates this person from the rest? What about this persons abilities gets results? Provide actual examples of quality function analysis extracted from their studies and how function analysis allowed the team to find more creative solutions. Identify up to three examples of Key VE alternatives/proposals that were instrumental to the success of the submitted VE study. Tab 3 - Firm Value Engineering Workshop Summaries: The function(s) of this section is to "demonstrate value mastery", "effective communication", "demonstrate value". Using SF330 page 3 section F and page 5 section H, submit summaries of (3-5) relevant Value Engineering Workshops that demonstrate a mastery of the value methodology and illustrate how these workshop results had a significant value contribution to the project being studied. The submitted studies must have been performed by the firm and by the CVS team members submitted in the proposal. The projects do not need to be (but can be) the same as those submitted in tab 2 for the individual team members. None of the submitted projects shall be projects for the Louisville District. At least one of the (3-5) submitted projects shall be for another customer other than the US Army Corps of Engineers. List the technical team members used for each study in field 25 of section F. Tab 3 shall not exceed 15 pages in length Tab 4 - Overall Technical Competency and Specialized Experience: The function(s) of this section is to "illustrate diversity", "prove methods", "confirm value-specialty", "validate quality". Tab 4 will not utilize pages from the SF330, however we do want to maintain a set structure. The following order should be followed for Tab 4. Refer to Section 3 - Selection Criteria: I. Management Plan: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3. II. VE Experience: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3. III. Team Member Selection: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3. Also include a table of the various companies your firm has a relationship with that has served as a source for technical team members and how long your firm has worked with these companies. Also, include a sampling of technical team members that highlights the quality of the team members that you utilize and have access to. IV. Sample Approach: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3 V. Effective Process: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3. The proposal must include an example where function analysis played a substantial role in the outcome of the workshop. VI. Workshop Planning: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3 VII. Consensus Building: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3 VIII. Experience Diversity: submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in Section 3 IX. Customer References: List customer references that can validate the quality of your work Tab 4 shall have a maximum of (20) pages.   Tab 5 - Capacity: The function(s) of this section is to "confirm availability", Tab 5 will not utilize the SF330; however, we do want to maintain a set structure. The following order should be followed for tab 5. Submit a brief narrative that addresses the evaluation factors defined in section 3 I. Multi-Tasking Ability: II. Diversity of VE Work III. Past Performance Tab 5 shall have a max of (4) pages OFFEROR'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at http://www.ProjNet.org/ProjNet. As noted below, offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet. Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. To submit and review bid inquiry items, bidders will need to be a current registered user or self-register into system. The Solicitation Number is: W912QR-70101307 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: M3YS37-748DR9 Specific Instructions for ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access: 1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen. 2. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE. 3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above. 4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication. 5. Select Continue. A page will then open stating a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form. 6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system. 7. Select Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system. Specific Instructions for Future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access: 1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be emailed any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in. 2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen. 3. Identify the Agency. This should be marked as USACE. 4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above. 5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet. 6. Select Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret Question. 7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add an inquiry. Bidders will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team. Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety and to review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. The call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago). The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP. Information concerning the status of the evaluation and/or award will NOT be available after receipt of bids/proposals. NOTES: 1. Offerors shall not submit their proposals via ProjNet, but in accordance with the provisions stated in the solicitation. Any questions regarding acceptable means of submitting offers shall be made directly to the Contract Specialist identified in the solicitation. 2. Government responses to technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds that are submitted to ProjNet in accordance with the procedures above are not binding on the Government unless an amendment is issued on Standard Form 30. In the case of any conflicts, the solicitation governs. Any changes or revisions to the solicitation will be made by formal amendment. Government responses will be limited to: (a) Notice that an amendment will be issued; (b) Reference to an existing requirement contained in the solicitation; or (c) Notice that a response is not necessary. 3. The ability to enter technical inquiries and questions relating to proposal procedures or bonds will be disabled five (5) days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation. No Government responses will be entered into the ProjNet system within two (2) days prior to the closing date stated in the solicitation. Attachment A Sample Project 1 - Military Renovation: This project is a renovation and repurpose of an existing building on a military installation within the United States. The renovation is for the unit that currently occupies the building. This unit is expanding their operation and doesn't have any other place to go on this installation or any other nearby facilities, therefore this facility will remain occupied during construction. The facility contains a highly sensitive top secret mission that MUST remain operational at all times and the security protocols MUST remain as well. The top secret mission contains a lab space that is sensitive to temperature and humidity. The original estimated budget was $8 million but the current working estimate is closer to $14 million; since the project is O&M funded it technically doesn't have a fixed budget constraint. The customer has indicated that schedule is more important than cost because they are expected to double staff and they have no place for them to go. The funding source for this project is operations and maintenance which has strict restrictions on how much new work is allowed, therefore it's assumed no additional square footage is allowed beyond the existing building foot print. The scope of the work to be performed is to utilize an abandoned open volume three story portion of the building to create office space. The customer has decided to add the replacement of all heating and ventilation equipment for the entire facility due to the age of the equipment. The DD1391 reads as follows: "Accomplish interior demolition, slab saw cutting, foundation excavation. Provide a structural system for a three level structure, including framing, seismic bracing, floor slabs, stairwells, and an elevator as required by code. Provide interior partitions, door, hardware, ceiling and finishes. Replace facility HVAC system. Provide power and lighting, fire detection, alarm and suppression system." Unfortunately the planning of the value engineering approach/strategy (value management plan) wasn't determined at the beginning of the project, therefore the designer of record (DOR) is expected to submit a set of 65% interim drawings within the next two weeks. The DOR is an AE consultant that has a solid team with a great reputation for doing quality work and they are generally supportive of value engineering. Unfortunately there isn't any language in the DOR's contract that requires them to participate in any value effort. How would the approach change if the DOR didn't have a history of supporting VE and the team wasn't as strong?  Sample Project 2 - One of a Kind Civil Project: This project is located in the United States and is a significant part of the Nation's Infrastructure. These facilities are a part of river navigation and MUST operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. These facilities CANNOT go down otherwise it costs Industry millions of dollars a day. Unfortunately the United States is experiencing nationwide financial strains, and projects like this one keep requiring more and more money each year. This project is considered a Mega Project which comes with a lot of oversight and extra layers of management as well as a lot more review. The total project is over a billion dollars and has many pieces; some of the pieces are already under construction, others are still in the planning and design stage, and some that have been constructed are experiencing problems with wear and tear. The estimated value of the scope that VE is looking at is approximately $175 million. The pieces of the overall project scope the project manager needs the value engineering department to help with are as follows: the miscellaneous repairs of an existing lock facility (~$10M), the design and construction of a specialized piece of equipment for lifting and lowering wickets (~$14M), the excessive accumulation of sediment and the control of water velocities within the immediate upstream and downstream limits of this project (~$90M), and the removal of old lock and dam facilities upon the construction completion of this project (~$60M). The only specific details that are available are on the miscellaneous repairs to the lock facility because that design work is underway. The issues on the lock facility is the surface of the hydraulic cylinders that operate the miter gates and culvert valves are developing imperfections that are damaging the seals and causing fluids to leak and ultimately will impact operations. One of the causes to the damage of these cylinders is due to the fact they remain submerged in the river half the year due to rising flood waters. Also, the electrical and control system that operate the facility is deteriorating and not operating reliably. All of this work is being design by USACE staff in various parts across the nation based on expertise.
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/COE/DACA27/W912QR-70101307/listing.html)
 

Record

SN04380629-W 20170127/170125234450-79b8189fd613a8896f47c0d4e37793d0 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

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

---

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