SPECIAL NOTICE
99 -- 2023 National Guard Bureau (NGB) Architect-Engineer (A-E) Industry Day and Request for Information (RFI)
- Notice Date
- 1/5/2023 10:24:49 AM
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 5413
—
- Contracting Office
- W39L USA NG READINESS CENTER ARLINGTON VA 22204-1382 USA
- ZIP Code
- 22204-1382
- Response Due
- 1/31/2023 1:00:00 PM
- Point of Contact
- Brittany Weller, Michael Dixon, Phone: 7038227823
- E-Mail Address
-
brittany.l.weller.ctr@army.mil, michael.d.dixon82.civ@army.mil
(brittany.l.weller.ctr@army.mil, michael.d.dixon82.civ@army.mil)
- Description
- National Guard Bureau Request for Information AND Industry Day 2023 Architect-Engineer Procurement Hot Topics� The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to solicit feedback on current challenges and trends as it relates to the procurement of Architect-Engineer (A-E) services in support of the National Guard (NG). The information collected will be analyzed, and ultimately briefed during a formal A-E Industry Day. The Industry Day details are as follows: Location: Joint Base Andrews, Maryland AND Microsoft Teams (hybrid event) Date/Time: February 9, 2023, from approximately 0900 (EST) to 1300 Registration Instructions:� Interested firms must contact Brittany Weller at brittany.l.weller.ctr@army.mil to register for the Industry Day.� In-person Registration Request � If you wish to register to attend in-person, please submit the following information for each attendee: Name (First, Middle, and Last) Date of Birth Driver�s License State and Number Virtual (Microsoft Teams) Registration Request � If you wish to register to attend virtually via Microsoft Teams, submit only the name and e-mail address for each attendee. Registration closing date: January 31, 2023, at 1600 (EST) Depending on space restrictions, we may have to limit the number of attendees for each firm. This decision will be made shortly after January 31, 2023. Once registration is complete, you will receive a confirmation email along with further instructions for attendance. If you are interested in meeting with a Contracting Officer for a face-to-face meeting, please include that request with your registration as well. These one-on-one sessions will likely be scheduled in the early afternoon depending on the number of requests received. If you are responding with information about the �hot topics� identified below, please also submit those responses to Brittany Weller, brittany.l.weller.ctr@army.mil, no later than January 31, 2023. Your responses/feedback will be incorporated with information from other parties, so take care not to provide proprietary or company-sensitive information.� Below are four (4) main topics with lists of challenges noted by the Government. This is not an exhaustive list, nor does it reflect a specific A-E firms� perspective.� Topic 1: Inflation� Recent fluctuations in inflation (throughout the construction industry) have resulted in a high number of un-awardable projects for the Government. Bids/proposals frequently come in higher than the A-E cost estimates. The Government relies heavily on accurate A-E cost estimates to budget for and negotiate construction projects.� Challenge ? 1: Building more accurate estimates that illustrate/track costs associated with inflation. Challenge ? 2: The Government is required to hold A-E firms accountable for the accuracy of their estimates. What are fair/unfair standards to hold an A-E accountable? Challenge ? 3: Current methods for building a construction estimate appear to be insufficient to account for inflationary costs. Are estimating software applications (e.g., RSMeans) capable of accounting for recent market shifts? Feedback requested: Ideas for more accurate construction estimates.� Feedback requested: Ideas for updating/revising estimates for inflationary impacts after design contracts are finished.� Feedback requested: Challenges A-E firms have with building estimates.� Feedback requested: Holding A-E firms liable for construction cost estimates.� Topic 2: Government Limitations on Procurements Challenge ? 4: Timely approval of Government budgets have a direct impact on the NG�s ability to solicit and award contracts within a Fiscal Year (FY). Oftentimes, the actual budget is not finalized and approved due to Continuing Resolutions (CRs) or shutdowns until the 2nd Quarter (Q2) of the FY. This delay affects NG�s ability to solicit for proposals until late Q2 or even Q3. As a result, the NG (along with many DoD agencies) have relied on the administration of large Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with the negotiation and award of individual task orders for the bulk of A-E procurements. A traditional �C� contract can take too long to solicit and award after receipt of the final budget for projects; task orders provide a faster timeline to award.� Challenge ? 5: Late FY solicitation and awards for task orders leave the Government and A-E firms less time to hold �fact-finding� meetings, conduct thorough negotiations, or allow A-E firms time to provide solutions to the Government. Late FY solicitations also result in less interest from A-E firms since their organizational resources are responding to procurements from other Federal agencies simultaneously. Challenge ? 6: Heavy reliance on IDIQ contracts require the solicitation, competition, and award of extremely large multiple-award pools of A-E contractors. These IDIQs take years to solicit and award. Sometimes, 2.5 years to procure a 5-year contract vehicle. IDIQs also require broad labor rate pricing from A-E firms since the scope of the task orders is spread across many States and territories and cover a broad range of services.� Feedback requested: Ideas for expediting A-E procurement timeliness. Feedback requested: Ideas for other contract/acquisition types to target the most highly qualified A-E for a specific project. Feedback requested: Challenges faced by small business firms in submitting a technical proposal (Standard Form 330) for regional or nationwide IDIQ contracts.� Topic 3: National Guard-specific Guidance on A-E Procurements The National Guard Bureau has recently issued guidance to its contracting offices throughout the U.S. to procure Pre-Design and Design services (defined by the Air Guard as Type �A� and Type �B� services) under a separate contract from Construction Inspections/Testing Services (defined by the NG as Type �C� services). The purpose of this was multi-fold: Too many unknowns for an A-E firm to price out their Type C pricing at the beginning of an A-E procurement. The year in which the construction would be performed is not always known and therefore, the A-E firm is left estimating the applicable labor rates. Designs that end up �on the shelf� due to a lack of construction funding exacerbate this challenge. NG Contracting Officers were having challenges with �options� for Type C services expiring since the options were not properly exercised during the timeframes required by the original contract award. This ended up requiring re-soliciting of price proposals and award of new contract vehicles.� A-E firms that perform the pre-design and design services will still have sole source authority to propose to a contract for �Type C� services. Primarily because the A-E has redesign responsibility for any design errors or deficiencies. The goal is for the Type C proposal to be closer to the actual performance of the construction work.� Feedback requested: Does this guidance issued by the NG affect (positively or negatively) your firm�s ability to propose for this type of work (Type C services)? Topic 4: Firm-Fixed-Price with Level-of-Effort (FFP-LOE) contract type for �Type C� services The National Guard is considering using FFP-LOE awards for Type C services (https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-16#FAR_16_207). Currently, the National Guard uses FFP awards for Type C services. The concern is that A-E firms are forced to estimate their level of effort on the higher side to accommodate an unknown number of construction submittal reviews, Requests for Information (RFIs), etc. The goal of an FFP-LOE contract type would help the Government and A-E to agree on the likely number of labor hours needed, but not put either party at-risk if those early estimates are too low.� Feedback requested: Does this contract type help A-Es to narrow their proposals on the likely number of hours needed? Would it protect your firm if the level of support increases unexpectedly? Is there another contract type that may provide a better solution to this challenge?�
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://sam.gov/opp/1ab43d2399794de9bf558a38c340f4b5/view)
- Place of Performance
- Address: USA
- Country: USA
- Country: USA
- Record
- SN06556853-F 20230107/230105230105 (samdaily.us)
- Source
-
SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |