TABLE OF CONTENTS
This appendix provides policies, procedures, and guidelines for implementing the Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) program as described in AFFARS 5336.293.
"SABER contract" means a fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with provisions for economic price adjustments. A SABER contract includes a collection of detailed task specifications that encompass most types of real property maintenance, repair, and construction work. SABER contracts include options for work in years beyond the initial performance period. The significant features of a SABER contract include:
(1) "The Unit Price Book (UPB)" The UPB is made up of the detailed task specifications along with a standard unit of measure and a unit price for each. The task specifications and unit prices apply to a general area or industry, therefore it is necessary to tailor the UPB to the costs and practices of a specific location. This step, which is called localization, is critical to the success of a SABER program. Localization of the voluminous data in the UPB is normally accomplished using computer programs. Government and commercial software alternatives are available for compiling the basic task listings and standard unit prices and the localization process; and
(2) "Coefficients" Coefficients are factors that are multiplied against the standard unit prices in the UPB in calculating delivery order (DO) prices. During source selection for the SABER contract, offerors propose coefficients in consideration of cost elements such as: overhead, profit, minimum design costs, G&A expenses, bond premiums, and gross receipts taxes. The number of coefficients that a SABER contract will contain is determined by the installation's requirements. The coefficients may include bands or ranges based on dollar levels, standard and non-standard hours, range or isolated site work, or work in secured areas. The coefficient also reflects the offeror's perception of the accuracy of the UPB. UPBs that are consistently lower than prices found in the local economy will cause the contractor to bid high coefficients. Inconsistent or unbalanced UPBs increases the uncertainty in preparing proposals. This can lead to high coefficients or inequitable pricing of SABER contracts. This reinforces the importance of localizing the UPB.
"SABER minimum design" means a design effort that is incidental to accomplishing the required task. Generally, minimum design would be exceeded if a typical general construction contractor would need to hire additional expertise in order to accomplish the project. The Base Civil Engineer (BCE) has the responsibility for determining what constitutes minimum design.
"SABER delivery order" Prices for individual SABER delivery orders are determined by applying contractor's coefficients to items covered by UPB and negotiating prices for items that are not included in the UPB. These non-priced items (NPI) must be within the basic intent and general scope of the contract and be negotiated separately from UPB items prior to issuance of the delivery order.
(a) The purpose of the Air Force SABER program is to expedite contract award of civil engineer requirements by reducing civil engineer design work and acquisition lead time. SABER is best suited for non-complex, minor construction and maintenance and repair projects that require minimum design.
(b) Benefits of a successful SABER program include:
(1) Improved customer service and responsiveness. After the initial contract is awarded, delivery orders (DOs) for individual projects can usually be estimated, proposed, negotiated, and issued in three to four weeks; and
(2) A contractor that is highly motivated to produce high quality work in a timely manner. While the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract must guarantee a minimum dollar value of work, award of additional work can be dependent on the quality and timeliness of the contractor's performance under the contract.
(a) General. SABER should complement the traditional construction program, not replace it. SABER is not appropriate for large, complex construction projects that require extensive design effort or for predominately single skill/material projects for which competitively bid contracts or single trade IDIQ contracts would be more cost effective. SABER cannot be used to make up for inadequate planning by the Government, which can lead to numerous changes after construction is started. Whatever benefits are gained from the expeditious start of a project can be quickly overcome by subsequent delays and added costs to correct poor planning and preparation.
(b) Architect-engineer (A-E) services.
(1) The Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. 541-544) requires engineering services to be acquired using specific procedures (see FAR Subpart 36.6). SABER shall not be used to acquire engineering services as defined in FAR 36.102.
(2) Taskings in SABER UPBs and corresponding coefficients include minor design efforts needed to complete a project, such as basic layout and planning of work, fabrication and assembly of structural elements, form fit and attachment details for installation of materials and/or equipment, production of shop and/or record drawings, and other similar activities which do not require the services of a registered architect or engineer. However, a SABER contract may not be used to execute a project that was designed using A-E services except when:
(i) Design validation/updating is required for an A-E designed project due to age of the design; or
(ii) The A-E design was not completed beyond 35 percent and the remaining design effort does not require a significant amount of A-E services.
(c) Delivery order limitations. An individual SABER DO shall not exceed $500,000, unless this limitation is waived by the installation commander. For projects over $500,000, the use of SABER pre-priced UPB may result in excessive project costs. Therefore, another contracting approach may be more appropriate. The $500,000 limitation also applies when a proposed modification to a delivery order would cause the delivery order to exceed $500,000. The waiver must be approved before the DO can be issued and is based on economic and mission requirements. The waiver authority may not be redelegated. The waiver package shall include the following:
(1) A comparison of the cost of using the SABER DO versus that of the contracting approach that would otherwise be used. This analysis must be certified by the civil engineer commander;
(2) A statement signed by the civil engineer commander outlining the mission requirements and cost considerations that justify use of a SABER order instead of an alternative contracting approach; and
(3) The written approval signed by the installation commander.
NOTE: An approved waiver to the DO limitation does not negate the contractor's right pursuant to the clauses at FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations, and FAR 52.216-22, Indefinite Quantity, to reject an order that exceeds the contract maximum.
(d) NPI limitations. The need to negotiate NPIs reduces the efficiency of the SABER contract and may undermine the cost savings of prepriced items realized through the SABER competition. The value of NPIs for an individual SABER DO shall not exceed ten percent of the total value of the DO, unless this limitation is waived by the installation commander. The waiver authority may not be redelegated and does not extend to DOs in which NPIs would exceed 25 percent of the value of the DO. Therefore, no SABER DO may be issued when the relative value of its NPIs exceeds 25 percent. The waiver must be approved before the DO can be issued and may be based on economic or mission requirements. The waiver package shall include the following:
(1) A comparison of the cost of using the SABER DO versus that of the contracting approach that would otherwise be used. This analysis must be certified by the civil engineer commander;
(2) A statement signed by the civil engineer commander outlining the mission requirements and cost considerations that justify use of the SABER order with NPIs that exceed the ten percent limitation instead of using an alternative contracting approach; and
(3) The written approval signed by the installation commander.
(e) Non-personal services. SABER shall not be used to perform non-personal services subject to the provisions of the Service Contract Act (e.g., a delivery order solely to install carpet when the labor involved exceeds $2,500). The Department of Labor (DOL) has jurisdiction over whether a particular requirement is classified as construction work subject to the Davis Bacon Act or services to which the Service Contract Act applies. DOL guidance provides that services such as carpet installation, landscaping, asbestos removal, and building demolition may be performed as construction when the work is incidental to a larger construction project. If the preponderance of the work involves the services cited, although there may be some incidental related construction work, the project falls under the Services Contract Act and shall not be performed using SABER.
(a) Successful SABER programs require team effort. Whether establishing a new SABER program or awarding a follow-on contract, a working group of all SABER players in CE and Contracting should be convened at the beginning of the planning process. This group should be chaired by the BCE or SABER Chief, assisted by the contracting officer and should hold regularly scheduled meetings until the solicitation is issued. The working group should gain the support of the installation commander and the using organizations. An early beginning to this communication and education process is crucial to the SABER program's success.
(b) Initially, the SABER working group should concentrate on:
(1) Estimating the expected scope of SABER for the installation or civil engineer organization, in order to establish a budget for the SABER program and the guaranteed maximum and minimum amounts to be included in the contract;
(2) Contacting associate organizations and other local Department of Defense installations as possible sources for up-front funding and projected budget requirements; and
(3) Determining the best organization for the SABER unit, including a calculation of the appropriate size of the SABER staff and identification of the types of personnel needed. The working group should investigate the feasibility of establishing a joint effort with other nearby bases (including Army, Navy, Air Force Reserve, and National Guard installations).
(a) Once the SABER requirements and budget are established, the BCE prepares the SABER program specifications. These include the master specification and the technical or guide specifications. The master specification describes the overall scope of the SABER program and is included in Section C of the Request For Proposal (RFP) under the heading "Description/Specification/Work Statement." The technical specifications define the specific construction standards for the tasks that will be ordered under the contract and form the basis for developing line item work tasks in the UPB.
(b) After developing the specifications, the BCE prepares the UPB, which is a compilation of the standard work tasks along with standard unit prices that will be included in the RFP and contract. Each of the prospective contractors will propose multipliers or coefficients, This listing of prepriced items becomes the basis for what may be ordered under the SABER contract. The UPB is the tailoring of the base data (which are priced at various locations nationally) to reflect accurate local construction practices and costs.
(a) As early in the acquisition process as practicable, the contracting officer shall convene an Acquisition Strategy Panel (see 5307.104-91) to ensure that an effective approach is established for executing the acquisition.
(b) At this point, the heads of the operational contracting and civil engineer organizations should jointly determine the best SABER unit organizational structure to maximize communications and provide a dedicated team approach. The contracting personnel responsible for SABER may include contracting officers, negotiators, price analysts, and administrators, depending on acquisition phase and installation SABER workload. The individual serving as the SABER administrator should be involved as early as possible in the process, even if not normally part of solicitation and contract award activities.
(c) During this phase of the program, extensive effort is required to develop a plan of action considering:
(1) Acquisition background and program objectives;
(2) The anticipated SABER requirements and program value;
(3) The master and guide specifications and the UPB; and
(4) The anticipated delivery or performance period requirements.
(d) In developing the Acquisition Plan the contracting officer should consider:
(1) The anticipated sources;
(2) The need to enhance competition and use streamline source selection procedures;
(3) Any unique contracting considerations;
(4) Budgeting and funding concerns;
(5) Any management information requirements;
(6) Government-furnished property (e.g., office space, furniture, telephones, utilities, etc.);
(7) Environmental considerations;
(8) Security considerations;
(9) Milestones for the acquisition cycle; and
(10) Identification of the participants in the acquisition planning.
(e) The Acquisition Plan should contain a schedule with milestones that identify the OPR and a date by which each task must be completed. Again, the preparation of the acquisition plan is a team effort requiring the inputs of both the contracting and civil engineer representatives, and specific OPRs should be aware of their required contributions. While the contracting officer maintains overall control of the plan, the technical elements of the requirement are the responsibility of the BCE.
This phase of the SABER acquisition process includes all activities associated with standard construction contracting, including applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
(a) Commerce Business Daily (CBD) synopsis requirements and pre-solicitation notices. FAR 5.101 requires contracting officers to publicize proposed contract actions to increase competition, broaden industry participation in Government requirements, and assist small and small, disadvantaged businesses in obtaining contracts and subcontracts. SABER solicitations are, at a minimum, publicized in the CBD. A sample CBD synopsis is provided at Attachment DD-1. Also, the contracting officer should consider using presolicitation notices (see FAR 15.404) to identify interested sources and to facilitate preparation of proposals by interested offerors to save time and documentation. FAR 36.302 provides additional information regarding construction presolicitation notices.
(b) Source Selection Plan (SSP). Use streamlined source selection procedures (see AFFARS Appendix BB) in order to significantly reduce the administrative and technical requirements of the formal source selection process and still allow the basis of contract award to be other than price and price related factors. The SSP is prepared by the contracting officer using civil engineer inputs. The plan is a detailed document that specifies the source selection process and identifies the evaluation criteria to be used in awarding the SABER contract. A sample SSP is provided as Attachment DD-2 and evaluation criteria as Attachment DD-3.
(a) The SABER RFP should closely mirror the format and content for a large construction solicitation. Specifically, a SABER RFP should include the following:
(1) Section B of the Schedule, identify the coefficient(s) that the offeror must propose and describe:
(i) The factors that generally make up the coefficient(s);
(ii) Instances where two or more coefficients may be required (e.g., for standard hours, non-standard hours, geographically-separated ranges or sites, and secure areas); and
(iii) Instructions for incorporating Davis Bacon Act labor rate updates and other appropriate changes in the coefficients for options. The contracting officer should establish an economic price adjustment (EPA) clause in accordance with instructions in Attachment DD-7.
(2) Section C of the Schedule should clearly define the SABER requirements, including:
(i) The scope and nature of the requirement;
(ii) The applicable contract technical specifications and UPB;
(iii) A sample calculation of a "typical" SABER project (using a project that will actually be awarded later under the resulting SABER contract); and
(iv) The level of architectural/drafting support to be performed by the contractor.
(3) In developing the elements of the RFP:
(i) Specify a first contract performance period of 12 months (to provide a full year's performance for option exercise purposes), if any phase-in period is required, it should be a separate, unpriced line item in the solicitation and resulting contract;
(ii) Do not establish the start of performance periods/option years on or about 01 Oct (avoid tying it to the beginning/end of the fiscal year);
(iii) Require the contractor (and allocate space accordingly) to establish an on-base office;
(iv) Minimize the number of price coefficients and keep them as simple as possible;
(v) Do not use the term "overtime" in reference to non-standard hour effort;
(vi) Establish realistic contract minimum and maximum dollar amounts;
(vii) Establish, understand, and be able to explain the method for option year adjustments (using either the EPA clause and pre-determined formulas/criteria or by updating the UPB);
(viii) Identify any required permits or certifications such as asbestos removal or environmental work;
(ix) Consider limiting the contractor's technical proposals to 50 pages or less to expedite evaluation. Do not set a limit on resumes;
(x) Require large businesses to include subcontracting plans with initial offers. This prevents premature indications that a firm is the apparent successful offeror and avoid delays resulting from subsequent contracting officer requests for such plans; and
(xi) Keep the base legal office and reprographics function apprised of your solicitation schedule to accommodate short suspenses.
(4) Terms and Conditions. Address the following items as appropriate:
(i) Bonding requirements;
(ii) Ordering procedures;
(iii) The Government's right to perform work of the same type as the SABER contractor without breaching or violating the contract; and
(iv) A mechanism for and frequency of adding NPIs to the UPB.
(e) Pre-proposal conferences. The unique aspects of SABER and the requirements of each installation make pre-preproposal conferences worthwhile. These conferences force the Air Force SABER team to consider various perspectives and differing interpretations of the Government's solicitation. By allowing potential contractors to ask questions, the Air Force can anticipate the receipt of better proposals and an overall smoother acquisition. Planning for the conference should include the selection of an appropriate facility conducive to questions, discussion, and the exchange of information.
(a) SABER programs should use streamlined source selection procedures in AFFARS Appendix BB to select the SABER contractor in order to balance technical, cost, and business decisions, except when 8(a) procedures are used. The goal is to select the contractor whose proposal offers the highest degree of credibility and best meets the Government's requirements at an affordable cost.
(b) A key to performing a successful source selection is the early identification of team members. It is important to train personnel who are not familiar with their responsibilities as early as possible. In addition to the normal functional representatives on the source selection evaluation team (the contract team and the technical team), it is advisable to include a technical person on the contracting team. That person assists in the technical evaluation of cost proposals to determine whether a cost proposal is complete, reasonable, and realistic. It is also a good idea to have a contracting person as an advisor to the technical team to discuss contractual matters and ensure the integrity of the process. Additionally, use local or headquarters pricing assistance if such support is available. Civil Engineering normally leads the technical team, operational contracting the contracting team. Considering the long range (multiyear) and high cost impacts, it is wise to put your best, most qualified personnel on both teams. This up-front effort should make SABER run much smoother and more efficiently over the life of the program.
(c) Use of evaluation criteria that reflect the requirements of the SABER program will enable the Government to emphasize technical ability and quality in reaching a source selection decision. The Government source selection team must work together to identify important customer requirements. Examples of evaluation criteria that have been effectively used in SABER source selections include:
(1) Project management ability, including key project management staff, the quality control plan, financial resources, and technical support staff;
(2) Subcontracting support capability and subcontract management, including identification of key subcontractors, purchasing system/level of subcontracting;
(3) Project execution, including sample project preparation/submission and related or applicable experience; and
(4) Price, including completeness, reasonableness, and realism.
NOTE: These criteria are weighted in order of descending importance. Installations have confirmed the importance of emphasizing the contractor's management staff above other evaluation criteria. Examples of evaluation criteria are included as Attachment DD-3.
(d) While technical considerations are more important than price in a streamlined source selection, the pricing coefficient is an important factor in a SABER program and must be fair and reasonable. The contracting officer is responsible for determining if an offeror's proposed coefficients are realistic and complete in relation to the solicitation and represent a reasonable price for award of the SABER contract.
(e) Concerning project execution criteria, include in Section M of the solicitation a statement similar to the following:
"As part of the evaluation of the offerors ability to execute projects under the contract, a sample SABER project is attached to this solicitation. Each offeror should submit one or more design concepts, a list of assumptions used to develop the concept(s), a list of priced items from the unit price book, a list of non-priced items, simple design drawings, material submittals, the required period of performance, and a brief summary of project execution. The Government will assess the ability of each offeror as to project execution; completeness of the priced and non-priced listings; cost effectiveness of decisions; and completeness, applicability, and logic of overall proposal(s)."
(f) Include a statement advising offerors that in developing their proposed coefficient(s) they must consider all allowable contractor costs, including contingencies and profit. The only changes to the coefficients that will be permitted will be those that were made under the economic price adjustment clause of the contract. In evaluating the reasonableness and realism of offerors' proposals, Government personnel should be aware that the coefficient(s), may be based on cost elements including:
(1) State gross receipts taxes and payroll taxes, such as FICA, workmen's' compensation (when not included in the wage determination), state and Federal unemployment taxes for direct payroll employees;
(2) Material and labor costs, superintendents' salaries, builders' risk insurance, mobilization and demobilization expenses, and bond premiums; and
(3) Various overhead expenses, such as site office overhead, field office building, furniture, equipment, on-site office staff salaries, vehicle and construction equipment maintenance, office administrative expenses, and a proportional share of home office overhead.
(g) Other streamlined source selection and contract award considerations include the need to:
(1) Keep source selection authority at the base level, preferably the wing commander or the vice wing commander (who often serves as the Competition Advocate and is familiar with the contracting processes);
(2) Maintain continuity in the Government source selection teams once the source selection process is started;
(3) Establish a realistic schedule (despite political pressures to commit to unrealistic milestones) for accomplishing all of the necessary activities. Ensure that the schedule allows time for MAJCOM business and contract clearance requirements;
(4) Hold discussions with offeror's within the competitive range before issuing the request for best and final offers. This is one of the major advantages of using the source selection process, instead of sealed bidding;
(5) Avoid awarding the contract late in the fiscal year, so that obligating the guaranteed minimum does not cause problems with the bona fide need rule; and
(6) Ensure that all members of the source selection team receive clear instructions on their duties and responsibilities in the source selection. The proposal evaluations must be comprehensive, and all ratings must be clearly documented.
(a) Issuance of project order. The Civil Engineer Project Manager:
(1) Provides the statement of work, including concepts, sketches, and drawings;
(2) Identifies any statutory cost limitations;
(3) States any special instructions or requirements; and
(4) Includes a preliminary independent cost estimate and any required cost comparisons, justifications, and approvals.
(b) Site visit. The SABER project manager/inspector, contracting officer representative, using organization, and contractor will conduct a scope validation/site visit for each delivery order. Discussions include:
(1) Site access;
(2) Methods and alternatives for accomplishing work;
(3) Definition and refinement of requirements;
(4) Requirements for plans, sketches, drawings, etc.;
(5) Detailed scope of work; and
(6) Time requirements for completion, phasing requirements, and liquidated damages.
(c) Independent Government cost estimate. After the joint scope validation site visit, the SABER Project Manager updates the project order package to include any revised drawings and submits a detailed independent Government cost estimate as required in FAR 36.203. For DOs or DO modifications that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, the Government cost estimate is required. For DOs or modifications that are less than the simplified acquisition threshold, this requirement is optional at the discretion of the contracting officer. The contracting officer may not begin negotiations without the independent cost estimate and must justify in the price negotiation memorandum (PNM) any differences from these estimates. Should the estimate change for any reason, the revised estimate and accompanying explanation/rationale must be provided in a timely manner to the contracting officer. The Government cost estimate must identify and provide cost estimates for any NPIs. The estimate shall be approved in writing by the appropriate BCE official, stamped "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY," and protected from unauthorized disclosure. If the project scope changes significantly or negotiations reveal errors in the Government estimate, the SABER program manager will provide a corrected estimate or explanation to the contracting officer.
(d) Contractor's proposal. After receiving the formal purchase request and approved independent cost estimate, the contracting officer requests the contractor to provide a detailed price proposal. The contractor develops this proposal by identifying necessary tasks in the UPB, verifying as-built drawings, refining quantities, pricing NPIs, preparing working drawings, and developing performance times. The SABER program manager may need to answer questions from the contractor and clarify technical aspects of the project.
(e) Delivery order negotiation.
(1) The contract administrator and contracting officer review the contractor's proposal for scope, compliance, completeness, and reasonableness by comparing it with the Government requirement and cost estimate. The contract administrator then forwards the technical proposal to the program manager for a technical review. The contracting officer evaluates the proposed method of construction, tasks, quantities, performance schedules, and any contractor drawings.
(2) After receiving the technical evaluation from the program manager, the contracting officer conducts meetings to review the proposal with the contractor. The contracting officer, with assistance from the program manager, establishes the Government's negotiation objective, including any variations involving tasks, methodology, quantities, NPIs, and timelines. If the period of performance exceeds 60 days, the contracting officer should establish specific progress reporting requirements. The contracting officer must ensure that the value of the DO does not exceed $500,000 or the relative value of the NPIs does not exceed ten percent of the value of the DO, unless waivers are approved. An example of a SABER cost comparison to justify waiver of the $500,000 limitation is provided as Attachment DD-6.
(3) If the contractor's proposal is not acceptable, either:
(i) Return the proposal to the contractor for rework; or
(ii) Return the work request folder to the BCE to determine if the project should be canceled, delayed, or accomplished by some other means than the SABER contract.
(4) After completing negotiations, the contracting officer prepares a price negotiation memorandum (PNM) in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.8. All SABER delivery orders must have a PNM that:
(i) Specifies the extent the contracting officer relied on the Government estimate and explains any significant differences between the estimate and the final negotiated price;
(ii) Describes any changes to the Government negotiation position and Government estimate. Additional technical support documentation required to support a change in the objective, will be prepared by the program manager and revisions to the estimate must be approved by the appropriate BCE;
(iii) Explains the basis for the final negotiated amounts for each task under the UPB and each NPI and demonstrate that the contracting officer effectively considered all significant aspects of the project and contractor's proposal; and
(iv) Contains a determination that the negotiated price is fair and reasonable.
(a) After all required documentation and approvals such as Business Clearance requirements, have been completed, the contracting officer issues the DO. The DO should include the specifications and/or statement of work and any associated drawings. The contractor commences work in accordance with the negotiated schedule.
(b) If bona fide differing site conditions are encountered during the execution of the delivery order, or a legitimate change to the work is required, the delivery order may be modified.
(1) The program manager will initiate a request for modification in the same manner as the transmittal of the original requirement. The contracting officer and program manager must thoroughly document all actions (new site visits, technical evaluations, negotiations, etc.) regarding the change to include any consideration given or received.
(2) The contracting officer then requests the contractor to submit a change proposal to address any new taskings or changes to the current DO. The change proposal is evaluated by the Government in much the same manner as the original proposal. If the modification would cause the DO to exceed the limitations at DD 104, a waiver must be approved before the modification to the DO may be issued.
(a) The program manager is responsible for ensuring the performance of quality assurance inspections associated with the delivery order until work completion, including final inspection and acceptance. Inspection requirements specified in AFI 32-1023, Design and Construction Standards and Execution of Facility Construction Projects, must be complied with.
(b) Contracting officers and contract administrators must establish procedures to monitor contractual requirements including the percentage of direct work completed by the SABER contractor as specified at FAR 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor. Additionally, the SABER program manager must provide surveillance to ensure compliance with contractual superintendence and DBA requirements.
(c) The goal of the contracting process is to have the contractor satisfactorily perform the requirements of the basic contract and each delivery order. Upon acceptance and certification of work completion, the acceptance documentation is forwarded to accounting and finance for payment. When the DO is completed, the program manager forwards the inspection logs to the contract administrator (for inclusion in the contract file) and the project folder to Customer Service for close out.
(a) When prices for NPIs are negotiated and incorporated in a DO, this does not incorporate the items in the UPB for subsequent use as a priced item. To permit subsequent use under the UPB, NPIs must be incorporated by supplemental agreement to the SABER contract. This may be done in conjunction with an annual update to the UPB to address economic conditions or separately at another time during the year. Also, a contract provision may be developed to permit regular (such as quarterly or annual) incorporation of negotiated NPIs into the UPB. However, prices already established in the UPB may not be adjusted in this way.
(b) Once an item has been added to the UPB, it becomes a prepriced item under the contract. Therefore, when negotiating NPI additions to the UPB, care must be taken to ensure only the direct costs of the NPI are included in the UPB. Before adding items to the UPB, adjust negotiated current year direct costs. Account for indirect costs by applying the coefficient to the UPB price when the requirement is ordered under individual DOs. To simplify the process of adding NPIs to the UPB, NPIs should be negotiated at current year direct costs and then adjusted back to base year costs by multiplying by the economic price adjustment index for the base year and dividing by the contract economic price adjustment index for the current year. The coefficient can be applied to a delivery order NPI when only direct costs are negotiated for the NPI.
(a) In order to expedite year end or emergency requirements, SABER projects may be processed up to the point of award in advance of funding.
(1) The independent Government cost estimate must be provided to the contracting officer prior to negotiations.
(2) Prior to requesting the contractor's proposal (if the contract does not include a line item for project estimating, proposal fee paid to the contractor and later deducted from the delivery order amount if the project is awarded), the contracting officer must obtain from the contractor a no cost agreement if the order is not awarded with acknowledgment that funds are not available.
(b) The contracting officer establishes milestones for actions in support of end of year actions to ensure sufficient lead time for SABER review, approval requirements, receipt of independent SABER project cost estimates, technical analyses, and negotiations. Cut-off dates are established to ensure the Government negotiation team has adequate time to review the estimate and develop a negotiation objective prior to negotiations.
(a) Liquidated damages are applicable to individual delivery orders, not the total contract.
(b) The determination to include liquidated damages on a delivery order shall follow the procedures in FAR 12.202 and FAR 36.206. Consideration must be given to the total number of orders outstanding and the ability of the contractor to control project milestones.
(a) The amount of bonding the Government requires is determined in accordance with FAR Part 28. For SABER contracts, the initial bond amounts are based upon the guaranteed minimum quantity.
(b) FAR Part 28 allows the contracting officer flexibility in increasing the bond amounts in the course of contract performance. When the value of delivery orders in progress exceeds the existing bonding, the contracting officer should get additional bond protection by directing the contractor to increase the penal amount of the existing bond, or to obtain additional bonds. When the guaranteed dollar amount is exceeded, FAR 28.102-2 (a) and (b) penal sums apply. The cost for the additional bond security is included in the coefficient and no adjustment to price shall be made.
(1) In negotiated SABER contracts, the contractor should include bond premiums costs as indirect costs based upon the total contract amount, not just the bonding requirements imposed for the minimum guarantee at contract award.
(2) The payments clause (see FAR 52.232.5, Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts) requires the Government to reimburse the contractor for bond premiums upon request if the contractor provides evidence of full payment of such premiums to the surety. Since the premiums are an indirect expense which have been included in the contractor's coefficient, payment for such premiums are the same as all other progress payments made under delivery orders. Payment for bond premiums, at any point during contract performance, are not additional costs under the contract.
The initial term of a SABER contract is normally 12 months. SABER contracts include options to increase the term of the contract in annual increments. In deciding the number of annual options to include, the contracting officer should balance the benefits of increased administrative efficiency in exercising the option and the positive performance incentive offered to the incumbent contractor against the added economic and market risks that result from extending the contract term. Generally, three options years offer an optimum balance. The contracting officer shall not include options for more than four years.
SABER contracts shall contain provisions for making annual adjustments to the option prices. This may be done either by incorporating a new UPB that has been updated to reflect current market conditions or by updating the coefficients using criteria and predetermined formulas in an economic price adjustment (EPA) clause. See Attachment DD-7 for an example of a coefficient adjustment clause.
Each year new Davis Bacon wage determinations, which are issued by the Department of Labor, must be incorporated into the contract. New wage rates may be incorporated in the UPB under a contract clause that provides for annual updates to the UPB or by adjusting the coefficients under an EPA clause. An example of a contract clause follows:
"Incorporation of Current Davis Bacon Wage Decision for Option Periods.
The contracting officer shall, concurrent with exercise of any annual option, incorporate the current applicable Davis Bacon Wage Decision, which shall become effective on the first day of the option period and shall remain effective for the entire option period. The contractor shall compensate all covered employees at not less than the rates specified on the Wage Decision applicable to the current option period. No contract price adjustment will be made relative to incorporation of the current Wage Decision except as may be required in accordance with Provision [identify provision], economic price adjustments."
Follow-on contracts should incorporate lessons learned from previous contracts in order to improve the effectiveness of each successive effort. Each installation should ensure thorough documentation of the experiences under the SABER contract. Lessons learned should be made available to SABER personnel and made a part of training. Document preparation and source selection activities can take up to nine months, therefore it is imperative to begin planning and preparation for a follow-on SABER contract early.
SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION OF BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (SABER)
ESTIMATED BID OPENING DATE: [insert date] Contact [identify contracting specialist and provide phone number] for solicitation package. The subject acquisition is for a broad range of maintenance, repair, and minor construction work on real property at [insert name of Air Force base] AFB and its associated sites. The work is required in support of [insert activity name] CES, Base Civil Engineer (BCE) activities. The contract will be an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity type contract and will include a wide variety of individual construction tasks as identified in the Unit Price Book (UPB). During the contract period, the BCE will identify construction tasks required to complete each specific job, and Operational Contracting will negotiate and issue individual delivery orders to the contractor to complete those jobs. The contractor will be required to furnish all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to manage and accomplish the projects. The contractor will be required to maintain a management office on [insert Air Force base] AFB in order to receive delivery orders and provide other management services related to accomplishing individual jobs. Individual jobs will vary in size and complexity. The jobs will include tasks in a variety of trades, including carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavating, interior electrical, steam fitting, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, concrete masonry, and welding. The guaranteed contract minimum is $[insert dollar amount], and the proposed maximum is $[insert dollar amount]. The average value of SABER delivery orders under the current (or just completed) SABER contract at [insert Air Force base] AFB was $[insert dollar amount], with a range from $[insert dollar amount] to $[insert dollar amount]. (Otherwise, you might choose to indicate that the statistical average for all SABER delivery orders, Air Force wide, for the period 1990-1993 was $40,000 per year.) The performance period will be a twelve month basic year with four twelve-month option years. The proposed contract is being considered for 100 percent small business set-aside. Interested small business concerns should, as early as possible, but no later than 15 days of this notice, indicate interest in the acquisition by providing evidence of capability to perform and a positive statement of eligibility as a small, socially and economically disadvantaged business concern. The Government anticipates significant subcontracting activity under the SABER contract. Due to the size of the solicitation, a $[insert dollar amount] fee, payable to [insert name of payee], is required for each copy of the solicitation package requested.
1.0 Introduction. This Source Selection Plan (SSP) has been prepared in accordance with AFFARS Appendix BB.
1.1 Program Description and Need. The Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) contract is designed to provide a flexible and responsive contractual capability to support numerous maintenance, repair, and construction requirements. This is accomplished by awarding an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity general construction contract to accomplish a large number of projects that cannot be accomplished by in-house resources or are currently undefined. The contract consists of three major elements: (1) detailed task specifications encompassing most aspects of base civil engineering work; (2) units of measure and corresponding prices for each of the specifications and tasks (the Unit Price Book or UPB); and (3) general and special provisions. The contract guarantees a minimum of $[insert dollar amount] and includes an unguaranteed maximum of $[insert dollar amount].
Contractors propose on all possible work by quoting separate multiplicative coefficients for standard work hours, nonstandard work hours, and off-site work, if required. These coefficients are in effect for the life of the contract (with option year adjustments typically based on EPA provisions in the contract) and must apply to all tasks contained in the specifications. Work is accomplished through delivery orders (DOs) written against the basic contract, and the price for a given element of work is determined by multiplying the coefficient times the total quantities for each prepriced unit of measure.
Current construction contracting procedures require four basic steps: project approval, design, acquisition, and construction. The design and acquisition phases (through contract award) of a minor construction project historically take between six to ten months to accomplish. SABER, once awarded, can reduce this portion of the construction contracting effort to one to three months. This ideally should decrease design and acquisition manhours (and thus cost), enhance quality control, provide more responsive effort, and decrease contract administration overhead and engineering staff workload.
1.2 Background and Contract History. SABER was developed from the Army Job Order Contract which was tested initially in Europe and then employed in the U.S. by the Corps of Engineers.
1.2.1 Cost and Technical Risk. The use of indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contracts with fixed-price delivery orders (DOs) places the majority of cost risk with the contractor. The degree of technical and cost risk for SABER contracts is normally less than construction contracts for individual projects. This results from the ability of the Government to tailor work requirements and to hold detailed discussions and site visits, which maximizes contractor judgment and innovation. As the actual scope of work and associated prices can be tailored for each job, affordability is maximized in the SABER projects.
1.3 Delivery Requirements. In very general terms, prior to the Government issuing a DO, the contractor, the Government project manager, and the contracting officer review the project and the contractor prepares a proposal which includes performance time. This is evaluated against a previously developed, independent Government estimate, and a firm price and performance period are negotiated by the contracting officer. Upon completion of negotiations, a firm-fixed-price DO is issued, which becomes a firm obligation against the contract for the specific project.
2.0 Source Selection Organization.
2.1 Source Selection Authority (SSA). The installation commander, [insert Air Force Base] AFB, will be the SSA for this acquisition and is the approval authority for this SSP.
2.2 Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET). In accordance with the streamlined procedures in AFFARS Appendix BB, the Source Selection Advisory Council and the Source Selection Evaluation Board are combined into a single SSET. The SSET will be comprised of both contracting and civil engineering personnel. Formalization of the SSET will be by approval of the source selection plan. Within the SSET organization, there will be an SSET chairperson as well as contract and technical teams, each with a designated team chief.
2.2.1 Technical Team (TT). The Technical Team will: (1) establish the basis for technical evaluation of proposals; (2) develop evaluation criteria; (3) establish the relative order of importance of the criteria and provide this information to the Contract Team for inclusion in the solicitation and various proposal evaluation plans; (4) before receipt of proposals, prepare evaluation standards; (5) after receipt of proposals, rate technical areas, items, and factors from proposals, identify and prepare proposal deficiency reports (DRs) and/or clarification requests (CRs); and (6) prepare narratives for technical evaluation reports.
2.2.2 Contract Team (CT). The Contract Team will: (1) prepare the solicitation; (2) conduct pre-proposal briefings; (3) establish procedures to protect contractor proposal information and Government source selection data; (4) conduct negotiations or discussions, and determine contractor responsibility; (5) prepare the award package; and (6) debrief unsuccessful offerors. The contracting officer is responsible for issuing DRs and CRs, conducting all written and oral discussions, and making the competitive range determination with the approval of the SSA. (An alternative to creating a chart is to list titles, names, and organizations as follows:) The Contract Team consists of:
Title Name Organization
Team Chief Mr Thomas Decker [insert organization] CONS/LGC
Capt Sandy Lewis [insert organization] CES/DEEE
Mr Randy Hardy [insert organization] CONS/LGCC
Ms Anne Andrews [insert organization] CONS/LGCP
2.2.3 Use of Advisors. Government advisors to the SSET organization include MAJCOM representatives (MAJCOM/LGC) and the [insert organization] Wing Staff Judge Advocate Office ([insert organization] Wing/SJA).
3.0 Presolicitation Activities.
3.1 Publicizing Proposed Actions And Disseminating Information. The publicizing of the Government's requirement and basic screening of potential offerors was synopsized on [insert date] in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). The basic screening requirements specified in the CBD were: (If prescreening was accomplished, list factors here such as "at least five years experience in construction, valid state contractor's license," etc.)
3.1.1 The initial source list was developed from our current list of general construction contractors. This list also includes several additional general construction contractors who requested copies of the solicitation. The following sources will be sent solicitations:
Acme Builders;
Budget Construction;
Craftsmen Inc.
3.1.2 Recent experience by the Army Corps of Engineers and other Air Force installations clearly shows that numerous small business firms possess the technical and management capability for this proposed contract. These capabilities will be carefully evaluated during the source selection process and full consideration will be given to small disadvantaged and 8(a) program firms.
4.0 Evaluation Procedures.
4.1 Development of Standards. Qualitative and quantitative standards will be developed to serve as positive indicators of minimum acceptable performance or compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. Standards, which establish a uniform baseline against which an offeror's solution is compared to determine its value to the Government, and against which proposals are evaluated, will be prepared for the lowest level of subdivision within each area of the specific evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation. The standards will be prepared by the Technical Team, reviewed by the contracting officer, and approved by the Source Selection Evaluation Team Chairperson prior to release of the RFP. (NOTE: The Standards themselves are not included in the SSP or the solicitation in accordance with AFFARS Appendix BB. See Attachment DD-6 of AFFARS Appendix BB for examples of Standards.)
4.2 Proposal Rating (Methodology). The color rating methodology identified in AFFARS Appendix BB will be used in the evaluation of proposals. The rating system will permit the identification of significant differences, strengths, weaknesses (including deficiencies), and risks associated with each proposal. Color coding will be used at the area, item, and factor level for the technical evaluation, and will be fully supported by narrative rationale. Cost/price will not be scored and will be separately evaluated by the Contract Team.
4.3 Proposal Analysis Report (PAR). The final Technical and Contract Team reports will be used by the Source Selection Evaluation Team for preparation of a PAR. The SSET, under the guidance of the chairperson, shall prepare a PAR summarizing the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal. The PAR, together with the Technical and Contracting Team reports, will be sent to the SSA for the final source selection decision.
5.0 Evaluation Criteria.
5.1 Copy the evaluation criteria verbatim from Section M of the solicitation. See Attachment DD-8 of this guide for sample evaluation factors for award and the development of specific Areas, Items, and Standards for evaluation. (Tailor this to your specific source selection.)
6.0 Acquisition Strategy.
6.1 This acquisition is contemplated to be an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity general construction contract to accomplish a large number of projects that cannot be accomplished by in-house resources or are currently undefined. (The strategy should match the acquisition plan.)
7.0 Schedule of Events. The source selection milestone schedule is as follows: (Contracting officer: While only the bolded events and dates are routinely included, establishing a timeline and designating a person responsible for each event will expedite the source selection.)
EVENT DAY OPR
(Est. days -
enter date
DD MMM YY)
Receive PR -170 PCO
Sources Sought Synopsis Issued -156 PCO/PO
Sources Sought Synopsis Published -150 PCO
Acquisition Strategy Panel Completed - 80 PCO/PO/LGC
Start Acquisition Plan (AP) - 80 PCO/PO
Start Source Selection Plan (SSP) - 80 PO/PCO/Rec
Start Draft RFP/RFP - 80 PCO/PO
Draft RFP to Industry/Preproposal Conference/Site Visit - 75 PCO/PO
Receive Comments from Industry - 45 PCO/PO
RFP to Contract Writing - 42 PCO/LGCXB
RFP to Contract Writing for Changes - 21 PCO/LGCXB
RFP Review Complete - 16 PCO/LGCC/JA
Issue Notice of Contract Action - 16 PCO
Notice of Contract Action Published - 10 PCO
AP Approved - 02 PCO/PO
SSP Approved - 02 PO/Rec
Complete RFP Rel Brief Charts/Exe Mgt Sum Ltr - 02 Rec/PO/Chair/PCO
RFP Release Briefing to SSA - 01 Rec/PO/Chair/PCO
Exe Mgt Sum Letter Signed by SSA - 01 PCO
RFP Released 0 PCO
Receive Contractor Questions/Comments + 10 PCO/PO
Issue RFP Amendment If Required + 15 PCO
Receive Past Performance Data + 15 PCO/Rec
Release Performance Questionnaires + 15 Rec
SSET Orientation Briefing Charts Completed + 20 Rec/Chair/PO
SSET Orientation Briefing + 21 Rec/Chair/PO
Proposals Received & Checked + 30 PCO/Rec
Request Audits/Preaward Surveys + 31 PCO
Eval Offeror A/Write Narr/DR/CR/RA/S&W + 31 TT
Start Consolidated Lists of NARR/DR/CR/RA/S&W + 33 Rec
Eval Offeror B/Write Narr/DR/CR/RA/S&W + 33 TT
Eval Offeror C/Write Narr/DR/CR/RA/S&W + 35 TT
Complete Consolid Lists of NARR/DR/CR/RA/S&W + 36 Rec
Review & Rate Consolid DR/CR/RA/S&W + 40 TT
Issue Ltr For Competitive Range Briefing + 40 Rec
Prepare Draft Color/S&W Charts + 45 Rec
Receive Performance Information/Questionnaires + 45 Rec/PRAG
PRAG Assessment Completed + 46 PRAG/Rec
Prepare PRAG Performance Charts + 46 PRAG/Rec
Start Writing PAR + 46 PO/Rec
Start Writing Lessons Learned Report + 46 Rec/PO/Chair
Complete Competitive Range Briefings Charts + 46 Rec/PO
Competitive Range Briefing Dry Run + 47 TT/Chair/CT/PRAG
Correct Competitive Range Charts + 48 Rec
Coordinate CR/DR with JA & SSO + 48 TT/CT
Competitive Range Briefing To SSA + 49 TT/Chair/CT/PRAG
Release Ltrs to Ktrs Outside Competitive Range + 50 PCO
Release Questions to Ktrs In Competitive Range + 50 PCO
Prepare Contract(s) + 50 PCO
Receive Ktrs Responses to Questions + 60 PCO
Start Contracts Review + 61 PCO
Evaluate Responses to Questions + 62 TT/Chair
Prepare Questions for Discussions + 63 PCO/TT/PO
Receive Audits/Preaward Surveys + 71 PCO
Complete Contracts Review + 71 JA/LGCC
Contract Ready for Offeror Signature + 73 PCO
Oral Presentations/Discussions with Offeror A + 74 TT/CT/Rec
Oral Presentations/Discussions with Offeror B + 75 TT/CT/Rec
Oral Presentations/Discussions with Offeror C + 76 TT/CT/Rec
(Discussions Completed) + 76 TT/CT/Rec
Request BAFO + 77 PCO
Receive BAFO + 84 PCO
Evaluate BAFO + 86 PCO/TT
Prepare Decision Briefing Charts + 86 Rec/PO
Issue Letters For Decision Briefing + 86 Rec
Complete PAR + 87 Rec/PO
Send 1279 Report + 87 PCO
Prepare Decision Document + 89 Rec/PO
Decision Briefing Dry Run + 91 TT/Chair/CT
Correct Decision Briefing Charts + 92 Rec
Decision Briefing To SSA/Contract Award + 93 TT/Chair/CT
Decision Doc Signed By SSA + 94 TT/Chair
Manual Approval +101 PCO
Contract Award +101 PCO/LGCXB
Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors +101 PCO
Issue Notice of Contract Award +101 PCO
Postaward Conference w/ Successful Offeror +110 PCO/PO
Debriefings (Upon Request By Offeror) CO/TT
Source Selection Closeout +115 Rec/LGCXC
(Period of Performance) DD MMM YY-DD MMM YY
Chair = SSET Chairperson
CT = Contract Team
JA = JAG (Legal Office)
PCO = Procuring Contracting Officer
LGC = ASP Chairperson
LGCC = Contract Review Committee
LGCXB = Contract Writing
LGCXC = Competition Advocacy Representative
PRAG = Performance Risk Analysis Group (Past Performance, Preaward Survey team)
PO = Requirements Project Officer
Rec = Recorder (the administrative person or team)
SSO = Source Selection Officer (the AFFARS Appendix BB expert)
TT = Technical Team
8.0 Non-Government Advisors. There will be no non-Government advisors.
AREAS, FACTORS, AND STANDARDS-SECTION M
(1) Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the SABER contract. The Government will compare each offeror's capabilities and proposal elements against a predetermined set of criteria related to the Government's requirements defined in Section L of the RFP (Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).
(2) Evaluation Criteria.
(a) General Considerations. (Section M must match what is in the Source Selection Plan.)
In addition to the evaluation and as part of an integrated assessment of proposals, the Government will consider other salient factors bearing on this acquisition. For example, consider the offerors exceptions to terms and conditions, past and present performance, and the capacity and capability to perform the requirements. Contracting officer: Remember this issue may be determined by the SBA in the case of small businesses.
The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the offeror's present and past performance as it relates to the probability of successfully accomplishing the proposed effort. When assessing performance risk, the Government will use performance data to evaluate the Technical and Management, and Cost areas listed below. Performance risk is a structured analysis of past and present performance used as a general consideration. Performance risk is (coequal or less, etc.) in relative importance to the color rating and proposal risk assessment. Offeror's past and present performance on recent, similar Government and commercial contracts will be evaluated.
(b) General Basis for Award.
This is a competitive source selection which will be conducted in accordance with AFFARS Appendix BB. Award will be made to the offeror who the Government determines can best accomplish the necessary work to satisfy the objectives and requirements in the RFP in a manner most advantageous to the Government.
The Government will evaluate all information furnished by offerors, including proposals, responses to questions, oral presentations, and best and final offers (BAFOs).
Each offeror's proposal will be evaluated against the following two areas listed in descending order of importance: (1) Technical and Management; and (2) Cost as delineated in Section M of the RFP. The Technical and Management area will be rated in two manners: (1) a color/adjectival rating; and (2) a proposal risk rating. The color rating depicts how well the offeror's proposal meets the evaluation standards and solicitation requirements. Proposal risk assesses the risk associated with the offeror's proposed effort as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation.
The Technical and Management area will be afforded primary emphasis in the evaluation. The Offeror's Technical and Management Volume must convey that the offeror is capable; possesses sufficient technical expertise and experience; possesses sufficient resources; and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion such that technical requirements will be achieved and costs will be controlled.
Although the Cost area is second in importance, it will contribute substantially to the source selection decision, and will be evaluated as to completeness, realism, and reasonableness. [Revise the following sentences if adequate price competition is not anticipated]. The contracting officer has determined that there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Therefore, a limited amount of cost or pricing data will initially be requested, however, the Government reserves the right to request certified cost and pricing data at any time during the source selection and at the discretion of the contracting officer. After evaluation of the Technical and Management area has been completed and rankings have been established, cost to the Government will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government. Unrealistically low price or cost estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the low offeror.
BAFOs may be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP, however, the Government reserves the right to award contracts without discussions or opportunity for proposal revision, in which case, BAFOs will not be required. Offerors are advised that unsupported BAFO changes may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.
The Government will assess two types of risk as part of the source selection process: (1) proposal risk; and (2) performance risk. Proposal risks assessed will be those associated with cost, schedule, and the offeror's proposed effort as it relates to accomplishing the statement of work. Performance risks assessed will be those associated with the offeror's present and past performance as it relates to the probability of successfully accomplishing the proposed effort. When assessing performance risk, the Government will collect data and focus its evaluation on the offeror's ability to perform against the Technical and Management, and Cost areas. Preaward surveys may be conducted as part of this source selection. Results of Preaward surveys will be evaluated to determine each offeror's ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.
(c) Evaluation Areas.
(1) Technical and Management Area.
(i) Assessment Criteria. The following criteria below will be used to evaluate the offeror's responses under each area and factor. The offeror must:
(A) Provide a complete response to each requirement of the RFP; and
(B) Clearly state and justify any exceptions and any variations to the requirements. Note that a lower rating will be assigned if:
(I) The offeror merely indicates compliance without stating how the offeror will comply;
(II) Requirements are disregarded; or
(III) Requirements are exceeded without sufficient explanation and justification.
(C) Exhibit a clear understanding of the processes required to satisfy the SOW requirements;
(D) Display knowledge of the requirement including limitations, applicability, and availability to support the proposed effort; and
(E) Present a clear, concise, logical plan and fully justify the approach for achieving requirement objectives.
(ii) Specific Criteria. The Technical and Management area is divided into the following areas and factors, which are listed in descending order of importance. (These factors and subfactors are to be the same as those addressed in Section L.)
Project Management Ability Area
Key Project Management Staff Factor
Quality Control Plan Factor
Financial Resources Factor
Support/Interface with Home Office/Company Staff Factor
Subcontracting Support Capability Area
Subcontract Management Factor
Identification of Key Subcontractors Factor
Purchasing System/Level of Subcontracting Factor
Project Execution and Technical Capability Area
Key Technical Support Staff (including personnel credentials) Factor
Level of Overall Effort in the Execution of the Demonstration Project Factor
Number of Alternatives Proposed (Demonstration Project) Factor
Cost Effectiveness of Decisions/Assumptions (Demonstration Project) Factor
Completeness of Priced Listings (Demonstration Project) Factor
Experience Area
(2) Price/Cost.
The cost proposal will be evaluated for compliance with RFP instructions, completeness, realism, and reasonableness. Cost past performance will not be rated, however, it will be a General Consideration in the evaluation. The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each offeror's proposed coefficient(s). Financial data will be requested to support the proposed coefficient(s) and to assess the offeror's understanding and ability to meet financial requirements such as bonding and plan for covering initial cash flow deficits. The Government does not envision the need for a formal DCAA audit or field pricing assistance, as a significant amount of the total price to the Government will be a commonly-directed amount through the application of the price book. Price will not be rated and color coded as are technical evaluation criteria. The evaluation in this area will be geared towards determining the offeror's overall understanding of the program and adequate coverage of operating expenses and bonding.
NOTE: This section must be the same as guidance and instructions to the evaluation team.
(1) General.
(i) All proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation.
(ii) The contracting officer has determined that there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Therefore, only a limited amount of cost data is required in the initial proposals. Upon examination of the initial proposals (offers), the contracting officer will review the determination. If, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists at that time no additional cost information, except for best and final offers, will be elicited and certification in FAR 15.804-4 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, all offerors will be required to prepare, submit, and certify cost or pricing data as in FAR 15.804-2.
(iii) The following material will be submitted:
Technical and Management;
Cost;
Contract Forms; and
Performance.
(iv) Submitted materials will be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:
(A) Requirements of the RFP and SOW, and CLINs contained therein;
(B) Government standards and regulations pertaining to this SOW/PWS;
(C) Evaluation areas and factors for Award in Section M of this RFP; and
(D) No cost data will be included in the technical materials. Offerors shall provide cross-reference matrices in each volume which:
(E) Format of the above proposal volumes (and any resulting clarification requests (CRs) and deficiency reports (DRs), should the Government decide to enter into discussions) shall be as follows: (This type of paragraph is optional, but makes the evaluation easier.)
(I) All typing (including that on charts, graphs, and tables, etc.) shall be no more than 36 lines of text per page and no more than 100 characters per line. Two columns of text per page is acceptable to facilitate ease of reading for the evaluators;
(II) Elaborate format, color representations, and binding are not desirable. Three-ring binders or soft covers with screw type aluminum binding posts are preferred;
(III) Page margins shall be a minimum of one-inch top, bottom, and each side; and
(IV) Proposal pages shall not contain offeror identification marks, such as logos.
(2) Technical and Management.
(i) Section 1 - Introduction and Summary.
The Government will not evaluate this section which is limited to three pages. This section is not included in the page limit for the Technical and Management Volume. It should contain, in no more than three pages, a concise summary of your proposed approach to the SABER effort. (Optional)
(ii) Section 2.
(A) Project Management Ability. This area will address the offeror's management organization, to include a description of functions, authorities, and credentials of key management personnel. This area will cover the proposed quality control plan; demonstrated financial capability to provide required bonding and coverage of operating expenses; and support and interface with the company or home office. The factors under this area, in descending order of importance, are:
Factor 1: Key Project Management Staff;
Factor 2: Quality Control Plan;
Factor 3: Financial Resources; and
Factor 4: Support/Interface with Home Office/Company Staff.
(B) Subcontracting Support Capability. This area will address the offeror's policies, procedures, and functional responsibilities for selection and management of all subcontractors. The offeror will be required to describe its purchasing system, subcontract management system, and to identify key subcontractors it plans to use for various major disciplines. The Factors, in descending order of importance, are as follows:
Factor 1: Subcontract Management;
Factor 2: Identification of Key Subcontractors; and
Factor 3: Purchasing System/Level of Subcontracting.
In order to minimize adverse impacts on local business(es) due to consolidating numerous projects under one contract, the Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed degree of subcontracting versus performance of actual construction work by in-house employees. The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed use of small, small disadvantaged, and 8(a) subcontractors.
(C) Project Execution and Technical Capability. This area will address the offeror's technical staff and ability to complete projects under the contract. The Government will evaluate at least one project that has been identified for award under the SABER program for a demonstration of technical capability. The specific project description will be provided to each offeror to propose a design concept, design analysis with calculations, list of assumptions, list of priced items from the price guide, and an overall proposal of project execution. The Government will consider the following Factors under this area, in descending order of importance, in evaluating the proposals for the demonstration project:
Factor 1: Key Technical Support Staff (including personnel credentials);
Factor 2: Level of Overall Effort in the Execution of the Demonstration Project;
Factor 3: Number of Alternatives Proposed (Demonstration Project);
Factor 4: Cost Effectiveness of Decisions/Assumptions (Demonstration Project); and
Factor 5: Completeness of Priced Listings (Demonstration Project).
(D) Experience. This area addresses each offeror's related construction management experience within the past five years. The Government will assess the quality and extent of each offeror's multi-project and multi-discipline experience. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources of information such as other Federal Government offices and better business bureaus.
NOTE: List each of the identified factors and subfactors as a section and subsection respectively. For each factor and subfactor, explain in a brief and concise manner, what key areas the contractor should address in the proposal (the factors and subfactors must be the same as stated in Section M of the RFP and the SSP).
(4) Cost Volume. The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each offeror's proposed coefficient(s). Financial data will be requested to support the proposed coefficient(s) and to assess the offeror's understanding and ability to meet financial requirements such as bonding and plan for covering initial cash flow deficits. The Government does not envision the need for a formal DCAA audit or field pricing assistance, as a significant amount of the total price to the Government will be a commonly-directed amount through the application of the price book. While price will not be rated and color coded as are technical evaluation criteria, it will be evaluated by the Contract Team in terms of completeness, reasonableness, and realism. The evaluation in this area will be geared towards determining the offeror's overall understanding of the program and adequate coverage of operating expenses and bonding.
(5) Contract Forms. [Revise the following words to include your desired instructions.]
Include the following data, in this volume, in the format indicated. Designate on the volume cover the proposal copy containing the original, executed copy of the RFP.
(i) Section 1.
(A) Proposal forwarding letter, if any.
(B) A complete copy of this RFP (through Section M, less attachments) with the original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the offeror in block 16 of the face page. The offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP and model contract:
(I) Part I, Section A;
(II) Part I, Section B; and
(III) Part IV, Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offeror.
(ii) Section 2. Titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of cognizant Government Contract Administration and Defense Contract Audit Agency offices, if known.
(iii) Section 3. Any exceptions to, or deviations from, any of the clauses or special contract requirements along with justification therefore.
(iv) Section 4. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement.
(v) Section 5. Any information, excluding cost, which does not properly belong within the other proposal volumes.
(vi) Section 6. Include in this section, the information required by the RFP for which there is insufficient space in the requiring clauses or certifications.
(6) Volume Performance.
(i) Offerors are advised that Evaluation Factors for Award, Section M of this RFP, includes performance risk as a structured treatment of presenting past and present performance as a general consideration. Offerors will present the data in paragraph (iii) below, for themselves, and for any proposed division, subcontractor, or teaming contractor whose effort on this contract will significantly influence performance of the proposed effort. Data presented will be limited to two pages per contract described and is due 15 days after RFP issue date.
(ii) Relevant past performance data is any information considered by the offeror to be relevant in demonstrating ability to perform the proposed effort. In developing such information, offerors are requested to focus on the areas and factors identified in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, to be assessed for performance risk.
(iii) Relevant past performance data to be supplied:
(A) A list of all relevant contract in the following format:
(I) Contract number;
(II) Total dollar value;
(III) Procuring agency;
(IV) Title of contract;
(V) Government Program Manager (name, address, and telephone number);
(VI) Description of program/product (including discussion as to its relevancy to this acquisition);
(VII) PCO and ACO (name, address, and telephone number);
(VIII) Period of performance; and
(IX) Type of contract.
(B) A synopsis of the relevant performance, segregated by areas, which occurred under each contract. As a minimum, the following areas should be addressed:
(I) Technical and Management:
(1) [Insert any special issues];
(2) Identified new risks/problems as they occurred;
(3) Provided alternate approaches to problems;
(4) Demonstrated initiative to solve problems;
(5) Participation by top management (especially during problems);
(6) Developed realistic schedules;
(7) Met original schedules;
(8) Demonstrated responsiveness to contract changes/direction;
(9) Cooperaterated with administrative/program officer after contract award; and
(10) Ensured subcontractors adhered to schedule.
(II) Cost: Were there any cost overruns/underruns, cost growths and/or schedule extensions? If so, were they attributable to the Government or the contractor?
(C) Offerors are encouraged to cite and explain any corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence of past performance which they consider substandard.
(D) [Insert any desired requests for present performance problems that the contractor might have discovered.]
The following are provided as sample Areas, Factors, and Standards, and are not meant to be all-inclusive. Each installation must tailor these items, making them as specific as possible, based on local conditions and circumstances.
(1) AREA: Project Management Ability
FACTOR: Key Project Management Staff
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides names and credentials of key staff members, and identifies the relationships between and authority delegated to management personnel.
1. Provides organization diagram showing clear lines of authority from Program Manager to subcontracting management, including site superintendence and quality control.
2. Assigns staff holding engineering degrees to this contract (head of staff minimum).
3. Provides the level of authority delegated to staff members (senior staff member to have on-site decision making authority as a minimum).
(2) AREA: Project Management Ability
FACTOR: Quality Control Plan
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Details the type of personnel to be assigned to each work discipline (must be appropriate; i.e., electrical technician supervising electrical work);
b. Provides the number of jobs to be assigned to each technician (no more than 15 per person, with six being typical);
c. Details how quality problems will be documented and resolved (logical, effective, expedient);
d. Details how often work will be inspected (frequency of at least once per day per job);
e. Details how trend analysis will be accomplished to identify poor performing subcontractors, including appropriate corrective action (management tools, methods, documentation); and
f. Details how interface with Government inspectors will be accomplished (weekly update as minimum).
(3) AREA: Project Management Ability
FACTOR: Financial Resources
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Demonstrates the capability to be bonded to the degree required in the RFP, Section X, paragraph X (page X); and
b. Demonstrates the capability to cover the initial cash flow until enough delivery orders are processed to reimburse these expenses.
(4) AREA: Project Management Ability
FACTOR: Support/Interface with Home Office/Company Staff
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides operating procedures and guidelines for home office interface; identifies support to be provided by the home office and/or company staff to the on-site office (must be realistic, responsive).
(5) AREA: Subcontracting Support Capability
FACTOR: Subcontract Management
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Describes policies and procedures for subcontractor management, including surveillance, quality control, and scheduling (may be included as part of the Quality Control Plan previously described); and
b. Shows capability for quick and normal response using subcontractors through pre-established or intended agreements/contracts with subcontractors (normal time frame for identification, scoping, estimating, negotiating, and start of actual performance is estimated to be four weeks).
(6) AREA: Subcontracting Support Capability
FACTOR: Identification of Key Subcontractors
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Identifies the subcontractors for each major functional discipline (electrical, mechanical, structural, painting, pavements, landscaping, roofing, plumbing, HVAC, etc.); and
b. Documents the experience/capabilities of each subcontractor identified as supporting the contract (including supply sources as well).
1. Lists previous experience with the subcontractor.
2. Lists other jobs performed by the subcontractor.
3. Documents volume of work or supplies handled.
(7) AREA: Subcontracting Support Capability
FACTOR: Purchasing System/Level of Subcontracting
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides the proposed level of subcontracting and in-house work accomplishment (estimate minimum of 90 percent of work to be subcontracted); and
b. Describes method and criteria, adequate to meet the requirements of the contract, used to choose subcontractors.
1. Previous experience and present capabilities.
2. Quality of previous jobs (references).
(8) AREA: Project Execution and Technical Capability
FACTOR: Key Technical Support Staff
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Indicates the support staff dedicated for this contract on-site and/or at the home office.
1. Minimum functions must include clerical, inspection (quality control), drafting, technical design/planning staff personnel.
2. Skill level similar to civil engineering superintendents for inspectors, and similar to civil engineering planners for the design staff.
b. Indicates availability of design capability (A/E support) if design is to be performed by other than in-house resources.
1. List of A/E firms must indicate capability to perform civil, mechanical, and electrical work to the degree required under this contract.
2. List of registered Professional Engineers must show capability and availability of these persons/firms consistent with the type of work required under this contract.
(9) AREA: Project Execution and Technical Capability
FACTOR: Level of Overall Effort in the Execution of the Demonstration Project
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Shows that the appropriate engineer (discipline and skill level) was consulted on the project (paving engineer for paving projects, electrical technician on electrical work, etc.);
b. Provides drawing details showing all aspects of the work to be executed with a description of materials to be used and all proper dimensions shown;
c. Provides calculations to support the proposal for the project (asphalt depth on paving projects; structural capabilities and lighting levels as required; etc.);
d. Shows the request for existing drawings and/or a site visit has been made; and
e. Proposal includes all necessary disciplines (pavements and markings for resurfacing projects; structural engineering, sheet metal, protective coating, electrical, floor covering, etc., for other projects, as appropriate).
(10) AREA: Project Execution and Technical Capability
FACTOR: Number of Alternatives Proposed (Demonstration Project)
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides at least one other alternative to the Government's proposed method of accomplishment;
b. Shows that alternatives are within comparable cost ranges (within ten percent of estimated cost) unless unusual circumstances are highlighted by the offeror justifying any such differences; and
c. Shows alternatives are reasonable, maintainable, and cost effective.
(11) AREA: Project Execution and Technical Capability
FACTOR: Cost Effectiveness of Decisions/Assumptions (Demonstration Project)
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides comparisons on cost of various materials/alternatives;
b. Provides maintainability considerations in the comparisons (floor carpeting vs. tile, glass vs. Plexiglas, concrete vs. asphalt, paint vs. tape, etc.); and
c. Provides initial cost and life cycle cost considerations.
(12) AREA: Project Execution and Technical Capability
FACTOR: Completeness of Priced Listings (Demonstration Project)
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides at least 95 percent of all price listed items contained in the Government estimate;
b. Provides reasons for significant or unusual differences due to Government oversight or a better offeror's proposal;
c. Provides the listing in the format provided in the sample project; and
d. Provides a listing that is clearly followed and flows in a logical order; the listing should group similar types of work, such as grouping all pavement work together.
(13) AREA: Technical Capability
FACTOR: Cost Effectiveness Decisions (Demonstration Project)
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Provides cost comparisons for various materials/alternatives;
b. Provides maintainability considerations in the comparisons (carpeting vs. tile, glass vs. Plexiglas, concrete vs. asphalt, paint vs. tape, etc.); and
c. Provides initial cost and life cycle cost considerations.
(14) AREA: Technical Capability
FACTOR: Technical Support Staff (Demonstration Project)
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal:
a. Indicates support staff is dedicated for this contract on-site and/or at the head office.
1. Minimum functions must include clerical, inspectors (quality control), drafting, technical design/planning staff.
2. Skill level similar to civil engineering superintendents for the inspectors and similar to civil engineering planners for the design staff.
b. Indicates availability of design capability (A/E support) if design is to be accomplished by other than in-house personnel.
1. List of A/E firms must indicate capability of performing civil, mechanical, and electrical work to the degree required by this contract.
2. List of registered Professional Engineers must show capability and availability of these persons/firms consistent with the type of work required by this contract.
(15) AREA: Experience
FACTOR: None
SECTION M REFERENCE:
DESCRIPTION:
[Add "goal" of this factor. Why is it a key discriminator?]
STANDARD:
The standard is met when the proposal provides data on previous experience to include:
a. At any one time within the past five years, management of over 10 projects, valued at over $50,000 each, at the same time;
b. At any one time within the past five years, management of over ten multi-discipline projects, valued at over $100,000 each, at the same time (may be included in the 10 identified above); and
c. Over the past five years, management of an average of ten projects at the same time.
NOTE: Data must include contract number, period of performance, description, dollar amount, and point of contact with the agency awarding the contract. Lack of prior experience due to offeror being a new company will not result in a negative rating, but would be considered in the assessment of risk.
I. PROJECT TITLE: Paint Warehouse Interior, Bldg xxxx, [insert project number]
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: [insert brief description of scope of work including base priority for insertion into RPMC program]
III. TRADITIONAL COST ESTIMATE: [insert traditional estimate amount from Attachment DD-1]
IV. SABER COST ESTIMATE: [insert SABER estimate amount from Attachment DD-2]
V. COST COMPARISON:
Traditional Cost: $333,980.00 (example figures)
SABER Cost: $283,109.36 (example figures)
Difference $50,870.64
VI. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: [insert comments and discussion pertinent to the cost comparison analysis: do not duplicate your justification letter in this area]
Submitted:
Name, Rank/Grade, USAF
SABER Project Manager
Certified: Coordinated:
Name, Rank, USAF Name, Rank, USAF
Base Civil Engineer Chief, Operational Contracting Division
(Or appropriate contracting representative)
2 Atchs
1. Traditional Cost Estimate Calculations
2. SABER Cost Estimate Calculations
Description U/I QuantityU/CostAmount* Basis for Estimate
Ceiling corr. metal SF 130140$1.25$162,675.000 Experience**
Overhead Door (41 ea.) SF 12000$1.08$ 12,960.000 Experience**
Vinyl Walls SF 29510$1.42$ 41,904.000 Means
Hardboard Walls SF 9312$0.41$ 3,817.000 Means
Beams & Columns SF 6384$1.25$ 7,980.000 Experience**
Piping LF 3000$2.64$ 7,920.000 Means
Trusses, Metal SF 42600$1.25$ 53,250.000 Experience**
Lift Rental MO 3$2000.00$ 6,000.000 Means
Repl Wall Panels SF 1270$3.02$ 3,835.000 Means
Surf Prep SF- 224256$0.15$ 33.638 Experience**
Total $333,980.000
* Include overhead and profit in all amounts shown regardless of source.
** Estimated based on previously awarded, competitively bid, contracts for the same or similar item.
A. Project Summary:
Pre-Priced Items: Total Direct Cost (Regular Time)$211,944.25
Multiplier (Regular Time)1.20
Total Cost (Regular Time)$254,333.10
Total Direct Cost (Premium Time)0.00
Multiplier (Premium Time)1.30
Total Cost (Premium Time)0.00
Non-Priced Items: Total Direct Cost (Regular Time)$ 23,980.22
Multiplier (Regular Time)1.20
Total Cost (Regular Time)$ 28,776.26
Total Direct Cost (Premium Time)0.00
Multiplier (Premium Time)1.30
Total Cost (Premium Time)0.00
Total Project Cost $283,109.36
B. Pre-Priced Items
1. Summary:
Basic Suffix Description/Comments QuantityU/IU/Cost Total
07212-1009 Demo Insulation 250.00 SF$0.27$67.50
07212-1009 Replace Insulation 250.00 SF1.32330.00
09651-1001 Hardboard Adhesive 1020.00SF1.87 1,907.40
09910-1401 Paint Overhead Doors 12000.00SF0.61 7,320.00
09910-1906 Paint Trusses S0640.00 SF 0.55 27,852.00
09910-2002 Paint Piping 3000.00 LF 0.97 2,910.00
09910-2131 15% Spot Prime Ceiling 15675.00SF0.45 7,053.75
09910-2131 First Coat Ceiling 104500.00SF0.45 47,025.00
09910-2131 Second Coat Ceiling 104500.00SF0.45 47,025.00
09910-2132 15% Spot Prime Joist 17.00 TON68.081,157.36
09910-2132 First Coat Joist 114.50 TON68.087,795.16
09910-2132 Second Coat Joist 114.50 TON68.087,795.16
09910-2133 15% Spot Prime Columns 2.60 TON329.07855.58
09910-2133 First Coat Column 17.50 TON329.075,758.72
09910-2133 Second Coat Column 17.50 TON329.075,758.72
09910-2133 15% Spot Prime Door Frame 4.00 TON329.071,316.28
09910-2133 First Coat Door Frame 26.00 TON329.078,555.82
09910-2133 Second Coat Door Frame 26.00 TON329.078,555.82
09920-1211 Paint Hardboard Panel 9312.00SF0.59 5,494.08
nss20-1211 Paint Vinyl Ins Cvring 29510.00SF0.59 17,410.90
Total Direct Cost $211,944.25
Multiplier 1.20
Extended Total - Pre-Priced Items $254,333.10
2. Detail:
Item Quantity U/I U/Cost Total
07212 Rigid Insulation
1000 Rigid Board Insulation
1009 1-1/2" Urethane, R10.7 250.00 SF0.2767.50
*** 19072.1001 Demolition
07212 Rigid Insulation
1000 Rigid Board Insulation
1009 1-1/2 Urethane, R10.7 250.00 SF1.32350.00
*** 2001 For Vapor Barrier -
Integral W/Insulation
*** 2004 For Factory Painted on
Qne Surface
09651 Cementitous Underlayment .
1001 Latex Underlayment - 1/8" Thick 1020.00 SF 1.871907.40
[********CONTINUE FOR ALL UPB ITEMS********]
Total Direct Cost$211,944.25
Multiplier1.20
Extended Total - Pre-Priced Items$254,333.10
C. Non-Priced Items Summary
Description/Comments Quantity U/IU/CostTotal
Repl Hardboard Panels 1020.00 SF$1.70 $1,734.00
Surface Preparation 205962.00 SF0.10 20,596.20
Taping 9706.00 SF$0.17 $1,650.02
Total Direct Cost$23,980.22
Multiplier1.20
Extended Total - Non-Priced Items$28,776.26
D. SABER Totals:
Pre-Priced Items (Regular Time) $254,333.10
Pre-Priced Items (Premium Time) $0.00
Non-Priced Items (Regular Time) $27,776.26
Non-Priced Items (Premium Time)$0.00
Total $283,109.36
(a) Coefficient(s) for SABER options under this contract shall be adjusted annually to recognize variations in labor, equipment, and material costs as stated below.
(b) The Market Trends Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the city of [insert where the work is to be performed] as published in the McGraw Hill publication "Engineering News Record (ENR)" shall be used to determine adjustments to the contract coefficients for options under this contract. To determine the amount of adjustment, the contracting officer will calculate the change in the index appearing in the issue of ENR published during the month prior to the effective date of the option from [the contracting officer shall enter the most recently published index at the time of initial contract award]. Eighty percent of this variation will be applied to [the contracting officer shall enter the coefficient for the initial period of the contract]. If the publication of the index should be discontinued, the parties to the contract will negotiate a replacement index or new contract provision. If a replacement index or contract provision cannot be agreed upon, the contracting officer may unilaterally determine the contract adjustment method, and the contractor may dispute the determination under the Disputes Clause. Adjustments to option year contract coefficients shall be determined in accordance with the following formulae:
(1) To calculate the new coefficient use:
C = Ci * f
Where:
C = New Coefficient;
f = Adjustment Factor; and
Ci = Contract pricing coefficient at contract award.
(2) To calculate the Adjustment Factor use:
f = ((CCIc - CCIi) / CCIi) * 80% + 1
Where:
CCIc = the ENR index for the option; and
CCIi = the ENR index for the initial contract award.
(c) Adjustment calculations for second and subsequent option years shall each be based on the contract coefficient for the initial contract period.
Sample EPA Calculations
EPA Coefficient-Index Matrix
Action ENR Index Adjustment Factor Coefficient
Contract Award 110.0 NA 1.03
Option 1 115.4 1.039 1.07
Option 2 130.2 1.147 1.18
Option 3 125.1 1.110 1.14
Option 4 100.0 .928 .96
NOTE: Round calculation results as done in this example.
EPA Calculations
Column 2 - ENR Indices for the options are taken from the issue of the McGraw Hill publication ENR published during the month prior to the effective date of the option. The ENR Index for the Contract Award is the most recent ENR index published during the month prior to initial contract award.
CONTRACT NO: _________ DELIVERY ORDER NO: __________ DATE ORDER AWARDED: _________
CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR: ________________ AMOUNT OF THIS ORDER:___________
YES NO
l. Does file contain properly approved and classified work request (AF Form 332)?
2. Are sufficient funds available and documentation contained within the file?
3. Is the memorandum for record of site visit adequate?
4. Does the independent Government cost estimate contain:
(a) The effort as stated in the RFP?
(b) Adequate pricing data for determining the reasonableness of the contractor's proposal?
(c) Non-prepriced items?
5. Does the file contain statement of work revisions for changes as a result of the site visit or negotiations?
6. Does the file contain record of installation commander approval and supporting documentation, if DO or NPIs exceed limitations?
7. Does the contractor's proposal contain:
(a) Proposal for the scope as stated in the request for proposal?
(b) Pricing by line item in accordance with the SABER UPB?
(c) Non-prepriced items?
(d) Method of construction?
(e) Other items as stated in the request for proposal?
8. Does the file contain an adequate technical evaluation?
9. Does the Record of Negotiations provide sufficient detail of the negotiated variances in price, period of performance, quantities, statement of work changes, negotiated methodology, etc.?
10. Is DD Form 1155 complete and does it contain:
(a) Accounting and appropriation data?
(b) Scope of work?
(c) Period of performance?
(d) Any mandatory methodologies?
(e) Negotiated NPIs?