Army MILCON Transformation

1
Army MILCON Transformation Update
NCSU Engineer Forum 21 May 2007
MT Standards Criteria Team Leader Headquarters,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2
Overview

• DASA (IH) Direction
• The Challenge
• Align with Industry
• USACE Reinventing MILCON Processes
• Framing the Strategy
• The Model RFP Time, Cost, Quality?
• The Model RFP What does it do?
• After Award?
• Pilots Lessons Learned

3
DASA(IH) Direction

• Development of strategy and implementation plan
  to support the major permanent restationing
  initiatives that the Army will execute.
• Overall objective is to provide the ability to
  establish, reuse/re-purpose facilities with
  minimum lead-time, leverage private industry
  standards and practices and to reduce
  acquisition/lifecycle costs
•  

Nov 2004
4
Our Challenge!!!
Multiple Peaking Programs w/Critical Facilities
Needs Critical Questions How much, when?
BRAC 05
IGPBS
MILITARY WORKLOAD
Army Modular Forces
Temp Bldgs
MILCON/GWOT Spt
Installations
OVER TIME
NOW
5
Align with Industry
MILCON Barracks (11) 168/SF, Scope 99,500 SF
Private Industry Apartment
Industry
Installation

• Function House People
• Construction Type All Types
• Occupancy Type Residential
• Operations Accommodate Sleeping/Bathing,
  Accommodate Relaxation/Cooking, Accommodate
  Privacy, Gather People, Facilitate Circulation

• Function House Soldiers
• Construction Type Type I or II non-combustible
• Occupancy Type Residential
• Operations Accommodate Sleeping/Bathing,
  Accommodate Relaxation/Cooking, Accommodate
  Privacy, Gather People, Facilitate Circulation

Projected cost savings 15-20 Projected time
savings 20-30
6
USACE Reinventing MILCON Processes on the Fly
BRAC Execution
Inherently linked Activities
MILCON Execution
Quality of Life
MILCON Process Reinvention
Real Estate Support
Winning GWOT
Innovation Improvement
Stationing
Manning the Force
Training
Enviromental Support
Business Efficiencies
Modular Force Initiative
MILCON Transformation
Quality Outcomes
USACE must reinvent MILCON processes while
executing Mission requirements and implementing
MILCON Transformation
7
Framing the Strategy

• Team effort between government and industry
  (Forums)
• Minimize Perceived Risk
• Two Phase Approach, Performance Based, Process
  Consistency, Evaluation, Execution, etc.)
• Programmatic Acquisition Strategy Approved 1
  Feb 2006
• Moving away from acquiring facilities one at a
  time
• ST Application (FY06-07), DB
• MT Application (FY08 Transition), Combination of
  DB/DB(B)
• Design COS, IDIQs, Geographic Execution, etc.
• LT Application (Beyond), D-Adapt-B
• The Primary Mechanism
• USACE MT Model RFP

8
The Model RFP Time, Cost, Quality?

• Model RFP Objectives for Time, Cost and Quality
• Aggressive Time goals established
• 20 reduction in cost over the existing design
  criteria and USACE processes up front in the
  programming
• The primary factor in the competition is to
  maximize quality within the time and cost
  constraints
• Phase II Evaluation Factors, C/T/Q

9
The Model RFP What It does

• Consistency via RFP throughout the Army
• Sets the baseline Functional, Operational, and
  Technical Standards
• Sets ambitious Schedule and Budget, Evaluates
  on Quality received
• Performance based requirements, maximizing
  flexibility, and minimizes proposal efforts
• Tailored only for site specific requirements
• Provides for Life Cycle Cost, Maintainability,
  Durability, ATFP, Energy Efficiency, and
  Sustainability in evaluation factors

10
After Award?

• Streamlined
• Design After Award
• DOR vs Contractor vs USACE
• Design Review Process and Options
• Level of Design Detail
• Release for Construction
• Site Specific Coordination
• QCS, Schedules, Submittals, Environmental.
• CQC, Temp Const Facilities, Closeout Submittal.

11
Pilots Lessons Learned

• Pilots
• FT Campbell, Ft Bliss, FT Bliss, Ft Carson, Ft
  Riley
• Model RFP LL
• State of the Art (DBIA!!)
• Pilot Projects Status
• Corporate Lessons Learned
• Performance vs Prescriptive
• Culture/Perceptions
• Consistency
• Quality Drivers Inherent

12
Contracting Procedures

• Past Government methods
• IFB
• RFP Best Value
• RFP Best Value
• LPTA
• 1 Step RFP
• 2 Step RFP
• Contract Mechanisms Design Build
• Performance vs Prescriptive
• MATOC - Multiple Award Task Order Contracts
• SATOC - Single Award Task Order Contracts

13
Some Differences Between Public and Commercial
Design-Build

• Government-
• Competition in Contracting Act
• Follow-on Contracts Must be Competed
• Price is a Consideration
• Best Value (Price/Quality)
• Price Usually Established at Award (FFP)
• All Terms Defined at Award

Commercial No Competition Required On-Going
Relationships are Common Quality Based Selection
is Common Price Often Established After Design
Starts Can Use Guaranteed Maximum Price FAR has
no Exact Comparable Pricing Method
14
Contracting Procedures

• Developing the Request For ProposalSection D -
  Proposal Submission Requirements, Evaluation
  Criteria and Basis of AwardRFP Sections 00110
  00120 or 00111
• Proposal Requirements.Contract Forms,and
  Conditions
• 0010 Solicitation, Offer Award - SF 1442
• 00100 Instructions, Conditions Notices to
  Offerors
• 00110 Phase 1 Design-Build Selection Procedures
• 00120 Phase 2 Design-Build Selection Procedures
• 00600 Representations and Certifications
• 00700 Contract Clauses
• 00800 Special Contract Requirements

15
Award BasesBest Value Continuum(FAR 15.101)

• Two General Approaches
• Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Proposal
• Cost/Quality Trade-off Process

16
"Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Proposal"

• Government States Minimum Needs
• Evaluate Go/No-Go Criteria
• Appropriate When-
• Little or No Innovation Allowed
• Govt. Not Permitted to Pay 1 More for a Much
  Better Proposal
• Small and/or Noncomplex Projects
• Least Work/Award Documentation for Govt.
  Evaluators

17
"Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Proposal"

• Government States Minimum Needs
• Evaluate Go/No-Go Criteria
• Appropriate When-
• Little or No Innovation Allowed
• Govt. Not Permitted to Pay 1 More for a Much
  Better Proposal
• Small and/or Noncomplex Projects
• Least Work/Award Documentation for Govt.
  Evaluators

18
Cost/Quality Trade-off Process

• Quality may be More, Less, or Equally Important
  than Price Must be Determined and Stated FAR
  15.304 (e)
• Relative Importance of Each Factor, including
  Price, must be Stated - FAR 15.304 (d)
• Trade-off determines Best Value

19
Cost/Quality Trade-off Process

• Proposal Evaluated Against Comparative
  Standards
• Can Use Some Go/no Go Factors
• This Method Appropriate When
• Variations in Design Solutions or Industry
  Capability Will Add Value

20
Proposal Evaluation Criteria

• Inform Offerors How Proposals Will Be Evaluated
• Identify All Significant Factors and Subfactors
  and their Relative Importance
• Describe Basic Evaluation Process
• Describe Basic Evaluation Criteria
• State the Basis of Award
• SSA Must Approve Revisions After RFP Issued

21
Evaluation Standards

• Establish Minimum Level of Compliance With RFP
• Describe in RFP
• Minimum Standards Where Possible
• Each Factor and Significant Subfactor
• How They Will Be Evaluated

22
Proposal Evaluation Categories

• Quality Information
• Design-Technical
• Performance Capability
• Price or Cost Information
• Oral Presentations (Optional)

23
Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures FAR
36.3

• Primary Considerations For Using 2 Phase
  Considerable Design Proposal Costs?
• Technical Proposal Provides Quality/Innovation
  Advantages to Govt?
• Expected Number of Offers?

24
First Phase

• Primary Considerations For KTR Qualifications
• Past Performance
• Past Experience
• Management
• Key personnel

25
Phase 1 Open Competition

• Conducted in Accordance with FAR 36.303-1
• Offerors Submit
• Information on Certain Performance Capability
  Aspects
• No Price Proposal
• Government Short-Lists Most Highly Qualified
  Offerors for Phase 2
• Must State Maximum Number (3,4,5) in the
  Solicitation

26
Purpose of Performance Capability Proposal

• Provides the Government With Enough Information
  to Determine Whether the Offerors Will Have a
  High Probability of Successfully Completing the
  Project.
• Organization and Technical Approach
• Experience and Past Performance
• Key Personnel
• Financial Capability-Bonding
• Contract Duration
• Preliminary Schedule
• Financial Capability
• Subcontracting Plan
• SB/SDB/WOB Past Performance

27
Phase 2 Only Most Highly Qualified Offerors

• Firms Short-listed in Phase 1 Submit
• Extensive Design/Technical Information
• Remainder of Performance Capability Information
• Cost/Price Proposal and Price Breakdowns

28
Phase 2 Only Most Highly Qualified Offerors

• May Be Continuation of Same Solicitation or
  Separate Solicitation
• Government may Offer Stipends to Unsuccessful
  Phase 2 Offerors
• Government Shares Estimated Cost to Develop
  Technical Design Proposal
• Technical Proposal Must Meet Minimum Standards
• See Exhibit 2 for ECB 2005-7, Use of Stipends in
  MILCON Funded D-B Projects

29
Purpose of Technical Proposal

• Provides the Government Enough Information to
  Determine Whether the Design Proposals Meet or
  Exceed the Minimum Requirements.

30
Typical Design-Technical Categories

• Technical Approach (Narratives)
• Specifications
• Drawings
• Renderings
• Design Calculations
• List of Materials, Catalog Cut Sheets
• Models/Brand Names

31
Required Level of Detail for Technical Submission
Information

• Must Establish Mutual Understanding of Project
  Scope of Work
• Inversely Proportional to Level of RFP Design
  Criteria ("Nominal" to "Full")
• RFP can Use Combination of Nominal, Partial, Full
  
• Some Design Development Effort Internally
  Required by D-B Teams

32
Price Not The Key Evaluation Criteria

• Contract Line Item Schedule
• Fair and Reasonable
• Material Unbalancing
• Price Breakdown Information