US Army Corps of Engineers One Corps Serving the Army and the Nation Army MILCON Transformation… Update MT Standards & Criteria Team Leader Headquarters,

US Army CorpsUS Army Corpsof Engineersof Engineers

One Corps Serving the Army and the Nation

Army MILCON Transformation… Army MILCON Transformation… UpdateUpdate

MT Standards & Criteria Team LeaderHeadquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NCSU Engineer Forum21 May 2007



• DASA (I&H) 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

OverviewOverview



DASA(I&H) DirectionDASA(I&H) 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



IGPBS

Army Modular Forces

BRAC 05

MIL

ITA

RY

WO

RK

LO

AD

OVER TIME

Multiple ‘Peaking’ Programsw/Critical Facilities Needs

Critical Questions…How much, when?

TempTemp BldgsBldgs

NOW Installations

MILCON/GWOT Spt

Our Challenge!!!Our Challenge!!!



Align with Industry…Align with Industry…MILCON Barracks (1+1)$168/SF, Scope: 99,500 SF

Private Industry Apartment

• 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

IndustryInstallation

Projected cost savings 15-20%Projected time savings 20-30%



USACE Reinventing USACE Reinventing MILCON Processes on MILCON Processes on

the Flythe Fly

Winning GWOT

Winning GWOT

Winning GWOT

Winning GWOT

Innovation &

Innovation &

Improvement

ImprovementInnovation &

Innovation &

Improvement

ImprovementTraining

Training

Training

Training

Quality of

Quality of

LifeLife

Quality of

Quality of

LifeLife

Business Business

Efficiencies

EfficienciesBusiness Business

Efficiencies

Efficiencies

Manning

Manning

the Force

the Force

Manning

Manning

the Force

the Force

Quality Outcomes

BRAC

BRAC

Execution

Execution

BRAC

BRAC

Execution

Execution

MILCON

MILCON

Execution

Execution

MILCON

MILCON

Execution

Execution

MILCON Pro

cess

MILCON Pro

cess

Reinvention

Reinvention

MILCON Pro

cess

MILCON Pro

cess

Reinvention

Reinvention

Statio

nin

gS

tation

ing

Statio

nin

gS

tation

ing

Inherently lin

ked Activitie

s

MIL

CO

N

MIL

CO

N

Tran

sform

ation

Tran

sform

ation

MIL

CO

N

MIL

CO

N

Tran

sform

ation

Tran

sform

ation

Mo

du

lar Fo

rce

Mo

du

lar Fo

rce

Initiative

Initiative

Mo

du

lar Fo

rce

Mo

du

lar Fo

rce

Initiative

Initiative

Real Estate

Real Estate Support

Support

En

virom

ental

En

virom

ental

Su

pp

ort

Su

pp

ort

“USACE must reinvent MILCON processes while executing Mission requirements and implementing MILCON Transformation”



Framing the StrategyFraming 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



The Model RFP… The Model RFP… Time, Cost, Quality?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



The Model RFP… The Model RFP… What It doesWhat 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



After Award?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….



Pilots & Lessons LearnedPilots & 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



Contracting ProceduresContracting 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



Some Differences Between Some Differences Between Public and Commercial Public and Commercial

Design-BuildDesign-Build

Government- Competition in

Contracting ActFollow-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 RequiredOn-Going Relationships are CommonQuality Based Selection is Common

Price Often Established After Design StartsCan Use “Guaranteed Maximum Price”FAR has no Exact Comparable Pricing Method



Contracting ProceduresContracting 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



Award BasesAward Bases“Best Value Continuum”“Best Value Continuum”

(FAR 15.101)(FAR 15.101)

• Two General Approaches:

– Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Proposal– Cost/Quality Trade-off Process



"Lowest Price, "Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Technically Acceptable

Proposal"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



"Lowest Price, "Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Technically Acceptable

Proposal"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



Cost/Quality Trade-off Cost/Quality Trade-off ProcessProcess

• 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”



Cost/Quality Trade-off Cost/Quality Trade-off ProcessProcess

• 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



Proposal Evaluation Proposal Evaluation CriteriaCriteria

• 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



““Evaluation Standards”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



““Proposal Evaluation Proposal Evaluation CategoriesCategories

• “Quality” Information

– “Design-Technical”

– “Performance Capability”

• “Price” or “Cost” Information

• Oral Presentations (Optional)



““Two-Phase Design-Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Build Selection

Procedures FAR 36.3Procedures FAR 36.3

Primary Considerations For Using 2 Primary Considerations For Using 2 PhasePhase Considerable Design Proposal Costs?• Technical Proposal Provides

Quality/Innovation Advantages to Gov’t?• Expected Number of Offers?



““First Phase”First Phase”

Primary Considerations For KTR Primary Considerations For KTR QualificationsQualifications

Past PerformancePast ExperienceManagement

Key personnel



Phase 1: Open Phase 1: Open CompetitionCompetition

• 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



Purpose of Purpose of Performance Capability Performance Capability

ProposalProposal• 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



Phase 2: Phase 2: Only Most Only Most Highly Highly

Qualified OfferorsQualified Offerors

• Firms Short-listed in Phase 1 Submit:– Extensive Design/Technical Information– Remainder of Performance Capability

Information– Cost/Price Proposal and Price Breakdowns



Phase 2: Only Most Phase 2: Only Most Highly Highly

Qualified OfferorsQualified 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



Purpose of Technical Purpose of Technical ProposalProposal

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



Typical Design-Technical Typical Design-Technical CategoriesCategories

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



Required Level of Detail for Required Level of Detail for Technical Submission Technical Submission

InformationInformation

• 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



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

Price Not The Key Evaluation CriteriaPrice Not The Key Evaluation Criteria

Documents

US Army Corps of Engineers One Corps Serving the Army and the Nation Army MILCON Transformation… Update MT Standards & Criteria Team Leader Headquarters,