Inactive

This RFI is associated with draft specifications used in NAVFAC SE performance based contracts regarding recurring work and non-recurring work procedures that are included in Section C, Annex 0200000.... This RFI is associated with draft specifications used in NAVFAC SE performance based contracts regarding recurring work and non-recurring work procedures that are included in Section C, Annex 0200000. Background NAVFAC SE uses performance based contracts to a obtain facility maintenance and facility services across the NAVFAC Southeast Area of Responsibility (AOR), to include but not limited to: Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida. The fixed price contracts include both recurring work and non-recurring work. The recurring work procedures prescribes the methodology to price contract modifications; and notification procedures for work that exceeds the limits of liability set forth within the functional annexes and sub-annexes. This notification is required in two parts: an initial notification with a rough order magnitude cost estimate, and a detailed proposal follows within two days. The detailed proposal is used by the Government to issue non-recurring work authorizations after the proposal has been deemed fair and reasonable. All non-recurring work labor hours, irrespective of prevailing wage, are priced at a Unit Price Labor Hour (UPL), which is the fully burdened price bid by the Contractor to perform one hour of work. With the exception of direct material and construction equipment cost, the unit priced labor hour includes all indirect and direct costs associated with performing one hour of work in-place. Problems trying to overcome: 1. Industry perceives best value tradeoff procurements to be awarded instead as lowest price, technically acceptable procurements. Based on this, it appears that offerors take risk in proposing a low UPL in order to make their proposals more competitive and have become unwilling to honor their prices bid during performance. This issue is one of the primary sources of tension between the Contractor’s management team and the Government Contract Administration team. 2. Subcontracted/specialty work seems to be of particular concern (cost) to the Contractor in regards to applying the UPL. NAVFAC SE has issued contracts recently with multiple UPL ELINs which allows contractors to price higher cost labor more accurately, but also creates other contract limitations which must be tracked and managed in order to administer the contract. Realignment through bi-lateral modifications becomes administrative work not able to forecast. 3. Regardless of past experiences during contract administration, a Contractor should NOT assume any indirect costs or additional markups will be added when a task order is issued or work authorization is given. This applies to all UPL work (negotiated) ordered under the contract. The UPL should be priced, as defined in the contract, in order to successfully perform non-recurring work requirements. 4. When Contractors identify work that exceeds the limits of liability, some Contractors struggle with initial notification to the Contracting Officer with a Rough Order of Magnitude cost estimate within two hours. The Government relies upon the information provided by the Contractor to mitigate potential mission impacts. Strict timeliness requirements are needed for these purposes. 5. Many Contractors have trouble submitting an accurate proposal within two days. The Government perspective is that developing proposals is a part of the recurring work portion of the contract and thereby the Contractors must have an estimating staff capable of developing accurate proposals from published information such as RS Means. As with the initial notification, strict timeliness requirements are needed to mitigate potential mission impacts. Desired Outcome 1. The Government intends to administer its BOS/FSC contracts in accordance with the contract language and fixed price contract policies. 2. The Government desires to resolve some of the problems above by restructuring the UPL ELIN to allow the offerors to price different UPLs (based on standard work requirements) while reducing the pressure of price competition through a lump sum UPL ELIN, similar to the materials ELIN. 3. The Government desires to resolve some of the timeliness problems above by clarifying spec item 2.14.2 Notification to the Government for Work Above the Recurring Work Limitations. The concept of the draft specifications is the initial notification includes an ROM estimate that is followed up by a joint site visit, and an RFP. In response to the RFP the contractor provides their proposal within 2 days. 4. The Government desires to improve the clarity of the specifications throughout. Specific Areas of Input Requested/Questions 1. Are the draft specifications sufficiently detailed to achieve the desired outcome? If not, which portion of the draft specifications need clarification? 2. If you were offering a proposal, what risks do you foresee with the draft specifications during solicitation? 3. If you were performing under contract, what risks do you foresee with the draft specifications during performance? 4. Provide recommendations how the Government Technical Evaluation Team can consider labor rates in technical merit, without referencing cost realism analysis. What factors should be included in the “basis of evaluation” in Section M? 5. Do you have other recommendations regarding recurring and non-recurring work procedures that will incentivize Contractors to price UPLs at the rate it would actually take to perform the requirements? Does the draft UPL ELIN provide an incentive for realistic rate, rather than a competitive rate? What limitations can be included to control unreasonably high rates when the total UPL price is set at $4,000,000.00? 6. Are two days an unreasonable expectation to troubleshoot a needed repair and submit a proposal to the contracting officer? 7. What actions should the Government demand from Contractor QC Manager when facility systems fail without warning or the stated timelines are not met? 8. Would a Cost Control evaluation in CPARs influence your use of UPL during performance? Cost control is not normal in a fixed price contract. 9. Provide recommendations for where to price bonding requirements when issuing construction task orders over $150,000. The deadline for responses to this RFI is 08:00AM EST, Aug 06, 2025. Responses should be forwarded via email to both the primary and secondary points of contact below. Responses shall not exceed 5 pages and shall not contain any brochures, advertising or any other type of extraneous, graphic literature or documents that have not been requested and are not relevant or essential in demonstrating the company’s ability to provide the required services. Vendors may provide links to relevant websites, as appropriate. This notice should not be construed as a commitment by the Government for any purpose other than market research. No reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this announcement or any follow-up information requests. Respondents will NOT be notified of the results of the analysis. Primary Point of Contact: Becky Jones rebecca.m.jones75.civ@us.navy.mil Secondary Point of Contact: Charlie Smith Marce.smith.civ@us.navy.mil