Peter Adam

Note: This article presents an extensive analysis of the RFPs for construction of the Wall. The author has experience with large Government construction projects on three continents. Included is summary and analysis of the solicitations.

The Trump Administration’s promised US Mexico border WALL has just taken a BIG step forward.

Last Friday, March 17, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued initial RFP solicitation materials for a CONCRETE BORDER WALL to run along the 2000-mile demarcation line crossing varying terrains ranging from major urban areas to uninhabitable deserts that separates the US from its neighbor to the south, Mexico.

The border — and presumably at some point in the not-too-distant-future the wall too – runs from the Gulf of Mexico, along the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte), to the crossing at Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua and El Paso, Texas – and, from there continuing westward across vast tracts of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts to the Colorado River Delta, then, further west until bisecting San Diego-Tijuana, reaching the Pacific.

This is the most frequently crossed border in the world. There are approximately 300 plus million crossings annually — perfectly legal crossings, and somewhat less than 200,000 that are illegal.

CBP’s Requirement – A Tale of Two RFPs

There are two just-issued solicitations here:
• HSBP1017R0022 — Solid Concrete Border Wall RFP
• HSBP1017R0023 — The Other Wall

The first is for Phase I of the Wall project; it calls for a brief Concept Paper covering bidders’ capability and experience in similar design/construction projects. And the second, for Phase II (which is only relevant to those whose Phase I submissions pass muster) requires (an also brief) detailing of the prototypes to be submitted in response to the first task orders (TO). The first, Phase I, proposal, is due March 29. That’s right, March 29 — right away. The second, Phase II, submission’s due date is TBD.

What CBP is asking for here are highly qualified contractors who can develop a new border wall design standard, construct it and supply it with supporting tactical infrastructure/technology, to include: access and patrol roads, fencing, drainage structures, motorized vehicle gates, light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, fiber-optic systems and communication towers. Technology could include remote video surveillance systems (RVSS), ground sensors, etc.

CBP expects approaches that are innovative, in addition to meeting or exceeding their performance requirements.

Eventually, CBP plans to enter into multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), TO contracts for Border Wall Design/Build Construction. CBP anticipates the award of simultaneous task orders ranging from $100,000 up to $275,000,000 each.

Step by Step – A Phased Process

Winners are to be chosen in a phased process, detailed in both RFPs.

First step is culling the field to 20 potential awardees. And right now, at this point, initially, CBP is only asking bidders to provide information concerning their suitability for such an ambitious undertaking. The first part of the two-part solicitation, RFP HSBP1017R0022 — Solid Concrete Border Wall, requires only a 10-page max Phase I concept paper/qualifications statement along with a Project Performance Survey and Summary Matrix (which are excluded from the 10-page limitation). The second, addresses more specifically the prototype, and is configured along typical, multi-volume response requirement lines.
And responders are reminded to get with it! Mark your calendar. The Phase I Concept Paper submission, due March 29, has to be brief. The Phase I Concept Paper is to cover the following, which will be familiar to all contractors with major, similar US Government construction projects under their belts:

1) Demonstrated Experience – Description of the Prime’s and/or Major Subs’ experience with several large projects (completed to at least 50% or more within the past 5 years) that included design and construction of a broad range of structures involving solid concrete walls and roads in challenging areas, while meeting or exceeding cost, schedule, and performance goals. Similar projects include those addressing border/perimeter security or constructed fortification for challenging environmental and operational constraints that are at minimum $25 million dollars in size.

2) Management and Technical Competence — Demonstrated possession of skilled personnel and processes to perform a large and complex design and construction project—to include:
• Identification of key personnel — Construction Supervisor, Project Manager and Lead Designer – and an entire staff with the proper training, experience, and other qualifications who will be available throughout the contract;
• An outstanding and highly proactive program management approach with strong cost, schedule, and management controls;
• Demonstrated experience in early identification and resolution of program variances;
• An outstanding technical approach with highly skilled technical personnel to support it.
Experience in setting project baselines, assessing status against it, and addressing issues and variances; and
• The ability to meet schedule requirements for the prototype construction and outline the skills and competencies of a staff that can support the technical and management activities of the project.

3) Prototype Concept Approach – A discussion and presentation of the bidder’s design and construction concept for a large solid wall prototype of reinforced concrete with solid facings, including technical approach narratives and information regarding the material and system quality. This may include conceptual level presentation drawings.

Furthermore — The response must clearly define the proposed scope and quality levels that the design-build team is offering in enough detail for the mutual understanding of meeting of minimum prototype solicitation requirements. Fully developed drawings, details or specifications are not desired or required. The proposed design and construction concept for the prototype must meet the specific requirements of the border’s environment; address materiel and system quality, with the possible inclusion of conceptual level presentation drawings of a reinforced concrete structure with solid facings.

Fully developed drawings, details or specifications are neither desired nor required.

Evaluation – Selection

BPC has prepared a set of exemplar questions to be considered during proposal review. Not designed to be all-inclusive, they’ll help bidders focus their submissions properly.
Submissions must address —
• How proposed design meets or exceeds CBP’s performance requirements (e.g. 6 feet anti-dig/anti-tunnel).
• Bidder’s experience executing high profile, high visibility and politically contentious design build projects.
• Bidder’s experience constructing tactical infrastructure (e.g., fencing, roads, drainage, lights, etc.) on locations similar to those along the US southwest border.
• Bidder’s design-build experience constructing projects in challenging (e.g., steep slopes up to 45 degrees) and or inaccessible terrain on the southwest border.
• Bidder’s dollar threshold experience with large design-build contracts efforts – what were the minimums/maximums?
• Bidder’s experience working on projects that involved a large number of federal, state and local stakeholders.
• Past performance (i.e., how customers would rate performance) on completing similarly sized programs and projects from a cost (original award; final cost) and schedule perspective (any payment of liquidated damages?).
• Potential project risks and mitigation strategies.
• Cost control while still meeting CBP’s performance requirements.
• Qualifications, experience and time availability of key personnel- describe your successful ability to personnel in required locations.
• Design-build team’s experience working together.

The 20 contractors CBP chooses to proceed to Phase II will be called on to first describe and then present WALL prototypes, as detailed in the second RFP. Furthermore, each selected Contractor may also be provided an opportunity to propose on future task order requirements that are anticipated to be both design build and design bid build task orders.

Factors for Evaluation
There are three factors governing the evaluation of the response to the first, Phase I RFP, HSBP1017R0022 — Solid Concrete Border Wall. These are:

Factor 1-1 – Demonstrated Experience — Evidence of the demonstrated capability successfully to complete major design and construction projects of the large scope ultimately anticipated for the border wall.

Factor 1-2 – Management and Technical Competence — Evidence of the technical and management skills necessary to lead and complete a complex design and construction effort of this nature. And . . .

Factor 1-3 – Prototype Concept Approach — Evidence that design and construction approach will result in a detailed proposal (including a 60% design) and subsequently a wall that meets or exceeds the Government’s requirements.
Ranking — Factor 1-3 is significantly more important than Factor 1-2. Factor 1-2 is more important than Factor 1-1.

THE Other WALL – BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WINNING

Looking ahead to Phase II submissions as addressed in HSBP1017R0023 — The Other Wall RFP, the 20 winners of the initial (Phase I) evaluation — will have to prepare a typical multi-volume submission, covering Price, Technical Management, Prototype/Wall Design, Past Performance, and Subcontracting specifics. These discussions, too, will have to be brief; The Technical and Management discussion limited to 15 pages, and the Design component, a mere 10 pages.

Evaluation Factors, Phase II
The experienced contractors CBP is looking for will be familiar with the evaluation criteria, which follow:

Factor 2-1 – Technical and Management Capability – Reasonableness, realism in the meeting and/or exceeding of requirements, structure maintenance and risk management, etc. etc.

Factor 2-2 – Feasibility and Fit of the Prototype Wall Design — Demonstrated understanding of the operational and physical environment – to include Aesthetics – also commonly referred to as “architectural treatment”, i.e., the overall form of the wall, its features such as the wall cap, wall columns, end treatments, and safety shapes. It also refers to the incorporation of color, texture, pattern, and/or imagery to the surfaces of the “Other Border Wall Prototype” to improve their appearance and integrate them into their surrounding urban or natural environment.

Factor 2-3 – Past Performance — Typical, for this type of project – relevant and timely.

Factor 2-4 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan – Typical. (SB – 38%, SD & WO – 5% each, HUB & SDVOSB – 3% each.)

Factor 2-5 – Price — FFP, Per the RFP.

Priorities:

Prototype Design can win it — or lose it. Factor 2-2 is significantly more important than either Factors 2-1, 2-3, or 2-4 individually. Factor 2-1 is more important than Factor 2-3. Factor 2-3 is more important than Factor 2-4. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the price.

The Government will make Multiple awards to bidders whose Phase II proposals provide the best value.

Other Matters — The SOW/Deliverables and Reps and Certs components of the Other Wall RFP will, similarly, be familiar to major US Government project construction contractors; all the typical requirements are here: scheduling, staffing, Key personnel, security, quality plan, etc. etc., including BUY AMERICAN.

What if Full Funding Doesn’t Happen?

If Congress does not pass full funding for the entire structure — and deficit hawks will balk at the price tag – most probably, then a scaled-back fence like solution may be substituted for the reinforced concrete structures, per the initial RFPs. If this happens, it will increase the importance of sensors, detection devices and other related security measures, devices, etc. Bidders are encouraged to be flexible, and focus not only on design, but logistics and supply capabilities and experience.

Proposals that highlight the contractor’s flexibility and the ability to scale up as well as down and respond quickly and efficiently to evolving requirements are far more likely to make it to the second Phase II round and help construct the monumental structures that are going to be built along the US- Mexican border.

Share your comments below!