# IG5336.9201-ch4

CHAPTER 4
Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC) & Task Order (TO) Negotiations

4.1. Introduction. The Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC) process is one tool available to facilitate construction projects at your installation.

4.2. MACCs – WHAT ARE THEY?

4.2.1. MACCs are indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts whose requirements are competed among a pool of multiple awardees based on work defined in individual task orders.

4.2.2. Work may consist of multiple disciplines in general construction categories. It may involve design services for all aspects of general building construction including construction, modifications and renovations of existing facilities.

4.2.3. MACCs guarantee each awardee a minimum amount of work, usually expressed as a dollar amount. Rather than stating a minimum amount for all contracts equally, a design-build seed project may be awarded to the offeror representing the best value to the government.

4.2.4. MACCs may augment or replace SABER contracts, depending on specific base requirements and the contracting environment. Typically, SABER is well suited to smaller, less complex projects with MACCs picking up larger, more complex projects. The following matrix identifies and compares the primary features of each contract tool that should be carefully considered during the acquisition planning phase:

4.3. MACC vs. SABER.

| MACC | SABER
Contract Type | IDIQ | IDIQ
Ordering | Delivery or task orders | Delivery or task orders
Initial Competition | Competitive | Competitive or set-aside
Program Size | No Limit | Usually $20-$50M over 5 years
Number Contracts | Varies by base but 5-7 provides good competition | Most bases can only support one contract
Competition After Award | - Task orders priced per requirement - Requirements competed among all awardees | - Task orders priced using commercial unit price books - No competition unless more than one SABER
Flexibility | Complex projects Full design & build -- up to 100% design -- no restrictions | Non-complex projects Minimum design -- up to 35% -- some updating of old designs
Task Order Scope | $750K-$5M (typical) | $150K-$750K (typical)
Task Order Lead Time | 15-45 days average | 7-14 days average
Contract Responsiveness – Small requirements | May be less responsive -- Must compete -- Longer lead time | May be more responsive -- If only one contractor -- Shorter lead time

4.4. ACQUISITION PLANNING. As emphasized in Chapter 2, Acquisition Planning, sound planning is at the heart of a successful MACC acquisition. The following are some of the specific issues you need to consider during the planning and strategizing phases in addition to those areas addressed in Chapter 2:

4.4.1. Development of statement of work

4.4.2. Identify target number of awards

4.4.3. Consider 8(a), HUBZone, unrestricted, other

4.4.4. Establish program maximum dollar amount

4.4.5. Establish contract minimums

4.4.6. Address feasibility of regional contracts versus base specific contracts

4.4.7. Address availability of funding for contract minimums

4.4.8. Identify seed/demonstration project – for first contract awarded

4.4.9. Address availability of funding for seed/demonstration project

4.4.10. Address acquisition approach (FAR 15 and 36 as supplemented) and AFFARS 5315.3

4.4.11. Identify measures planned to increase interest and competition

4.4.12. Address task order limitations

4.4.13. Address task order restrictions

4.4.14. Identify evaluation factors

4.4.15. Establish relevancy definition for past performance

4.4.16. Address task order ordering procedures and surveillance

4.4.17. Address bundling considerations and/or consolidation of requirements, discussed in more
detail below

4.5. BUNDLING and/or CONSOLIDATION?

4.5.1. Acquisition Planning will lay the groundwork for a successful acquisition. A key consideration early on in the process is bundling or consolidation.

4.5.2. When developing the acquisition strategy consider that Small Business performs the majority of construction and the award of a MACC could significantly affect small businesses.

4.5.3. During your acquisition planning, review your requirement and determine if bundling or consolidation will occur.

4.5.4. Reference OSD (AT&L) Bundling Guidebook.

4.5.5. IAW FAR 2.101, Bundling means:

4.5.5.1. Consolidating two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to —

4.5.5.1.1. The diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified;

4.5.5.1.2. The aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award;

4.5.5.1.3. The geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites; or

4.5.5.1.4. Any combination of the factors described in paragraphs (1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition.

4.5.5.2. In addition consider “consolidation” during the process.

4.5.5.3. “Consolidation of contract requirements” means the use of a solicitation to obtain offers for a single contract or a multiple award contract. The purpose of the consolidation is to satisfy two or more requirements of a department, agency, or activity for supplies or services that previously have been provided to, or performed for, that department, agency, or activity under two or more separate contracts lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which the offerors are solicited. Note: Consolidation is not the same as bundling. It is applicable irregardless of business size of previous contractor. Consolidation and Bundling requirements could both apply to an acquisition

4.5.5.4. IAW DFARS 207.170-3, Consolidation of Contract Requirements Policy and Procedures, agencies shall not consolidate requirements with a total value exceeding $5,000,000 unless the acquisition strategy includes: results of market research; identification of any alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation; and a determination by the Senior Procurement Executive* (SPE) that the consolidation is necessary and justified.

4.5.5.5. Approval authorities are in accordance with AFFARS 5301.601.

4.5.5.6. Market research may indicate that consolidation is necessary and justified if the benefits of consolidation exceed the benefits of the alternative contracting approaches. Regardless of whether quantifiable in dollars, benefits include costs and

4.5.5.6.1. Quality;

4.5.5.6.2. Acquisition Cycle;

4.5.5.6.3. Terms and conditions;

4.5.5.6.4. and any other benefit.

4.5.5.7. Administrative savings alone do not constitute a sufficient justification unless the total amount of savings are expected to be substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement

ENSURE YOU ENGAGE YOUR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION EARLY IN THIS PROCESS AND THAT THEY PARTICIPATE THROUGHOUT THE MACC PROCESS.

4.6. HOW MANY CONTRACTS SHOULD YOU AWARD?

4.6.1. There is no “magic” number of contracts under a MACC. The size, complexity, and scope of the requirements anticipated under the MACC program, funding available to support contract minimums, regional influences, and the costs and resources needed to administer the contracts are all factors to be weighed when determining what constitutes a "reasonable" number of awards. Awarding too many contracts could result in overly optimistic expectations on the part of contractors. Further, some awardees may find it is not cost effective to continue to submit proposals because there is too much competition. The chart below depicts what other Air Force bases have done in this area:

4.6.1.1. Langley AFB MACC & TO (Atch 4-1)

CONTRACTS AWARDED | CONTRACT MIN/MAX | CONTRACT TERM
Two 8a Two Large Business | Min = $20K Max = $250M* * inclusive of all 4 contracts | Basic w/ seven option periods

4.6.1.1.1. The contract allows for several competitive methods—best value, low price technically acceptable or low price. Use the first two methods for design/build projects and the low price method is for build-only projects (no design required).

4.6.1.1.2. The contract provisions allow small business to compete against large business. All four contractors compete for the MACC projects. The MACC terms allow for projects estimated under $250,000 to be competed among the 8(a) contractors only.

4.6.1.2. Ellsworth AFB MACC & TO (Atch 4-2)

CONTRACTS AWARDED | CONTRACT MIN/MAX | CONTRACT TERM
Three 8a Two Full & Open (Small Business) | Min = $5K Max = $50M* * inclusive of all 5 contracts | Basic w/ four option periods

4.6.1.2.1. In this arrangement, Full & Open competes against Full & Open and 8(a) competes against 8(a). The MACC awards were to three SBA 8(a) contractors and two small businesses.

4.6.1.3. Nellis AFB

CONTRACTS AWARDED | CONTRACT MIN/MAX | CONTRACT TERM
Three 8a Two Large Business | Min = $250K Max Order = $5M Max Contract = $20M* * inclusive of all 5 contracts | Basic w/ four option periods

4.6.1.3.1. Projects $250,000 - $1,000,000

4.6.1.3.1.1. Compete among all three 8(a) contractors

4.6.1.3.1.1.1. Best Value (normally Design/Build)

4.6.1.3.1.1.2. Low price technically acceptable (Minimal Design/Build)

4.6.1.3.1.1.3. Low price (no up-front design required)

4.6.1.3.1.2. - Select one 8(a) contractor with which to negotiate

4.6.1.3.2. Projects $1,000,000 - $5,000,000

4.6.1.3.2.1. Compete among all five contractors

4.6.1.3.2.1.1. Best Value (normally Design/Build)

4.6.1.3.2.1.2. Low price technically acceptable (Minimal Design/Build)

4.6.1.3.2.1.3. Low price (no up-front design required)

4.6.1.3.2.2. Select one contractor with which to negotiate (e.g., to meet minimum order amounts or sole source)

4.6.1.3.2.3. Small business competes against large business if the project exceeds $1,000,000.

4.6.1.4. Scott AFB MACC (Atch 4-3)

4.6.1.4.1. Compete projects equally among all awardees after award of seed project, except where necessary to satisfy a contract minimum or where other exceptions apply in accordance with FAR 16.505(b).

CONTRACTS AWARDED | CONTRACT MIN/MAX | CONTRACT TERM
One Small Business Three Large Businesses Two 8(a)* One Additional HUBZone SB ** * One with dual status as HUBZone ** with dual status as a woman-owned | Min = $666K seed project awarded to best value offeror. All others awarded $2500 Max Contract = $90M program amount* * inclusive of all contracts | Basic w/ four options

4.7. TASK ORDERS AND TASK ORDER COMPETITION.

4.7.1. Each MACC award cites an individual contract number and work is ordered by written task orders issued on a DD Form 1155 (Order for Supplies or Services). Task orders are firm fixed price and clearly define the specific work performed sequentially numbered, and they relate back to the awardee’s contract.

4.7.2. Projects may be non-complex performance oriented tasks requiring minimal design, complex design build, or construction based on fully developed designs.

4.7.3. Generally, the basis for award is a best value approach to include performance price tradeoff, low price technically acceptable, or other tradeoffs based on factors other than just price and performance. In the latter instance, award factors will vary depending on the uniqueness of the requirement. Obtaining written proposals or holding discussions with awardees is not always required. Formal evaluation plans are not usually required. Consider one or more of the following criteria in addition to Price or Cost:

4.7.3.1. Past Performance

4.7.3.2. Quality of Deliverables

4.7.3.3. Ability to Meet Schedule Requirements

4.7.3.4. Relevant Experience

4.7.3.5. Cost Control, if applicable

4.7.3.6. Potential impact on other orders placed with the contractor

4.7.3.7. Current workload

4.7.4. When developing the solicitation for a MACC, you must comply with applicable requirements for competition in FAR Part 6, unless otherwise exempt by law. Placement of orders subsequent to award is exempt from the FAR Part 6 competition requirements.

4.7.5. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) provides each awardee under multiple awards a fair opportunity for consideration of each order in excess of $2,500, unless an exception applies.
4.7.6. The requirement for fair opportunity consideration does not apply to orders under $2,500, or to orders above $2500 where the CO determines in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(iii)(5)(i-iv) an exception to fair opportunity is appropriate.

4.7.7. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(ii) the contracting officer has broad discretion to determine how work will be issued to awardees, provided the procedures and selection criteria to be used are set forth in the solicitation and resulting contract. The procedures provide each awardee a fair opportunity for consideration of each order and reflect the requirement and other aspects of the contracting environment. There is no standard format for requesting proposals from offerors competing on task orders after award. A sample Task Order Request for Proposals is at Attachment 4-7 and is a good starting point.

4.7.8. Allocation or "equitable distribution" of orders, or placing order ceilings (under which the total value of orders must stay for each contractor) is contrary to the intent of FASA. FAR 16.505(b) expressly prohibits this practice.

4.7.9. Only the MACC awardees compete for subsequent task orders after the initial competition. Therefore, these contractors are encouraged to participate in all site visits and submit proposals. Failures by offerors to participate responsibly in site visits and submit proposals may result in the Government not exercising the option to extend the contract or exclusion of the contractor from further competition. Occasionally, (generally during the last quarter of the fiscal year), the government may solicit offers from the MACC awardees for projects for which funds are not certified or readily available (straddle bid). In those instances, do not penalize the MACC awardees for not participating.

4.8. SECTION L & M CONSIDERATIONS.

4.8.1. Sections L & M form the “heart” of the RFP. If a problem is going to arise, it will generally stem from an error or misstatement in one of these sections. It is highly recommended that the evaluation factors be described first, and then the instructions written to ensure the appropriate information is requested in the technical proposal. See Sections L & M in the attached model RFPs for evaluation factors that have worked successfully (Attachments 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6).

4.8.2. We recommend you consider identifying a valid requirement to serve as the seed project for the first award. This strategy accomplishes several objectives. If large enough, the project can increase competition. It satisfies the contract minimum under the first contract awarded and if using an evaluation strategy other than performance price tradeoff, it allows you to evaluate each offeror’s design team as applied to the design of a real project. This is very important since smaller companies tend to team up with A-E firms for the MACC requirement with many of them representing new, or first time, relationships with no established performance record as a team. When using this approach it is recommended that the project selected require no more than a 15-25% level of design effort to keep proposal preparation costs down.

4.8.3. The seed project will help ensure the award of the MACC is in accordance with AFFARS MP5316.504. MP5316.504 mandates that, upon execution of the contract, an obligation shall be recorded based upon the issuance of a delivery or task order for the cost/price of the minimum quantity specified. The Contracting Officer will need to work with the customer to develop the minimum quantity and ensure obligation upon award.

4.9. DESIGN/BUILD PROCESS. The MACC structure allows maximum flexibility for construction requirements. This structure is usable with existing specifications or you can use it for design/build projects. The contract must define the level of effort expected of the contractors in response to a requirement for a contractor provided design (Design/Build), i.e., 10%, 15%, 35%. etc. The task order RFP should provide competing offerors a design/build statement of work (SOW) and supporting information necessary for the offeror to understand the project requirements in order to prepare their technical and price proposals. The essential elements of the SOW might include the project goals and objectives and project requirements. Only the successful offeror will be required to proceed with subsequent design to the 60% or 100% level, (as stated in each task order) and execute construction. Do not overly state the level of design required during the task order RFP stage. It can result in unnecessary expense for competing offerors.

4.10. LESSONS LEARNED.

4.10.1. Awarding fewer contracts, such as five or six, results in better competition, better proposals, less burdensome ordering process, and improved working relationships with contractors.

4.10.2. Continuously seek contractor input to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the ordering process, discuss administrative matters, and future requirements.

4.10.3. Use simplified procedures and award documentation when issuing orders under multiple award contracts.

4.10.4. Continuously update past performance data as task orders are completed.

4.10.5. Avoid large minimum guarantees that circumvent the policy of allowing awardees a fair opportunity.

4.10.6. Consider establishing an automated system to manage task order issuance to make the process more efficient.

4.10.7. Recommend hosting a proposal conference to explain multiple award contract concept and to entertain questions.

4.10.8. Ensure appropriate weight is given to new teaming arrangements versus existing or prior relationship with the same teaming partner to avoid over rating past performance.

4.10.9. Ensure relevancy definition is clear, concise, and relative to the magnitude and scope.

Note: The attachments have been modified. The full solicitations are available in the AFFARS Library, Part 5336 (Community Advice section). The examples are not templates. The provisions, clauses, and terms and conditions may have changed.