1 / 15

A-10 Engine Nacelle Repair Engineering Review DRC Proposal 13 OCT 2006

A-10 Engine Nacelle Repair Engineering Review DRC Proposal 13 OCT 2006. Lt Jeremy Grant, Program Mgr. 518 CBSS/GBMBA 586-6657 jeremy.grant1@hill.af.mil. Overview. Purpose of this Briefing Contractor Rating Criteria Criterion 1 – Past Performance Criterion 2 – Local Services

hei
Télécharger la présentation

A-10 Engine Nacelle Repair Engineering Review DRC Proposal 13 OCT 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A-10 Engine Nacelle RepairEngineering Review DRC Proposal13 OCT 2006 Lt Jeremy Grant, Program Mgr. 518 CBSS/GBMBA 586-6657 jeremy.grant1@hill.af.mil BE AMERICA’S BEST

  2. Overview • Purpose of this Briefing • Contractor Rating Criteria • Criterion 1 – Past Performance • Criterion 2 – Local Services • Criterion 3 – Facilities • Criterion 4 – Experience/Knowledge related to technologies • Criterion 5 – Total Evaluated Price (TEP) • Criterion 6 – Schedule/Work breakdown structure • Criterion 7 – Unique capabilities • Recommendations BE AMERICA’S BEST

  3. Purpose of this Briefing • Provide feedback, to the contractors, based on the Delphi criteria evaluations • Only the engineering comments were detailed in the Delphi process; these will be presented • Comments, critical as they might seem, are intended to assist the contractor in offering the Government better proposals • Better proposals are thought to lead to better end products BE AMERICA’S BEST

  4. Contractor Rating Criteria • Background • A-10 structures office used the Delphi Criteria to perform a detailed evaluation of each interested party (contractor) • DESP 2 Requirements • Standard Delphi chart provided by DESP 2 • On their own, each evaluator to provide detailed comments on each criterion evaluated • Delphi Criteria • 0-5 scale (0 = “Unacceptable”; 5 = “Exceptional”) • Eight criteria (“Processes,” “Technologies,” etc.) • From 1 to 8 “sub tasks” for each criterion BE AMERICA’S BEST

  5. Table Key Contractor Rating Criteria • Delphi Rating Scheme • Lowest = 0 (Unacceptable) • Low = 2.0 (Acceptable with Low Performance Risk) • Moderate = 3.0 (Some Requirements Exceed with Moderate Performance Risk) • Moderate = 4.0 (Exceptional with High Performance Risk) • High = 4.5 (Exceptional with Moderate Performance Risk) • Highest = 5.0 (Exceptional with Low Performance Risk ) BE AMERICA’S BEST

  6. ? ? Contractor Rating Criteria • Excellent • Preferred - superior • Exceed most requirements • Low or moderate risk • Score of 4.26 - 5.0 • Good • Shows promise – high end of “Good” • Exceed some requirements (with low risk) • Exceed most requirements (with high risk) • Score of 3.26 – 4.25 • Fair • Underachieving – low end of “Good” • Exceed some requirements • High or moderate risk • Score of 2.26 – 3.25 • Poor • Unacceptable or just marginally meets requirements • Score of 0 – 2.25 BE AMERICA’S BEST

  7. Criterion 1Past Performance • Evaluator’s Summary: DRC showed some good analysis on high dollar contracts. However, all experience was in avionics/electrical analysis and not structural. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  8. Criterion 2Local Services • Evaluator’s Summary: The only local facility is the program management office and the majority of the work would be performed out of state. Manufacturing was not mentioned. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  9. Criterion 3Facilities • Evaluator’s Summary: DRC did not mention the manufacturing facility which is where the majority of the work is performed. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  10. Criterion 4Experience/Knowledge related to technologies • Evaluator’s Summary: DRC’s experience did not relate to structural workloads. Also, DRC did not mention manufacturing repair experience. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  11. Criterion 5Total Evaluated Price (TEP) • Evaluator’s Summary: The TEP is calculated by ranking the various proposal costs. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  12. Criterion 6Schedule/Work breakdown structure • Evaluator’s Summary: DRC shows completion within the 12 month with a good reporting plan. However, the short timeline may indicate work involved. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  13. Criterion 7Unique Capabilities • Evaluator’s Summary: DRC did not really show any unique capabilities to his contract. BE AMERICA’S BEST

  14. Roll-Up(Detailed Delphi Evaluation) BE AMERICA’S BEST

  15. Recommendations • Overall: Ranked 5th in proposals by Delphi Evaluation • DRC • Plus – Overall timeline within the 12 month ARO • Minus – Program management office is only local facility • Minus – Past experience is not with structural analysis • Minus – No mention of manufacturing facility • Minus – No unique capabilities BE AMERICA’S BEST

More Related