Presentation Transcript

1. FRCSE DLM Pre-Solicitation Conference 5 Dec 2013
2. Day’s Events Registration 0830 - 0900 Pre-Solicitation Briefing 0900 – 1200 Lunch 1200 - 1300 Tour of FRC, JAX 1300 – 1400 Q&As 1430 – 1530 Closing Remarks and Adjourn 1530 - 1545
3. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M RFP SECTIONS A-K REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO
4. Purpose To ensure a common understanding of the Government’s Requirements Proposal Instructions To answer questions regarding RFP N61340-14-R-0002
5. GROUND RULES All attendees must sign-in Silence cell phones and other devices No recordings of any kind Questions submitted during brief Draft questions using the card provided Place card in drop-off location Due to time constraints, not all questions will be answered in open forum All questions answered will be posted at https://www.fbo.gov/
6. DISCLAIMER Nothing discussed here, unless it appears in an amendment to the RFP will change the terms and conditions of the RFP All amendments to this solicitation shall be posted at https://www.fbo.gov/
7. COMMUNICATIONS ALL industry communication for RFP N61340-14-R-0002 shall come through the PCO and/or Contract Specialist. NAVAIR’s points of contact are: Kathleen Dougherty, Contracting Officer (407) 380-8189, kathleen.dougherty@navy.mil John Warren, Contract Specialist (407) 380-4556, john.j.warren@navy.mil
8. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M RFP SECTIONS A-K REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO
9. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview FRCSE provides DLM services for aircraft, aircraft engines and associated components/ materials DLM involves the rework of existing aviation end items, systems and components and the manufacture of items and component parts that are otherwise not available Provided services also include modernization, conversion, in-service repair, disassembly, and all other categories of aircraft DLM. Places of Performance: NAS Jacksonville, FL MCAS Beufort, SC NS Mayport, FL NAS Oceana, VA Cecil Field, FL NS Norfolk, VA Tinker Air Force Base, OK (potential future site) Platforms/Component: EA-6B, F/A-18, H-60, P-3, P-8, E-2, C-2, S-3, T-6, T-34, T-44 and T-45
10. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Hours of Operation: FRCSE Jax (including remote sites) working hours of operation are 7 days a week as follows: “A” Shift 0600-1430 hours “B” Shift 1430-2300 hours “C” Shift 2200-0630 hours Contractor workforce shall be available to work the “A”, “B”, and “C” shifts, Monday through Friday
11. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Equipment and Facilities: Government Property – The Government will provide special tooling, hand tools, and ground support equipment not requiring licensing or certification Government Automated Data Processing – The Government will provide computer access to the FRCSE Time & Attendance and Labor reporting system for employee time and attendance documentation and reporting Contractor Work Spaces - The Contractor shall maintain its administrative facility and equipment outside of NAS Jacksonville and shall use Government facilities only for the performance of the contract. Within the production areas of FRC Jax, as space permits, the Government will provide workspace to be utilized by the Project Manager.
12. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Equipment and Facilities Continued: Sources of Supply – The Government will provide aeronautical materiel and equipment necessary to perform DLM services required under the contract
13. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Contractor Written Procedures and Service Guidance: Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) The Contractor’s Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) must comply with NAVAIRINST 3710.1F The Contractor shall submit GOPs to the Government Ground Flight Representative (GGFR) for approval prior to the commencement of Contractor DLM services Special Emphasis Programs The Contractor shall comply with the guidance of references FRCSE and CNAF Instructions Tool Control Program The Contractor shall participate in and comply with the FRCSE Tool Control Program IAW FRCSEINST 4790.112
14. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Citizenship Requirement: All Contractor personnel performing work for FRCSE shall be United States citizens If a Contractor employee is a naturalized citizen, proof of naturalization shall be submitted prior to employment by the Contractor and the individual shall submit to a full security background check NO EXCEPTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED OR AUTHORIZED
15. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Security Requirements: The Contractor shall comply with applicable Government security regulations and the requirements of the DD Form 254 As a condition of employment, Contractor personnel shall be required to qualify for and obtain a Common Access Card (CAC) and FRCSE Badge A National Agency Check with Local Agency Checks including Credit Check (NACLC) is required for permanent issuance of the credential Some Contractor personnel will be required to obtain Secret Clearances for work on avionics and/or electronic programs Positions requiring a Secret Clearance are identified in the SOW, Trade Specialty Requirements Section
16. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Quality Assurance Program Requirements: The Contractor shall comply with FRCSEINST 5200.9C, 5340.1A and 5355.1A to maintain FRCSE compliance with ISO 9001 and AS 9100 quality standards All performance will be subject to COR and FRCSE Quality Assurance Program acceptance (periodic reviews, inspections, sampling system, etc.) Any discrepancies will be addressed IAW the Discrepancy Work Order (DWO) process and in the FRCSE Quality Assurance Program The Contractor shall prepare and implement (upon Government approval) a contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP) for DLM The Contractor shall ensure compliance with CNAFINST 4790.2B for DLM services
17. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Key Personnel: Key Personnel positions are identified in the SOW, Trade Specialty Requirements Section Program Manager Site Supervisor
18. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. In Service Repair/Fleet Modification Team (ISR/FMT) DLM Support: The Contractor shall provide emergency repair, modification, and DLM support for aircraft deployed away from FRCSE but within the Continental United States (CONUS) when requested by the Government Site locations shall be directed by the FRCSE in support of a particular work site or aircraft carrier Site locations will be identified within the travel request and associated work order The Contractor’s response to the travel request must be received by the COR within 24 hours after approval When the emergency repair requires a Secret Clearance the Contractor shall only send personnel who possess the appropriate clearance When Contractor personnel performing maintenance remain overnight at locations other than assigned station, the Contractor will be reimbursed for travel costs IAW DOD JTR
19. FRCSE DLM Requirements Overview Cont. Phase-In/Phase-Out: Phase-In (Mobilization) Mobilization Period not to exceed 60 days All personnel must be hired, trained, and in place by end of Mobilization Period Contractor shall assume full responsibility for all DLM IAW SOW upon completion of the Mobilization Period Phase-Out (Transition to Successor) During last two months of contract, provide support to Government and successor Contractor to ensure orderly transition and minimize impact on operational readiness Contractor shall retain full responsibility for all DLM IAW SOW until completion of the Phase-Out period
20. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M RFP SECTIONS A-K Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO
21. RFP Strategy/Structure Competitive 8(a) Single Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract Anticipate 6-month task orders Non-Performance Based Contract 5-year ordering period 1 August 2014 – 31 July 2019 Firm Fixed Price (FFP)/Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)/Cost CLINs Cost Reimbursement CLINs for Travel
22. Section B – Supplies or Services
23. Section B – Supplies or Services 5252.211-9503 Level Of Effort (Cost Reimbursement) (NAVAIR)(Dec 2012) - Alt I (Jun 2013) Attachment 2 – DLM Estimated Man-Hour Composition Number of hours by category, location
24. Section C – Descriptions and Specifications Attachment 1 – Statement of Work Locations for the required efforts Technical requirements Labor categories and descriptions Reports and Data Requirements Required Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) Information
25. Section F – Deliveries or Performance 5252.216-9506 Minimum and Maximum Quantities (NAVAIR) (Mar 1999) Minimum guarantee – 100,000 Hrs Contract Maximum – 4,935,644 Hrs
26. Section G – Contract Administration Data 5252.201-9502 Contractor’s Authorized Contract Coordinator And Technical Liaison (NAVAIR)(Oct 2005) Requires Offeror to complete 5252.201-9501 Designation Of Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)(NAVAIR)(Sep 2012) - ALT I (Sep 2012) Customer is committed to providing CORs and ACORs for each site 5252.215-9512 Savings Clause (NAVAIR)(JUN 2012) Requires Offeror to commit to Subcontractor pass-thru % and Fee % for itself 5252.232-9529 Incurred Cost Reporting And Progress Reporting For Services (NAVAIR)(Dec 2012) Reporting requirement during performance 5252.242-9511 Contract Administration Data (NAVAIR)(Sep 2012) Fully delegated to DCMA
27. Section H – Special Contract Requirements 252.228-7001 Ground And Flight Risk (Jun 2010) 5252.216-9540 Issuance Of Orders Using Streamlined Procedures (NAVAIR) (Nov 2003) Allows quick response to customer requirements 5252.237-9501 Addition Or Substitution Of Key Personnel (Services) (NAVAIR)(OCT 2005) Must receive approval from PCO prior to changes
28. Section I – Contract Clauses 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (Jan 2013) The Contractor shall, not less than 30 days before completion of the Contractor’s performance of services on the contract, furnish the Contracting Officer with a certified list of the names of all service employees working under this contract and its subcontracts at the time the list is submitted. Immediately upon receipt of the certified service employee list but not before contract award, the contracting officer shall provide the certified service employee list to the successor contractor, and, if requested, to employees of the predecessor contractor or subcontractors or their authorized representatives. The Contracting Officer will direct the predecessor Contractor to provide written notice to service employees of their possible right to an offer of employment with the successor contractor.
29. Section I – Contract Clauses (cont) 52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Line Item (March 1989) If required, for clauses not funded at the time of order placement 52.217-8 Option To Extend Services (Nov 1999) Extend services up to 6 months Required 8(a) Clauses included
30. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M Mr. Alan Goldberg SSEB CHAIR
31. Source Selection Objectives Choose the Contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered Obtain through use of a comprehensive evaluation process, providing fair and consistent evaluation of proposals * Draft RFP Page 90
32. Source Selection Organization SSA SSAC CHAIR SSAC Members SSAC Advisors SSEB CHAIR SSEB ASSISTANT CHAIR SSEB Advisors PCO CORPORATE EXPERIENCE PAST PERFORMANCE COST/PRICE TECHNICAL
33. The Source Selection Process Formal RFP SSA SSAC Evaluate Proposals Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach Acquisition Strategy/Plan SSP SOO P-Spec Receive Proposals Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry Tech. Library Draft RFPs Industry Days One-on-ones SSAC/L&M SSA SSAC Debrief CompetitiveRange(or SSA Selects Source) Generic Source Selection Process Discussions w/ Offerors (ENs) Contract SSAC SSA SSA SSAC Evaluate FPRs Request Final Proposal Revision (FPRs) Select Source Compare Proposals Complete Discussions Corp Exp Past Perf Technical Cost/ Price
34. Sections L and M Understanding and following Sections L&M are the keys to developing a good proposal; a mutually beneficial goal for award Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP: Tells Offerors what to put in the proposal Evaluation Factors and Criteria – Section M of the RFP: Identifies what will be evaluated Identifies relative order of importance of factors Identifies emphasis areas Proposals should use the same paragraph format as provided in Section L
35. Section M Evaluation Factors – General The Government expects to select one Offeror for the award on the basis of its proposal providing the best value to the Government, all factors considered The proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for an award, if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost/price.
36. Section M Evaluation Factors – General (cont) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered Provide your best initial proposals from a Corporate Experience, Past Performance, Technical and Cost/Price standpoint The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government
37. Section MEvaluation Factors – General (cont) If the Government Conducts Discussions & Requests Proposal Revisions: Those Offerors included in the Competitive Range will enter into Discussions Written (Evaluation Notices (ENs)) and Oral Discussions As a minimum, notification of deficiencies, uncertainties and significant weaknesses Ask for additional information Proposal change pages where needed Helps to easily identify changes Minimizes work for the Final Proposal Revision (FPR)
38. FRCSE DLM EVALUATION FACTORS PAST PERFORMANCE (Confidence Assessment) CORPORATE EXPERIENCE (Confidence Assessment) TECHNICAL (Rating & Proposal Risk) COST/PRICE ($$$) = > > All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important, than Cost/Price. = (equal); > (more important) >> (significantly more important) Key:
39. Proposal Content and Volumes
40. Executive Summary Provide an overview of the Offeror’s entire proposal, excluding Cost/Price Each section within the Executive Summary should include the salient points contained in each of the proposal volumes and highlight the significant features of the proposal Provide Offeror Summary Table of prime, subcontractor (identify principal subcontractors) and JV team members Place of Performance, CAGE/DUNs, Work Description and % of total proposed cost/price The term “entity” is used to mean any or all of the following: Prime, principal subcontractor, other subcontractors, Joint Venture (JV), JV team member, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate (e.g., any contractor with a different CAGE Code/DUNS than the offeror) Only entities proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) will be considered in the Corporate Experience and the Past Performance evaluations Ensure that percentages identified are supported by the Cost/Price proposal
41. Sample Executive Summary Table
42. CORPORATE EXPERIENCEANDPAST PERFORMANCE
43. Experience vs. Past Performance Experience – What you have done “I’ve repaired 100 leaky boats in the past month.” Past Performance – How well you have done “Ninety leaked!”
44. Contract Relevancy Contract Relevancy is a threshold question to determine if it is included in the evaluation Relevant contracts are contracts that include managing and deploying personnel under the Service Contract Act and/or performing aviation maintenance services Evaluation is based only on Relevant Contracts, with both Corporate Experience and Past Performance using the same contracts in their evaluation Performance that took place greater than 5 years from the proposal due date will not be evaluated under this factor Provide relevant portions of previous contract SOW/PWS in Annex A
45. Contract Relevancy (cont) Not Relevant (NR) contracts are characterized by any of the following: Performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date An entity proposed to perform less than 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) A different physical location (e.g., with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) Efforts of entities that are different than the proposed effort on the future contract An entity that does not have a defined proposed role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) Encompass little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/or complexities required by this solicitation Contracts or the portions of their performance that are Not Relevant are not utilized in the assessment
46. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
47. Corporate Experience Evaluation Concept Corporate Experience (CE) is considered one of the good indicators of future performance Like Past Performance, Performance Confidence is assessed, but unlike Past performance, there is not a neutral/unknown rating Levels of Confidence Substantial Satisfactory Limited None CE is a capability that an Offeror either has or does not have The only bad experience is no or very limited experience Lack of experience can negatively affect the Government’s confidence Experience shall only relate to “corporate” experience that an entity has gained through contracted work Experience of personnel will not be considered for the CE evaluation
48. Section M Corporate Experience Demonstrated corporate experience will be based on relevant contracts as identified in the ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary Table and will be evaluated on the extent to which it can be leveraged to successfully perform efforts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity as those under this solicitation Elements to be Evaluated Performing as a Prime Contractor Managing and Deploying Personnel under the Service Contract Act Performing Aviation Maintenance Emphasis will be placed on Managing and Deploying Personnel under the Service Contract Act
49. Corporate Experience Evaluation Evaluate the Offeror’s (including entities proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee)) demonstrated relevant corporate experience on the basis of its breadth, depth, recency and similarity to the work required to meet the program objectives Government will evaluate past performance for entities Breadth is the degree to which the Offeror has performed or managed all tasks of a solicitation Depth is the extent to which each activity/task of the effort was performed to gain a level of proficiency Recency: Within 5 years from the proposal due date, where more recent is more relevant Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity … and a measure of the likelihood that the corporate experience is an indicator of future performance Similarity is the extent to which the Offeror’s referenced contracts/corporate experience relate to the specific tasks required by this solicitation as proposed
50. Corporate Experience Assessment:Similarity Comparative Analysis Scope: SOW/SOO/ PWBS Tasks and extent to which all are fully performed Supports Extent of Breadth determination and may also provide insight into Depth Similarity of past Contract/corporate experience finding compared to future effort as proposed Magnitude: Dollar Value Complexity: Attributes of the work being performed such as type of effort, end product, frequency such as turn-around-time or delivery rate, number of sites, skills, processes, contract type, etc
51. Section LCorporate Experience Outline Section L Paragraphs General 2.1 Evaluation Elements Summary Table 2.2 Evaluation Elements 2.3 Corporate Experience Summary Table 2.4 Contract Comparative Analysis
52. Table CE-1 Evaluation Element Summary Gap Not performing the 4.3 effort Overall experience gap or none of the breadth of experience Indicates full breadth of experience for S1 Contract and overall if that subcontractor performs 100% of the 4.1 effort; otherwise Overall could be limited breadth of experience Limited breadth of experience for each contract, but overall could be limited or full breadth of experience This table provides a summary assessment of the breadth of experience
53. Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary This table provides the collection of factual data
54. Section L - Corporate Experience/Contract Comparative Analysis Detailed comparative analysis between the proposed roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary Table) and the corporate experience requested in Section L, Part B, Paragraphs 2.2.1 through 2.2.3 Submit/identify those relevant portions of the awarded contracts SOO/SOW/PWS documents, which relate to this solicitation’s PWS requirements in Annex A Provide a cross reference between the corporate experience evaluation elements and paragraph numbers within the relevant portions of the final versions of the SOO/SOW/PWSs, identifying specific tasks Specifically, describe the breadth of experience gained from each contract and the aggregate of contracts In the comparative analysis the Offeror shall describe the breadth and depth of the previous work experience with substantiating evidence Summarize the comparative analysis provided, using table CE-3 (Contract Comparative Analysis Summary)
55. Table CE-3 Contract Comparative Analysis by Evaluation Element This table provides a summary of the detailed Comparative Analysis between previous corporate experience and that required to perform the future contract Relate breadth, depth, recency and similarity of corporate experience gained through each contract and the aggregate of contracts
56. Corporate ExperienceEvaluation Grading Assessment Of Corporate Experience Gap Analysis Assess Impact of Gaps Assess Overall Performance Data Oriented Findings Performance Confidence Assessment Confidence Assessment Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range
57. Performance Confidence Assessment
58. PAST PERFORMANCE
59. Past Perf Evaluation Concept Look Back Look Forward How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts? Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS Determine Relevancy / Recency Assess each Contact Referenced Roll up each reference assessment into an overall Offeror Assessment Based on Offeror’s assessment (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program? Final product is the Past Performance Risk Assessment
60. Section MPast Performance Evaluation Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned Government will evaluate past performance for entities proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee). Government will evaluate demonstrated past performance in each of the following areas: Meeting Technical Requirements Meeting Schedule Requirements Controlling Contract Cost Managing the Contracted Effort Relevancy and recency of the information, source of information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered
61. Past Performance Information Primary PPI Sources: Offerors’ Proposals PPIRS Questionnaires Phone Interviews DACO/DCMA Other Past Performance Information
62. Section LPast Performance Outline Section L Paragraphs General 3.1 Authorization Letter(s) Between the Prime Offeror and its subs/team members to allow Government to coordinate past performance issues with the Prime 3.2 Relevant Contract Data Relate the same contracts identified in ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary Table (Attachment (L-1)) and those submitted for Corporate Experience Submit Past Performance Contract Data, Table PP-1, Attachment L-4 (see Section L, Part B, Para 3.2) 3.3 Evaluation Relevancy Past Performance Informationelate to same cont Technical Performance Schedule Performance Cost Performance Management Performance Demonstrated Systemic Improvement
63. Section L Past Performance VolumePast Performance Contract Data
64. Section L Past Performance VolumePast Performance Contract Data (cont) Ensure all contact info is current!
65. Past Performance Proposal Format Paragraph 3.3 – Detailed Information provided for each contract, organized by contract ABC Company Past Contract XXX P1 3.3 a 3.3 b 3.3 c ABC Company Contract XXX Pn 3.3 a …. RX Sub Company Past Contract XXX S1 3.3 a …. ST Sub Company Past Contract XXX Sn 3.3 a …. * Draft RFP Page 84
66. Past Performance Questionnaires Past Performance Questionnaires Attachment to Section L (Section L, Attachment L-3 - PPQ) Send to contacts within 2 weeks from release date of the RFP where CPAR data is not available Remove RFP number from questionnaires prior to sending out Request responses back to POC identified within the RFP within two weeks of receipt Identify in Attachment L-4, Table PP-1, Past Performance Contract Data, when and where the questionnaires were sent DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on questionnaires; The Government will perform all follow-up actions Ensure that all points of contacts (POC’s) are current
67. Relevancy in the Past Performance Assessment The relevancy of the finding, as well as its associated consequence will be used to determine the Performance Confidence Level Rating Based on Relevant Contracts, the Performance Confidence Assessment is influenced by the likelihood of future reoccurrence and associated consequences The more relevant the finding, the more likely it will be a predictor of future performance Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity … and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance More recent is more relevant The more a task is performed in the future, the more likely the associated past performance of that task will impact future performance Notwithstanding adverse past performance, the degree to which positive past performance is a predictor of future performance will determine whether the Performance Confidence Assessment rises to the level of Substantial
68. Relevancy in the Past Performance Assessment (cont) Provide a comparative analysis between past reference and the RFP coupled with the proposed approach Similarity is the extent to which the Offeror’s referenced contracts/past performance relate to the specific tasks required by this solicitation as proposed
69. Past Performance Assessment:Similarity Comparative Analysis Scope: SOW/SOO/ PWBS Tasks and extent to which all are fully performed Extent to which the past performance is a predictor of future performance Similarity of past Contract/past performance finding compared to future effort as proposed Magnitude: Dollar Value Complexity: Attributes of the work being performed such as type of effort, end product, frequency such as turn-around-time or delivery rate, number of sites, skills, processes, contract type, etc
70. Past Performance Information Provide information that demonstrates the level of performance obtained Where available, provide quantifiable measures/trends to demonstrate past performance Demonstrated Systemic Improvement - Information as it relates to preventing recurrence of past problems Identification of the root cause of problem Corrective action plan that systemically addresses the past problem How and when the plan was implemented Documented timeframe to demonstrated corrective action was implemented and successful Performance data, preferably through Government records, to show performance improvements demonstrated systemic improvement Bottom-line: Demonstrate that the problem will not reoccur or the extent that the likelihood of reoccurrence is reduced
71. Past Performance Evaluation Grading - Qualitative Assessment Of Relevant Past Performance Positive and Negative Findings Past Performance Analysis of Findings as related to Future Performance Trends Relevancy of finding /likelihood that findings are a predictor of similar performance Extent to which demonstrated systemic improvement reduces the likelihood of a negative finding from re-occurring Impact: Consequences/severity of poor performance and Benefits of good performance Significant Positive and Negative Findings Performance Confidence Assessments Confidence Assessment Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence (Neutral) Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range
72. Performance Confidence Assessment
73. 15 Minute Break
74. TECHNICAL
75. Section M Evaluation Factors – General Proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, as well as for the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach Strengths will not be assessed as the Government has determined that there is no benefit to exceeding requirements or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations Any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP may be considered a deficiency Any approach that relies on Government resources or operations in order to comply with a requirement may be considered a deficiency A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award
76. Section MTechnical Evaluation Factors Assesses Offeror's understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements Compliance Risk Technical Rating – assessment of compliance with solicitation requirements For this solicitation, no benefit to the Government for exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations Only Technical Ratings of Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable will be used in evaluation
77. Section MTechnical Evaluation Factors Technical Risk Rating – considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Considers potential for: Disruption of Schedule Increase in Costs Degradation of Performance Need to Increase Government Oversight Likelihood of Unsuccessful Contract Performance Technical Risk Ratings of Low, Moderate, and High will be used in evaluation.
78. Section MTechnical Evaluation Factors (cont) Failure to address part of the technical factor caused by a gross lack of information may be assessed significant weaknesses. This combination of significant weaknesses may be considered a deficiency. A Technical Factor rating of “Unacceptable” or “High” risk may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition
79. Technical Cross Reference Matrix Provided in Section L as guidance to Offerors Road map to RFP and proposal Shows relationship between the proposal instructions paragraphs and RFP requirements Use as is or revise as needed to better relate your understanding of the program and guide the Government through your proposal * Draft RFP Pages 60-61
80. Evaluation Flow Section L Technical Factor Volume 4.0 4.1 Management Approach 4.2 Key Personnel 4.3 Mobilization Plan ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED
81. Section MTechnical Evaluation 4.1 Management Approach Approach to Responding to Work Requirements Demonstrate that the Government workforce will be appropriately augmented to accomplish the aircraft depot maintenance needs in a timely manner Describe how the Offeror will ensure prompt and appropriate assignment of work to its personnel, providing the proper number of people with right skill mix to each of the Government sites Describe the processes and procedures to ensure successful accomplishment of the SOW tasking wrt safety requirements, quality control/assurance requirements, security requirements, maintaining configuration control, etc. ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED
82. Section MTechnical Evaluation 4.1 Management Approach Continued Approach to Responding to Work Requirements (Continued) Clearly delineate the offeror’s corporate support structure, organization, and define lines and level of authority in support of this contract effort Identify the use and extent of subcontractors Recruitment Identify approach/plan to fulfill personnel qualifications and certifications per SOW requirements Describe processes and procedures for advertising, recruiting and hiring personnel; especially with respect to hard to obtain skilled personnel ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED
83. Section MTechnical Evaluation 4.1 Management Approach Continued Retention Provide plan/approach to retain experienced employees/subject matter experts and managers/supervisors to meet SOW requirements and ensure uninterrupted site performance stability Identify procedures, incentives or approaches for attracting and retaining highly-skilled personnel Training Identify plan for training new workforce personnel and maintaining the proficiency of the existing workforce Identify plan for ensuring workforce is trained and kept current with expertise necessary to meet SOW requirements ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED
84. Section MTechnical Evaluation 4.2 Key Personnel Resumes Provide resumes for Program Manager (SOW Para 3.15.33) and Site Supervisor (SOW Para 3.15.35) key personnel positions Letters of Intent Provide a signed letter of intent for each individual proposed in a key labor category position, i.e. Key Personnel ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED
85. Section MTechnical Evaluation 4.3 Mobilization Plan Provide a Mobilization Plan (Annex C) IAW the SOW and FAR 52.237-3. Include a POA&M for all SOW requirements Key Dates/Events Training/Certification Personnel Resumes Reports/CDRLs Security Clearances/CAC-CVS/IT/OPSEC/NMCI Inventories Meetings Personnel On-Site Dates Start/End Dates This Plan will be incorporated into the contract ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED
86. - RISK - Assessment of likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance Tech. Evaluation Grading - Qualitative Assessment Of Technical Proposals - COMPLIANCE - Assessment of the Offeror’s solution for meeting requirements Uncertainties, Potential Risk Reducers, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies - Review for accuracy and “common threads” - Assess type of and degree of impact Uncertainties Deficiencies Risk Reducers and Significant Weaknesses Technical Rating (Compliance) Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable Technical Risk Rating High Moderate Low Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range
87. Technical Uncertainty Uncertainty Definition: An aspect of the proposal that affects the Government’s ability to determine if a requirement will be met Affects Technical Rating (Compliance) Proposal is not adequate to allow a determination as to whether or not a requirement can be met and as such also does not demonstrate an adequate approach Results in a Marginal Rating Uncertainties Examples Critical information is missing to enable the Government to determine if the requirement will or can be met Inconsistencies in the proposal brings into question what is being proposed * Draft RFP Pages 91 & 95
88. Technical Deficiency Deficiency Definition: “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level Affects the Technical Rating (compliance) or both the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating (due to a combination of significant weaknesses) Results in an Unacceptable Rating and makes the proposal unawardable Section M: Failure to address part of the Technical factor caused by a gross lack of information may be assessed significant weaknesses; this combination of significant weaknesses may be considered a deficiency. * Draft RFP Pages 91 & 95
89. Technical Deficiency (cont) Deficiency Examples Proposal states exception or deviation Approach is assessed to be unable to meet a requirement Gross lack of information resulting in the failure to clearly and positively address major part of the Technical factor Combination of weaknesses that raise the risk of performance to an unacceptable level The approach relies on Government resources or on requiring changes in operations not identified as available/allowed in order to comply with the requirement
90. Technical Ratings
91. Technical Risk Reducer Risk Reducer Definition: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance Affects Technical Risk Rating Provides appreciable risk reducing benefits to the Government that may mitigate weaknesses or further reduce the risk to performance Each risk reducer may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the risk rating differently Used to assess the risk associated with the proposed approach
92. Technical Risk Reducer (cont.) Risk Reducer Examples Reduces proposal risk by providing more than sufficient resources in order to respond to unknown conditions/situations Reduces proposal risk by providing resources/capabilities that are in-place and ready to be used Reduces proposal risk by providing plans that reduce/mitigates risks inherent in the proposed approach and program Reduces proposal risk by providing performance margin Reduces proposal risk of meeting a requirement or an objective by exceeding them
93. Technical Significant Weakness Significant Weakness Definition: A “Significant Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance Affects Technical Risk Rating Provides an appreciable increase in risk to the Government Used to assess the risk associated with the proposed approach Each significant weakness may provide different degrees of impact, thereby affecting the risk rating differently based on the likelihood of occurrence and the consequences * Draft RFP Pages 91 & 95
94. Technical Significant Weakness (cont) Significant Weakness Examples Marginal resources or capability to accomplish the effort Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the Offeror’s full control Approaches that rely heavily on a single action or resource (aka single point failure) Untested/unproven approaches Lacks substantiation or full description of the approach Lacks information to assess risk * Draft RFP Pages 91 & 95
95. Technical Risk Ratings
96. COST/PRICE
97. Section MCost/Price Cost/Price Offerors complete Government-provided Attachment L-5 (CLINS 0002 – 0007) Total Evaluated Cost = Offeror’s Mobilization FFP (CLIN 0001) + Government’s Most Probable Cost (CLINs 0002 – 0007) + Government’s Travel estimate (CLIN 0008) + Offeror’s Proposed Fixed Fee + 6 Month Option to Extend Services If proposed costs are considered to be unrealistic, including unrealistic direct and indirect labor rates, the Offeror's proposed costs will be adjusted upward to reflect more realistic costs Travel estimate provided in Section L - $1,170,000; no adjustments allowed Attachment L-5 includes calculation for an additional 6 months of performance (1 August 2019 – 31 January 2020)
98. Section MCost/Price (cont) Cost/Price (continued) To compute the Government's MPC, the Government will use the labor categories and corresponding number of labor hours set forth in Attachment L-5 multiplied by the higher between the proposed and the Government realistic determination for the direct and indirect rates Hours provided in Attachment L-5; no adjustments allowed The Government’s MPC will include a 3% escalation rate for direct labor rates for each year after the base year or the proposed escalation rate if it is higher Rates largely based on Department of Labor Wage Determination rates
99. Section MPrice Attachment L-5
100. Section MCost/Price (cont)
101. Section MCost/Price (cont)
102. Section MCost/Price Cost/Price The FFP CLIN (0001) and the CPFF CLINs (0002-0007) will be evaluated to determine if the CLINs are complete and contain no material imbalances All CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness For FFP CLIN 0001, inconsistencies between the Mobilization Plan and Price proposal may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor For CPFF CLINs 0002-0007, realism will be evaluated on the Offeror’s proposed direct and indirect labor rates Hours established in Attachment L-5 are considered fixed and shall not be adjusted by the Offeror The Government will utilize its Total Evaluated Cost for purposes of the Government’s best value tradeoff
103. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE
104. Proposal Preparation - Guidance - Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks Demonstrate sufficient resources to meet the requirements Support your statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate that you have a valid and practical solution for all requirements Substantiate, don't simply make claims Give us a reason to believe you; provide information to allow an independent assessment
105. Proposal Preparation - Guidance – (cont) Structure your proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions Be consistent from Volume to Volume Provide clear and concise descriptions Drawings & diagrams complement narrative, but don't replace it Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs Is it clear? Is it well organized?
106. Proposal Preparation - Guidance – (cont) Be attentive to all parts of the RFP Requirements, SOW Terms and Conditions Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions A Cross Reference Matrix can be a good proposal development tool Make appropriate trade-offs to provide the very best value that you can offer Pointing out risk reducers and associated benefits Addressing risks with mitigating approaches Showing proper balance between cost and technical benefits
107. Typical Proposal Shortfalls Proposal Instructions are not followed Information not provided in the way it was requested Too little information Too much information Statements in the proposal are not well supported Proposals are not well organized Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information
108. Typical Proposal Shortfalls (cont) Past Performance POCs are not current DUNS/CAGE Codes references do not match Deficiencies - preclude award Information provided does not support claims of compliance Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements Not signing SF-33
109. Source Selection Summary The Source Selection process will assure that your proposal will receive a fair and consistent evaluation and selection Sections L&M are intended to help you provide us with your best value solution and instruct you in preparing a proposal that will facilitate our evaluation
110. Bottom-Line Propose your best value solution, making the non-Price and Price Trade-Offs that are in the best interest of the Government Propose a realistic proposal with a high performing team, providing an executable contract that is likely to perform as proposed Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution and contract performance plan
111. Day’s Events Registration 0830 - 0900 Pre-Solicitation Briefing 0900 – 1200 Lunch 1200 - 1300 Tour of FRC, JAX 1300 – 1400 Q&As 1430 – 1530 Closing Remarks and Adjourn 1530 - 1545
112. Day’s Events Registration 0830 - 0900 Pre-Solicitation Briefing 0900 – 1200 Lunch 1200 - 1300 Tour of FRC, JAX 1300 – 1400 Q&As 1430 – 1530 Closing Remarks and Adjourn 1530 - 1545
113. Days Events Closing Remarks and Adjourn Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO