Pre-Proposal_Presentation.pptx

Geospatial Technology and Applications Center | GTAC USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology Support Services Pre-Proposal Conference

RFP 12-84JC-18-R-0001

Welcome and introductions around the room.

Logistics (e.g. restrooms, breakroom, fire escape, etc.

The information contained in this briefing is not all inclusive of the solicitation requirements. Select areas are highlighted for pre-proposal discussion purposes only. Offerors must follow all of the instructions in the solicitation.

Pre-Proposal Conference Purpose Improve Contractors’ understanding of Government requirements Encourage industry feedback on Government requirements and source selection evaluation methodology Improve Government’s understanding of Contractor issues Encourage competition resulting in best value to the Government Foster efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, and contract award

Improve Contractor/Government Relations

Pre-Proposal Conference ROEs General Information Point of contact for pre-proposal conference concerns or RFP questions is Mary Shinney, CO, mshinney@fs.fed.us or Catherine Sullivan, Contract Specialist, catherinesullivan@fs.fed.us These slides, list of attendees, and questions collected along with answers will be posted to FBO following the conference Exception: Questions asked during one-on-one conferences where the offeror identifies, and the Government substantiates, that the question is proprietary to their approach Today’s Goal – open/candid dialog between Contractors and Government

Copies of the slides have been provided to attendees in order to take notes as we go.

Questions received in advance of this conference have been posted to FBO along with the Government’s answers. Note that some questions were submitted by more than one offeror and in that case the question/answer was compiled and only stated once. Any additional questions captured during this conference will be published to FBO following the conference.

Pre-Proposal Conference ROEs General Information Continued Solicitation information subject to change – watch FBO posting

Be sure to sign up on FBO “watch list” for changes/updates to the posting. Add your company to list of interested vendors if you are interested in teaming arrangements.

One-on-One Sessions Offered on a “first-come, first-serve” basis – all time slots now full No “waiting list” offered No future conferences or one-on-one sessions planned; however, ask questions or submit ideas for improvement to the CO at any time!

Offered as a way to capture unfiltered feed-back on the solicitation Will not exceed ½ hour in duration Any non-proprietary questions asked or information provided will be genericized and posted to the FBO notice

Pre-Proposal Conference ROEs

Those scheduled for one-on-one later in the day may leave after the general conference and return for their scheduled time.

Forest Service Mission Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and rangelands to meet the needs of present and future generations Decision-makers need access to high-quality information about resource conditions, trends, stressors, and the impacts of land use and land management activities at multiple scales, across multiple jurisdictions.

Forest Service Geospatial Strategy (2016-2020) Integrated geospatial data for use in spatial analysis and delivery of products and services are suitable and available to support the Agency mission Data is identified, accessible, stewarded, and managed throughout the lifecycle Geospatial technology meets requirements, and is secure, integrated, and managed Agency employees are informed, trained, skilled, supported, and inspired Agency geospatial governance authorities, structures, and processes are established, integrated, transparent, understood, and business driven Mission Overview

Explain the merger of RSAC/GSTC into GTAC. One center vision is integration of effort, reduction in redundancy, cross-training in geospatial functional areas.

GTAC Mission Leading geospatial science implementation in the Forest Service by exploring and developing emerging technologies, working to demonstrate their application in resource management, providing solutions to inform decision making, and building capacity to support the agency mission.

Mission Overview

Estimated Schedule to Award

This is an estimate only as there are several things that can affect schedule. This estimate includes discussions (if held) to try to represent a “worst-case scenario” although the RFP states that the Govt intends to not hold discussions.

Acquisition Approach Single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (“D” type) contract Period of Performance potential of 5 years plus up to 6 months 1 year base period 4 each 1-year options Option to Extend Services Clause (up to 6-months) Contract ceiling $35M Minimum guarantee $25,000k NAICS: 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (size standard $15M) 100% Small Business Set-Aside Pricing Arrangements: Firm Fixed Price, Time and Material

Fully-loaded rates provided by the offeror will be a ceiling rate in the resulting contract and used for pricing purposes under each TO. Each TO will require proposal/negotiation of hours pertaining to that TO.

TO award process is similar to stand alone contract (due to uniqueness of each task). CO will send an RFP to ktr; ktr will respond with proposal; Govt will perform technical and pricing review and negotiate, as necessary. We try to give 30 days to respond but have short-turn requirements as well. Many efforts are recurring in nature and several are stand-alone projects.

The current “D” type contract has a ceiling of $25M and the Govt anticipates using all of it. The higher ceiling of $35M was justified with potential for inflation and the increased interest by other organizations in utilizing this contract.

It is anticipated that approximately 85% or greater of the work to be performed under the contract will be T&M in nature.

Source Selection Approach Evaluation Factors Factor 1 – Technical Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Cost/Price Section M, Para. 2.1.4 Relative Importance of Factors “The Technical factor is more important than Past Performance. When combined, the Technical and Past Performance factors are approximately equal to Cost/Price.”

Section M, Para. 2.2 Factor 1 Technical Approach/Risk “A separate rating will not be assigned for each sub-factor and only one rating will be applied to the Technical factor.”

“Deficiencies identified will render the entire proposal Unacceptable and therefore unawardable.”

Historical GTAC source selections did not rate cost/price equal to the other factors. Historically, technical and past performance factors were significantly more important than cost/price. USDA/FS budgets are being reduced and we all have to face the reality that there is a limited amount of funding for projects. Also, having had one contractor in place for a long period of time generally means that labor rates have slowly crept up over time. At some point, we are either sacrificing programs or re-baselining labor rates. I’m not trying to tell you what your approach should/shouldn’t be – evaluations are based on an integrated assessment and are subjective in nature.

There will not be a separate rating provided for sub-factors and sub-elements to Factor 1 (all subfactor evaluations are rolled up to one factor rating). I’ve seen contractors excluded from competition because of 1 or 2 material deficiencies (e.g. exceptional technical proposal but did not follow instructions in cost/price proposal). There is no guarantee that the Govt will hold discussions!

Factor 1 – Technical Sub-factor A – Program and Project Management Sub-factor B – Key Personnel Sub-factor C – Technical Approach Sub-factor D – Sample Task Sub-factor E – Transition Plan Source Selection Approach

Program and Project Management:

“…perform effective integration of the technical areas” - when RSAC/GSTC came together, not fully integrated (several separate operations/functions occurring still). Early attempts at cross-utilization of “synergistic” resources have led to some areas feeling deprived.

“…efficacious prioritization and re-prioritization of projects” – the level to which CORs/PM have to direct and prioritize the workload for the contractor.

“…cost management system” and “approach to financial tracking and reporting” – adequate accounting system and experience with T&M arrangement? Exp: have contractor performing 6 mo under a task – can’t estimate burn rate because its all over the place $1-5K/mo ($17k billed after 6 mo) – then they bill $20k in one month stating ‘they’ve been under-billing all this time’.

PM and GPM resume requested because this is who the CORs/PMs have daily (or regular) interaction with – not the employees. Not a personal services contract, nor are we looking for a human resource firm!

Key Personnel: Prof EE Comp Plan requires itemization of compensation structure (not generic description). Exp: “We offer a healthcare package” vs. We offer health benefits through XXX company for FT ees only; prescription drug plan incl…; dental benefit incl…; vision benefit incl…; life insurance…; other insurance…; Health Saving Account w/ details; Flexible Spending Account w/ details, etc.” Don’t list it if its not an actual benefit to the key personnel (e.g. executive bonus’).

Tech Approach: Your technical solutions/approach – not a reiterization of the PWS.

Sample Task: This is a potential awardable task under the contract.

Transition Plan: Current state = lots of TOs awarded under incumbent contract/varying end dates stretching into 2020+/moving at end of 2018/lack of on-site space for operations

Evaluations of the technical factor will result in identification of “strengths”, “weaknesses”, and “deficiencies” as defined in Sec L. Not every proposal point will receive a comment of strength, weakness, or deficiency, i.e. if the proposal meets (but does not exceed) the requirement.

Proposal risk is built into these technical rates. Offerors are requested to identify/mitigate areas of risk in Sec L, 2.2.

Factor 2 – Past Performance Cited Contracts Recent – Within the last five (5) years (Section L, Para. 2.3.1) Relevant – Pertains to the requirements in the PWS (Section L, Para. 2.3.1.1-4) Minimum of five (5) contracts (at least two (2) must have been performed by the Prime) – covers all technical areas of PWS Submitted via Past Performance Information Sheet (Section L, Atch L-3) Consent Letters Organization Structure Change History Government may obtain data from other sources

Org Struct Change Hist: Past Perf Info Sheets require the name and cage code of the company actually awarded the contract cited. Many companies over-reach on PP section, trying to rely on past performance information for work they (nor their teaming partners) did not perform. We need to see traceability between the past performance cited and the offeror team.

Scenario

Joe’s Geospatial is submitting a proposal as “Prime” contractor. Joe is proposing to utilize Jerry’s GIS as a subcontractor.

Jerry’s GIS performed work as a subcontractor under Contract #111F that he believes is relevant to this solicitation. The awardee of Contract #111F is Jim’s Total Solutions. Jim’s Total Solutions is not a member of Joe’s Geospatial’s teaming arrangement.

Joe’s Geospatial submits a past performance volume citing Contract #111F as evidence of the proposing team’s past performance.

Is there a problem with this?

Scenario Continued

Yes! When the evaluation team contacts the PoC of the contracting organization to confirm the past performance information given, the PoC will likely only have information on the Prime’s past performance. Additional information obtained (e.g. CPARs) will similarly only report the Prime’s performance under the cited contract. The Government does not have privity of contract with a subcontractor and does not report on their past performance.

Company name and cage code is the company who was awarded the contract being cited. It does not have to be a federal contract (i.e. state, local, or contractor contracts are ok – Sec M, 2.3.1).

Factor 3 – Cost/Price Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data is required (Section L, Para. 4.1.1) Ceiling Labor rates must include build-up (Section L, Para. 4.1.1) Pricing required for Sample Task Evaluated for reasonableness and realism only (not part of TEP) Ceiling labor rates will be incorporated in the resulting contract and used for pricing purposes under individual task orders

~85% T&M / 15% FFP

Progress Payments clause removed from this contract (FFP tasks shall be paid in accordance with the Payments clause)

T&M not popular among Govt agencies as it represents high risk to the customer. Ktr is reimbursed actual costs monthly. See FAR 15.404-4(d)(1)(ii) (analysis of contractor cost risk) when determining the proposed profit rate. Profit rates for T&M are generally much lower than that of FFP. Bottom line = don’t price yourself out of competition.

Other Considerations Organizational Structure (Sec. L, 5.3.1) clearly shows the Prime is adding value Adequate Accounting System (Sec. L, 5.3.3) for tracking/reporting costs Proposal preparation shall not be on Government systems provided under another contract

Information provided must be substantiated – burden of proof lays on the Offeror – Government will not go looking for information to fill in gaps.

Solicitation amendment forthcoming to make some minor corrections. Extension on due date not anticipated at this time.

GTAC has received proposals that appear to have been written by the large business major subcontractor and the Govt believed the proposal was high risk as to whether the prime company would be performing at least 51% of the work. Is prime performing requirements or simply acting as a non-value-added pass-thru? Govt will be determining responsibility of prime and major subs/partners (Sec M, 3.3). Ktrs suspected of having an ostensible subcontractor may be referred to SBA and/or receive an unfavorable evaluation.

Accounting system adequacy may be done by govt or commercial (independent accountant) entity. Necessary for T&M type contracts.

Examples of substantiating information: “We previously provided these services to the FS” vs “We previously provided these services to the National Interagency Fire Center from 1999-2002 under contract number XXX”. If proposing a solution/technology/application that may be new to us, an example or screenshot would be nice. “Supported retention rates” (Sec L, 2.2.2.1) means evidence and explanation is included that backs up the ktr’s claims.

Any follow-up questions or comments may be emailed to:

mshinney@fs.fed.us and catherinesullivan@fs.fed.us

Geospatial Technology and Applications Center http://fswebgstc.gsc.wo.fs.fed.us/

Conclusion image2.emf image3.emf image1.jpg image8.jpg image9.png image10.emf image11.png image12.jpg