Air Force Product Management Implementation Training - Combined Synopsis and Solicitation.pdf

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

General Information:

Contract Number: FA8771-20-C-0017

Posted Date: 7 July 2020

Current Response Date: 17 July 2020

Classification Code: R408-Program Management/ Support Services

Set Aside: None

NAICS Code: 611430-Professional and Management Development

Training

Contracting Office Address:

Department of Air Force

Maxwell AFB Gunter Annex

490 East Moore Drive

Montgomery, AL 36114

Description:

This is an open-market combined synopsis/solicitation (request for proposal) for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR subpart 12.106 with additional information included in this notice. The government intends to award a contract, using FAR 13.5 Simplified Procedures for

Certain Commercial Items, as a result of this combined synopsis/solicitation that will include the terms and conditions set forth herein. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested, and an additional solicitation document will not be issued. The Department of Defense, Maxwell AFB, Gunter Annex is seeking a Contractor to successfully satisfy the requirements listed in this

Request for Proposal (RFP).

This RFP is not an authorization to begin performance and in no way obligates the Government for any cost incurred by your company in preparation to respond to this requirement. The Government reserves the right to cancel this RFP at any time prior to award and is under no obligation to make an award as a result of this RFP.

Period of Performance:

12 months from date of award

Clauses/Provisions:

The full text of FAR provisions or clauses may be accessed electronically at http://acquisition.gov/comp/far/index.html, FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors–Commercial Items”

All proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to BOTH the Contracting Officer, Britney

Jenkins at britney.jenkins@us.af.mil AND the Contract Specialist, Tyler Moorer at tyler.moorer@us.af.mil , no later than 1000 CST 17 July 2020. All proposals received after the proposal required time will not be considered for award.

Britney B. Jenkins

Contracting Officer

AFLCMC / HIK

http://acquisition.gov/comp/far/index.html mailto:britney.jenkins@us.af.mil mailto:tyler.moorer@us.af.mil

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Only one (1) proposal may be submitted by each contractor in response to this requirement. The proposal submitted in response to this requirement must be in compliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP).

All proposed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the

Government. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. The proposal shall contain sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate and determine the offeror’s capability to comply with requirements identified in this RFP.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Exchanges of information between Government and all offerors will be controlled by the CO. All questions or concerns shall be submitted via email to the CO. Answers to such questions and clarifications will be provided accordingly and submitted back to all responsive offerors.

Any exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation shall be addressed to the CO immediately in writing via electronic email. Each exception shall be specifically identified to a paragraph and/or specific part of the document to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain the impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. List each assumption relied upon to propose your Price volume, if any and include any assumptions that qualify your commitment to perform at your proposed price.

If the offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions or elsewhere contain a discrepancy, error, omission, or are otherwise unsound or require clarification in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal, the offeror shall notify the CO electronically via email with supporting rationale for the CO to consider.

PROPOSAL CONTENT/SUBMISSION

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table identified below.

The titles and contents of the proposal shall be as defined in the table, all of which shall be within the required page limits as specified in the Table. The contents of each proposal are described below.

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

Subfactor 1 Product Management Courses

Subfactor 2 Project-to-Product Transformations (PM Training)

Subfactor 3 Project-to-Product Transformations (Change Management)

Subfactor 4 Performance Work Statement and/ or SOW

Volume 2 – Pricing

Proposal Organizational Table

VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMIT

Cover Page, Table of Contents, Executive Summary N/A

Subfactor 1 – Product Management Courses

Subfactor 2 – Project-to-Product Transformations

(PM Training)

Subfactor 3 - Project-to-Product Transformations

(Change Management)

Subfactor 4 - Performance Work Statement and/ or

SOW (Offeror Developed)

Cross Reference Matrix

N/A

Price Proposal

N/A

Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Competition

Sensitive.

Page size for Volume 1 shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Microsoft Word Document format, single-spaced, Times

New Roman, or Arial, 12 point font (minimum 10 point font for charts, illustrations and tables) with one inch margins, and compatible with MS Office Word 2007. The cover page, table of contents, executive summary, subfactor tables, and cross reference matrix are not counted in the page limit. Pages that exceed the total page count will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

Volume 2 - Price proposal information shall be submitted in an MS Office Excel 2007 workbook format.

or a Word Document format, in an 8.5 x 11 or 8.5 x 14 inch size paper, single-spaced, Times New Roman or Arial, 12 point font, (minimum 10 point font for charts, illustrations and tables) with one inch margins, and compatible with MS Office Word 2016.

Cross Reference Matrix (CRM)

Offerors shall provide a CRM in response to this solicitation. The Offeror’s CRM shall show traceability between the Government’s Statement of Objective subsections (i.e., page number, paragraph) and the

Offeror’s Performance Work Statement or Statement of Work. The CRM shall be submitted in a MS

Office Excel 2007 workbook format or a Word Document format, compatible with MS Office Word

2007.

BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD:

The Government reserves the right make award to other than the most highly rated or lowest priced

Offeror.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

The criteria identified below will be used to evaluate each offeror’s proposal to determine which proposal represents the “Best Value” to the government. An award will be made to the offeror proposing the solution most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Order of Importance

Technical is more important than Price. All sub-factors for Technical are of equal importance.

Factor 1 – Technical

The overall rating for Factor 1 will be determined by a roll up of each individual risk rating assessed at the subfactor level. Each subfactor listed below will be given a risk rating of Low, Medium, or High in accordance with the definitions listed in Table 2. Any risk rating of “high” in any subfactor shall deem the overall proposal as unawardable overall.

Subfactor 1: Product Management Courses

Each offeror shall provide a list (no more than 5) of existing Product Management (PM) courses offered or any new courses (if any) that would be relevant to the Government’s requirement annotated in the

Statement of Objectives (SOO). The offeror shall submit the list of courses using a column/row table format annotating course name and number. In addition, each offeror shall provide detailed descriptions for each listed course or submit a valid URL link for each course. The number of allowable courses are maximums. If these limitations are exceeded, the Government will not read or consider the excess information in evaluating the proposal.

Subfactor 2: Project-to-Product Transformations (PM Training)

Each offeror shall list (no more than 8) Project-to-Product transformations which have been directly supported by providing Product Management training in the past 3 years. The offeror shall submit the list using a column/row table format identifying the following information: whether each project is/was a

Government (i.e., DoD) or commercial project; name of agency/company; contract number; and period of performance. The additional pages shall be used to briefly summarize the nature of the training and transformation effort. The number of allowable transformations are maximums. If these limitations are exceeded, the Government will not read or consider the excess information in evaluating the proposal.

Subfactor 3: Project-to-Product Transformations (Change Management)

Each offeror shall list (no more than 8) Project-to-Product transformations which have been directly supported by providing change management support in the past 3 years. The offeror shall submit the list using a column/row table format identifying the following information: whether each project is/was a

Government (i.e., DoD) or commercial project; name of agency/company; contract number; and period of performance. The offeror shall also demonstrate in 3 pages or less: (a) which projects the offeror provided advice on change management tools and techniques; (b) which projects it developed/directly participated in the development of the change management plan; and (c) which projects it provided coaching throughout the change effort. The number of allowable transformations are maximums. If these limitations are exceeded, the Government will not read or consider the excess information in evaluating the proposal.

Subfactor 4: Offeror’s Performance Work Statement/ Statement of Work

Each Offeror shall submit a Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW) in response to this solicitation. The subject document shall provide an overall technical approach demonstrating how each element of the attached Statement of Objectives (SOO) will be satisfied.

Table 2: Risk Ratings

Rating Definition

LOW

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

MEDIUM

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

HIGH

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Weakness – is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency – is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 2 – Price

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ pricing for reasonableness. Reasonableness of the awardee’s proposal will be determined using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Attachment 1

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

PRODUCT MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT

6 JULY 2020

I. BACKGROUND:

Business and Enterprise Systems (BES) Directorate (AFLCMC/HI) is pursuing the enterprise-wide integration of Software Product Management practices and mindset across the entire BES portfolio

(~2,170 personnel). The incorporation of Product Management is driven by the imperative to support our customers by delivering essential Defense Business Systems (DBS) capabilities to our end-users, at the speed of relevance. A key goal is to incorporate Product Management as an organizational function that guides each step of the product lifecycle by prioritizing the product (often described within the Air Force as capability) and its end users over other organizational considerations. This approach is consciously aggressive with the goal of moving from employing superficial buzzwords to creating competent practitioners within the next 12 months. The organization has begun this effort with a series of informational briefings, the formation of pilot product lines, and the initial stand-up of a shared services construct. Given the criticality that BES Product Management Implementation has on the entire Air Force mission, we envision a holistic, adaptable, tailorable approach.

II. OVERALL APPROACH:

A. Holistic: The largest aspect of the requirement will be focused on training and educating the workforce. Past BES experience has demonstrated the futility of competing curriculum from multiple vendors, theoretically-sound course-ware with no practical application, or premature/misplaced training. In large part, BES’ success will be contingent on establishing a support mesh for the personnel assigned new and evolving responsibilities. Further, contracted support will include a considerable need for organizational change management while implementing across BES and throughout all elements of the support mesh. The support mesh will include four general paths focused on Product Management to include aspects of Service

Management and Organizational Change Management. The government's thoughts within each path follow—offerors are encouraged to describe what their approach to the paths would be, whether similar or different.

1. On-line Tools/Training: Provide BES workers just-in-time job aids; tailored implementation guides, and relevant on-line Product Management training. Existing content applicable to the Product Management transformation shall be available to the Government within 30 days of contract award. It’s envisioned training would be provided to 184 of the organization’s personnel (including executives, product managers, and agile project managers) over the period of performance via approximately 60 transferrable subscription licenses. Offeror’s solutions shall detail how online training would transpire and how transferrable licenses can be utilized to train up to 184 personnel.

2. On-site Training: Off-the-shelf course-ware with on-site instructors to provide personnel the foundational understanding of the Product Management mindset, philosophy, and common practices. The goal is primarily to level-set the target audience to maximize the return on investment (ROI) of the Experiential Learning workshops (see #3 below). In the event travel and in-person training are not feasible, webinars would be an acceptable alternative. It’s envisioned courses would include and build on Product Management fundamentals, roles, team organization, team interactions, people skills, product-centric value streams, and outcome measures in a Product Management construct. We envision training 240 students at three sites (Maxwell AFB-Gunter Annex, AL; Wright Patterson

AFB, OH; and Randolph AFB, TX) over approximately 480 training days. Offeror shall suggest alternative solutions for satisfying this requirement, keeping in mind the current events and associated restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Experiential Learning: Appreciating the value of learning through applied practice, the on-line and on-site courses would be reinforced through immersive workshops. These workshops would be primarily small group engagements with 10-20 participants from specific Product Line(s). These workshops would address real-world issues currently impacting the delivery of value to the Product Line’s customers and end-users to facilitate change in government processes. Eight workshops in total are envisioned. This includes one for each of the five portfolios. These should be hands-on engagement with Product

Line/Shared Services specific to targets of opportunity. These workshops will be available to the Government within 30 days of contract award. Offeror shall suggest alternative solutions for satisfying this requirement, keeping in mind the current events and associated restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Consultative Support: This support should include a mix of advisory, coaching, and one-on-one consulting services: to include, but not limited to, in-person, on-site, email, and video or teleconferences as required. This support will include identifying changes needed in regards to the transformation from Project to Product Management, and advising the associated change management effort. The consultant(s) are expected to adjust to the needs of the implementation; requiring them to seamlessly shift between strategic advisor, pair of helping hands, just-in-time trainer, and coach as the situation dictates. We envision this as a half man-year of effort with significant time on-site, as conditions permit.

5. Course Materials: Offeror shall deliver on-line training, developed specifically for

BES, and on-site course materials to the Government upon completion of training. Training materials would become the property of the Government upon completion of training.

B. Adaptable: Contracted support will need to adapt with the government as the implementation effort matures and progresses. At a minimum, the three factors below will drive some course correction with our approach, as we move forward.

1. Learning Curve: As BES learns and advances in maturity, the content and magnitude of support required will likely change to match the evolving maturity of the workforce.

2. Adoption Rate: The BES success rate in embracing the Product Management mindset and exhibiting the associated behaviors will determine the amount/content of required support.

3. Product Management Assessments: Delivery anticipated as: 30 days from award and at the end of each quarter thereafter. Assessments shall highlight Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats which may refocus efforts accordingly.

C. Tailorable: Support and training will need to be tailored to effectively apply commercial

Product Management concepts to our Government organization and processes. Though the integration of BES Product Management is an enterprise-wide initiative, the largest impact will be felt on these primary roles: Capability Delivery Manager (CDM) (loosely defined as a

Project Manager supporting an Agile Team Product Manager), Portfolio Manager, Service

Domain Owner, Service Owner, and Service Manager. The ultimate success will depend on how well the individuals filling those leadership roles understand Product Management, adopt the Product Management mindset, and how well they translate it into action.

NOTE: There is a separate initiative to incorporate Agile practices throughout BES to the fullest extent possible. It is important that any implementation support is complementary to that effort. Many capability delivery teams/staffs have begun the process of transitioning to Agile processes.

III. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE AND SCHEDULE

1. Location: The three locations where classes will be conducted are Maxwell AFB-Gunter

Annex, AL; Wright Patterson AFB, OH; and Randolph AFB, TX. The implementation team-members are located at Maxwell AFB-Gunter Annex, AL.

2. Notional Schedule: Subject to change as effort progresses

Location # Events Timeframe

Gunter (Discovery) 1 Contract Award + 2 Weeks

Gunter 1 Within 30 days

Wright Patterson 1 Within 60 days

Randolph 1 Within 60 days

Gunter 2 30-180 days

Wright Patterson 2 30-180 days

Randolph 2 30-180 days

Gunter 1 180-365 days

Wright Patterson 1 180-365 days

Randolph 1 180-365 days