C20-C37 Pre-Solicitation Conference.pdf

C-20G C-37A/B Contractor Logistics

Support (CLS) Pre-Solicitation

Conference

FA8134-23-R-B002

Kevin Marshall, C-37 Program Manager kevin.marshall@us.af.mil &

Tracie Holman, Contracting Officer tracie.holman@us.af.mil

17 October 2023

Agenda

1:00-1:15 PM: Introduction and Opening Remarks 1:15-1:30 PM: Program Background 1:30-2:00 PM: Solicitation Overview 2:00-2:15 PM: Virtual Site Visit 2:15-2:30 PM: Break 2:30-4:00 PM: Source Selection Training and Keys to Developing a Good Proposal 4:00-4:30 PM: Question and Answer Session

Program Background

Kevin Marshall, C-37 Program Manager kevin.marshall@us.af.mil

Team Intro Branch Chief: Mr. Jack Cooley Contracting Flight Chief: Mr. James Banks C-37 Program Manager: Mr. Kevin Marshall C-37 Program Logistician: Ms. Jeryn Romero Procurement Contracting Officer: Ms. Tracie Holman Price Analyst: Ms. Melissa Masterson Source Selection Advisor: Ms. Melissa Mitchell

Disclaimer This briefing/training is to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary This conference does not constitute a contract, a promise to contract, or a commitment of any kind on the part of the Government nor does it constitute as a change to the Request for Proposal (RFP) Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting are for discussion purposes only Costs incurred as a result of this meeting are considered bid and proposal costs and will not be reimbursed by the Government

Rules of Engagement Ask questions in writing

Submit questions only to the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO), Tracie Holman at tracie.holman@us.af.mil

Official written responses will be posted on SAM.gov on a non attribution basis

Verbal questions and answers are not binding Government reserves the right to contact respondent for further clarification of submitted questions

Clarification questions to the briefer are permissible when it applies to the general audience and not a specific condition/arrangement for you or your company

Government may limit or stop oral questions at their discretion

C-20G Gulfstream GIV Commercial Derivative

Aircraft Maintained to Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Standards Provides Long-Range, Medium Airlift, Logistics Support Provides world-wide Special Air

Missions for high-ranking and Defense Department Officials

Warfighter Support Equipped with Specialized Mission

Communication Stations and Cargo Door Test Range Surveillance and Clearance with Photometric Capability Accommodates 12-26 Passengers/five

Crew Range 4,220 Nautical Miles

Key Information Two C-20Gs (GIV), One NC-20G (GIV) Locations: Marine Corps Base Hawaii

(MCBH) Kaneohe Bay, HI; Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC), Pt. Mugu, CA

Contractor Operated & Maintained Base Supply (COMBS), Main Operating Base (MOB) Maintenance, Depot Maintenance, Contract Field Teams (CFT)

C-20G Current Platform Overview

C-37A/B Current Platform Overview C-37A/B

Gulfstream GV/G550 Commercial Derivative Aircraft

Maintained to FAA Standards Provides world-wide Special Air Missions for high-ranking government and Defense Department Officials

Key Information 13 C-37As (GV); 12 C-37Bs (G550) Locations: Joint Base Andrews (JBA), MD; Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH), HI; Ramstein Air Base, Germany (RAB); Air Station Washington, Arlington, VA (DCA)

COMBS, MOB Maintenance, Depot Maintenance, CFT

Warfighter Support Equipped with Specialized Mission

Communication Stations Accommodates 12 Passengers/five Crew Range 5,800 Nautical Miles

AFLCMC… Providing the Warfighter’s Edge

Pride of the Nation!

Anticipated Scope CLS for fleet of 13 Gulfstream GV, 12 Gulfstream G550 and three Gulfstream GIV CLS includes: All support actions required for operating and maintaining aircraft, aircraft sub-systems, and support equipment

Includes provision for other Gulfstream aircraft operated or managed by the Government to obtain services

Includes Full and Partial CLS

Scope Flexibility Full CLS and/or partial CLS Additional Gulfstream aircraft New/relocation of MOBs

Joint Base Andrews

Aircraft Four C-37As (USAF), seven C-37Bs (USAF), two C-37As (USA), one

C-37B (USA), three C-37Bs (USN) Primary Distinguished Visitor (DV) customers

SECSTATE, SECDEF & Joint Chiefs of Staff United States Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Cabinet members, Sr. military leadership & congressional delegates

Unit 89th Airlift Wing (Air Mobility Command AMC) VR-1 Navy USAPAT Army unit

Partial CLS USAF Full CLS Army/Navy

Pride of the Nation! 12

Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, HI

Aircraft Two C-37As (USAF), one C-37A (USN)

Primary missions Congressional delegations Senior US Government & DoD leadership Operational support/teams

Unit 65th Airlift Wing Navy executive transport Detachment (VR1)

Full CLS

Pride of the Nation! 13

Ramstein Air Base, Germany Aircraft

Three C-37As (USAF)

Primary missions Congressional delegations Senior US Government & DoD leadership Operational support/teams

Unit 76th Airlift Squadron

Pride of the Nation! 14

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, HI Aircraft

Two C-20Gs (USMC)

Primary mission Long range airlift support Logistics support

Unit Marine aircraft group 24

VMR DET

MOB maintenance/COMBS

Pride of the Nation! 15

Naval Base Ventura County, CA Aircraft

One NC-20G (USN)

Primary mission Long range surveillance Short and long-term deployments

Unit

VX-30

Pride of the Nation! 16

Aircraft One C-37A (USCG), one C-37B (USGC)

Primary mission Long-range command and control Secure transportation for high-level Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security officials Unit

USCG Atlantic Area Command Partial CLS

MOB maintenance provided by active-duty Coast Guard

COMBS

Supply support Engine maintenance program support

Air Station Washington, DC Reagan National Airport

USAF Example Maintenance Schedules

** Note The Consolidated MX Schedule is for example purposes only. Dates are subject to change.

Hot Topics Performance Metrics

Maintenance and Supply Performance Metrics Daily/Monthly Status Report

Aircraft Status Fully Mission Capable (FMC) Partially Mission Capable (PMC) Non-Mission Capable (NMC)

Supply Status Partially Mission Capable – Supply (PMCS) Non-Mission Capable – Supply (NMCS)

Departure Reliability Rate (DRR)

SERVICE

Mission Capable

(MC)

Partial Mission Capable Supply

(PMCS)

Non-Mission Capable Supply

(NMCS)

Departure Reliability Rate

(DRR)

Full CLS

USAF >90% <3% <2% >95%

USA >90% <3% <2% >95%

USN C-37 >90% <3% <2% >95%

USMC C-20G >87.5% <3% <2% >95%

USN C-20G >87.5% <3% <2% >95%

Partial CLS

USAF JBA N/A <3% <2% N/A

USCG N/A <4% <2% N/A

Hot Topics Pricing

Pricing Considerations Flying hours

No bands for flying hours Exclusion List

Engine maintenance program Program minimum flying hours and estimated minimum cycles now funded via separate Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) Additional hours and cycles will be added on an as-needed basis via funding modification

Aircraft Programmed Actual Min +/- 663 600 400 400 200

542 600 600 400 0

590 600 700 400 -100

Sheet1

Hot Topics Ramstein

Ramstein Air Base Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA)

German work and residency permits Air base compass calibration Tuition

Government is no longer paying tuition as a separate CLIN

Hot Topics Other Considerations

Worldwide Aircraft on Ground (AOG) Response Government Program Manager (PM) must be notified within four hours of

AOG

Within 24-hours after PCO authorization, CFT must be dispatched

Unique Manuals Will be provided by the Government

Common Access Card (CAC) Required for all Contract personnel at Government facilities Required for personnel emailing Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Burning down consumables Once Government Furnished Property (GFP) consumables are depleted, replacements will be Contractor furnished Maintenance laptop requirements 10-year Depot Maintenance Plan Requirements

Solicitation Overview

Tracie Holman, Contracting Officer tracie.holman@us.af.mil

Full and Open Competition Contract Type

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Work authorized on task orders Commercial FAR Part 12

Firm-Fixed Price

Period of Performance – Seven years, three months Anticipated release of RFP – Nov 2023

Projected Timeline

Event Milestone Actual 1st Draft RFP 20 Jun 23 20 Jun 23 2nd Draft RFP 21 Aug 23 21 Aug 23 Pre-Solicitation Conference 17 Oct 23 17 Oct 23 RFP Release 28 Nov 23 Proposals Received 29 Jan 24 Anticipated Award 18 Oct 24 Contract Phase-in/Transition 01 Nov 24 Full Contract Performance Start 01 Feb 25

*All dates are subject to change

Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements Terms and conditions Representation and certifications PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors, and elements Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award Security Clearance

Requires secret security clearance

DD254

Facility Clearance prior to award

Contract CLIN Structure (DRAFT)

CLIN Nomenclature CLIN Type

X001 Data NSP X002-X049 Phase-in FFP X050-X099 Program Management FFP X100-X199 Subscriptions FFP

X200-X299 COMBS FFP

X300-X399 MOB FFP

X400-X499 Engine Maintenance FFP X500-X599 Flying Hours FFP X600-X699 C-20 Inspections FFP X700-X724 C-37A Inspections FFP

Contract CLIN Structure (DRAFT) Cont.

CLIN Nomenclature CLIN Type X725-X744 C-37B Inspections FFP X745-X799 C-37A/B Inspections FFP X800-X809 Modifications FP/Event X810-X899 CFT FP/Event X900-X949 Over and Above FP/Event

Phase-in Performance Incentive (RFP Appendix I) Cont.

Phase-in Evaluation Period One (15%) Contractor must deliver signed significant subcontractor agreements and finalized phase-in plan If criteria is not met, 15% will be withheld until period three, subject to reduction Phase-in Evaluation Period Two (25%)

Contractor must establish vendor subscriptions, publication accounts, provide listing of historical files and data receipt, demonstrate aircraft status reporting capability and verify export license

If criteria is not met, 25% will be withheld until period three, subject to reduction

Phase-in Evaluation Period Three (60%) Contractor must complete all phase-in requirements by the end of the phase-in period to receive the final phase-in payment, plus any incentive payments withheld from periods one and two

The final phase-in payment (including withheld amounts from period one & two) will be reduced if all phase-in requirements are not completed at the end of the phase-in period

Phase-in Performance Incentive (RFP Appendix I)

*Note – Reductions begin after 10 calendar days late.

Phase-In Period 3 Final Payment Evaluation *

Requirements 10 Calendar Days Late Reduced to 90% of maximum final payment Requirements 20 Calendar Days Late Reduced to 75% of maximum final payment Requirements 30 Calendar Days Late Reduced to 60% of maximum final payment Requirements 40 Calendar Days Late Reduced to 0%

High Value Asset (HVA) Performance Incentive (RFP Appendix I)

HVA Repair On-time Delivery Incentive Delivery dates for HVA repair will be negotiated at the time each repair is contracted For each day late to the HVA repair delivery schedule, the established Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) plus negotiated over and above will be reduced by one percent

The contractor shall meet or exceed the negotiated work scope to receive full payment

HVA Repair On-Time Delivery Withhold

Evaluation Period From To Per Occurrence Negotiated HVA Delivery Date Actual HVA Delivery Date

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Criteria Factor One: Technical (Pass/Fail) Subfactor One: Program Management Subfactor Two: Supply Support Subfactor Three: Maintenance Subfactor Four: Small Business Participation

Factor Two: Past Performance Factor Three: Price

Technical: Subfactor One

Subfactor One: Program Management Program Management Approach

Continuation of Essential Services Plan Web-based automated funds management system Access to primary Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) data

Subcontractor Management Approach Phase-in Transition Plan

Personnel Plan Resources

Security IAW National Industry Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) and DD254

Technical: Subfactor Two

Subfactor Two: Supply Support Parts/Inventory Management

Approach for spare and repair parts must meet performance requirements

Worldwide AOG parts support must ensure transportation requirements are met

Inventory management system approach Capability to source and provide support and test equipment for each covered aircraft and operating location Capability to operate and manage a COMBS to source, stock, repair/overhaul, and dispose of required spares and repair parts to maintain the C-20/C-37 fleets

Technical: Subfactor Three

Subfactor Three: Maintenance MOB maintenance

Effective methods to identify and perform MOB maintenance to maximize the availability of aircraft and engines for each branch of service

An effective method will demonstrate adherence to FAA, OEM, and regulatory requirements and the ability to meet mission capable rates and other maintenance requirements

Depot level maintenance Approach to depot level maintenance must be supported by FAA FAR title 14 part 145 and depot facility must have capacity to support aircraft ten-year Depot Maintenance Plan

Approach to interior and exterior appearance to meet paint specifications and appearance standards

Evaluation Factors Technical: Subfactor Three Cont.

Approach to depot level CFT for worldwide repair and recovery of AOG to include engine replacement

HVA maintenance Approach must include:

Comprehensive engine maintenance program for C-37 engines Capability to plan/schedule engine shop visits, engine overhauls, landing gear overhauls, time change item work, service action compliance, Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) per the aircraft 10-year depot maintenance plan and the Computerized Maintenance Program (CMP)

Evaluation Factors Technical: Subfactor Four

Subfactor Four: Small Business Participation Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD) must be successfully completed IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1

Small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) must be a minimum of 15% of the total small business subcontracting dollar value

Small Business Ratings:

Acceptable – Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet small business objectives

Past Performance

Government will evaluate offeror’s team for recency, relevancy, and quality Recency Assessment

To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation

Relevancy Assessment Scope Magnitude Complexity Price

Quality Assessment Past performance questionnaires Interviews Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs)

Past Performance Cont.

Scope MOB/worldwide mission & supply support

COMBS

Scheduled Depot Aircraft Maintenance at an FAA FAR Title 14 Part

145 certificated facility of an equivalent aircraft fleet Unscheduled Depot & Drop-In Aircraft Maintenance Comprehensive Engine Maintenance Program World-Wide CFT Support Executive Custom Aircraft Interiors/Painting at a FAA FAR Title 14

Part 145 facility Past Small Business Subcontracting or Required Small Business

Utilization on Government Contracts

Past Performance Cont.

Magnitude Aircraft Type(s) Supported Location(s)/Area(s) Supported Number of Aircraft Supported Contract Type/Value

Complexity Multiple geographic locations supported Aircraft maintenance concept Mission type (mobility/executive airlift) Contract security requirements Breadth/depth of skills required

Price Contract Type

Price

Government will assess all technically acceptable offers for price reasonableness (including completeness), unbalanced pricing, price realism, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing will be evaluated using Pricing Matrix All proposed CLIN unit pricing shall be input into the

Pricing Matrix All periods of performance must be priced

Estimated quantities per CLIN are provided in the Pricing Matrix for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government

Bidders Library Tutorial Public and controlled documents will be posted to

Sam.gov DD2345 for controlled documents

A current, valid, and completed form DD2345 required for release of technical information related to this solicitation and resulting contract

See RFP – Technical Data Notice for instructions Controlled Document Access

Must be certified by the Joint Certification Program Sam.gov account must be associated to your Unique Entity ID or Cage

Code; must be logged in to request access Click document title to access controlled documents (identified by a locked icon in the access column) Access status will change to pending after email notification confirming access request has been sent Once access has been granted, another notification email will be sent

Proposal Submittal Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE)

All proposals shall be submitted using DoD SAFE, https://safe.apps.mil/ . All interested offerors must e-mail Tracie Holman at tracie.holman@us.af.mil and Stacey Stewart stacey.stewart.4@us.af.mil in order to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE (see Addendum 52.212-1 for full instructions) Email PCO to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD

SAFE

Upload proposal files via DoD SAFE Notify PCO by email that files have been uploaded provide a copy of the DoD Safe upload confirmation screen shot Proposal will be considered timely, even if the files are not accessible to the PCO in DoD SAFE until after the proposal closing date and time https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:tracie.holman@us.af.mil mailto:stacey.stewart.4@us.af.mil

Virtual Site Visit

Kevin Marshall, C-37 Program Manager kevin.marshall@us.af.mil

JBA Building 1772 Warehouse

Capabilities

1088.55 sq/ft of useable space between warehouse and offices

Currently configured to support 10 workstations

Pride of the Nation! 45

JBA Building 1772 Office

Pride of the Nation! 46

JBA Building 1772 Floorplan

Pride of the Nation! 47

JBA Building 1772 Overhead

Pride of the Nation! 48

JBA Building 1762

Capabilities 1500 sq/ft of first floor office and annex space available

First floor conference room

800 sq/ft of second floor office space available

Pride of the Nation! 49

JBA Building 1762 Warehouse

Pride of the Nation! 50

JBA Building 1762 Floorplan

Pride of the Nation! 51

JBA Building 1762 Floorplan

Pride of the Nation! 52

JBA Building 1762 Overhead

Pride of the Nation! 53

JBA Building 1715

Capabilities 1406 sq/ft of available office space with seven working stations as currently configured

2380 sq/ft Annex storage available

Pride of the Nation! 54

JBA Building 1715 Offices

Pride of the Nation! 55

JBA Building 1715 Floorplan

Pride of the Nation! 56

JBA Building 1715 Overhead

Pride of the Nation! 57

RAB Building 2091 Floorplan

7,735 sq ft of space Mezzanine storage system of 5,496 sq ft.

Pride of the Nation! 58

RAB Building 2091 Warehouse

Pride of the Nation! 59

RAB Building 2091 Office

Pride of the Nation! 60

JBPHH Building 1055 Main Office Total Square Footage - 2,152 ft

Pride of the Nation! 61

Hangar 34 COMBS Bldg Total Square Footage - 4,290 ft

Pride of the Nation! 62

Hangar 34 Fenced Storage Total Square Footage - 546 ft

Pride of the Nation! 63

Hangar 35 Fenced Storage Total Square Footage - 2,911 ft

Pride of the Nation! 64

Hangar 35 Open Storage Total Square Footage – 3,298 ft

Pride of the Nation! 65

DCA Hangar Six

Total USCG COMBS satellite warehouse = ~450 sq ft (includes office space)

Pride of the Nation! 66

MCBH Hangar 105

Lead and Supervisor Office space Site Managers Office

Office and Warehouse – 10,290 sq ft

Pride of the Nation! 67

MCBH Hangar 105

QC Office Technicians Office

Break Room

Pride of the Nation! 68

Loose Equipment Room

MCBH Hangar 105

Pride of the Nation! 69

COMBS storage larger Items Tool Room

Pride of the Nation! 70

Hangar Floor – 18,995 sq ft

Pride of the Nation! 71

NBVC, Pt. Mugu

Hangar Floor – 14,688 sq ft

Pride of the Nation! 72

COMBS – 600 sq ft

Pride of the Nation! 73

COMBS Overflow – 432 sq ft

Pride of the Nation! 74

Tool Room – 416 sq ft

Pride of the Nation! 75

Maintenance Office – 284 sq ft

Break

Source Selection Training

Melissa Mitchell Source Selection Advisor

Topics

SOURCE SELECTION

– What Is It

– Best Value

– Main Members

– Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

– Factor 1 - Technical

– Factor 2 - Past Performance

– Factor 3 - Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities Past Performance Price

Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

Source Selection Team Main Members

Source Selection Authority (SSA)

– Makes the award decision

– Approves entering and closing discussion

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO)

– Directs the evaluation of proposals

– Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

– Evaluate Proposals

– Assign ratings

– Present evaluation results to the SSA

Source Selection Evaluation

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

Offeror

A

Offeror

B

Offeror

C

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other

SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

SSA does compare proposals against each other

SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical acceptability for each offeror

Past Performance ratings (and supporting rationale) and total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

Request For Proposal

EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Factor rating definitions Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria

INSTRUCTIONS

TO

OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND FORMAT

Describe technical approach Provide past performance information Provide pricing data Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-1

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-2

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors

1 Program Management

3 Maintenance

2 Supply Support

4 Small Business Participation

Relative Order of Importance

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is considered approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-off Process

Factor 1 Technical

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance

– Substantial Confidence

– Satisfactory Confidence

– Neutral Confidence

– Limited Confidence

– No Confidence

Factor 3 Price

– Reasonable, Balance, Realism

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals.

Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror.

Technical will be evaluated IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.2

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.3

Price will be evaluated IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.4

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the past performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment of which offerors provides the overall best value.

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Three types of ENs

– Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated

– Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range

– Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal.

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Rating Definitions Subfactors 1, 2 and 3

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical will be evaluated IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.2 Subfactors 1 – Program Management, Subfactor 2 – Supply

Support and Subfactor 3 – Maintenance will receive one of the ratings described in Table 2.2

Table 2.2

Technical Rating Definitions Subfactor 4

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Technical will be evaluated IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.2 Subfactor 4 – Small Business Participation will receive one of the ratings described in Table 2.2.4

Table 2.2.4

Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor

– 1 - Program Management – 4 elements (a-d)

– 2 - Supply Support – 3 elements (a-c)

– 3 - Maintenance – 4 elements (a-d)

– 4 – Small Business Participation

In order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor.

Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor.

An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor.

Technical Evaluation

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

(Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 will utilize Table 2.2 Ratings Subfactor 4 will utilize Table 2.2.4 Ratings)

a) Deficiency b) c) d)

SUPPLY

SUPPORT

MAINTENANCE

a) b) c) a)

b) Deficiency

c) Deficiency d)

SMALL

BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Technical Additional Notes

To be Acceptable, the technical approach must…

– Address the details listed in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1

(Instructions to Offerors)

– Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

– Provide convincing rationale how the approach will meet requirements listed in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 (Evaluation Factors for Award).

– Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding PWS paragraphs) are met.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 (Evaluation Factors for Award) provides Measures of Merit for technical acceptability.

The technical approach does not have to address all PWS requirements. The technical evaluation will only include the PWS paragraphs which are listed with each subfactor.

Technical Additional Notes

Make sure the technical proposal stays within the required page limit. Additional pages beyond the page limit can not be considered by the Government evaluation team.

The Government evaluation team can only consider information contained in the proposal.

The proposal should not merely agree to meet requirements. It should describe the offeror’s approach to successfully accomplish the requirements.

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.

Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.

Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

Emphasis is on demonstrated performance

Confidence Definitions

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Recency Recency, as stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph

2.3.2.1

– The effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP

– If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance

– Example A:

Contract Period of Performance: 2015 – 2017. Not Recent.

Contract will not be considered in the evaluation

– Example B:

Contract Period of Performance: 2016 – 2023. This contract is Recent. The entire contract may be considered in the evaluation.

Relevancy Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and Price for this requirement

Relevancy considerations

– Similar service

– Similar complexity of the effort

– Breadth and depth of skills

– Similar scope Contract magnitude and schedule

– Complexity

– Price – Contract Type

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.3.2.2 provides descriptions for Scope, Magnitude, Complexity and Price in relation to the

C-20/C-37 CLS RFP.

Past Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE QUALITYRELEVANCY

Reflects how similar the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition

Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

EXCEPTIONAL -- BLUE

SATISFACTORY -- GREEN

MARGINAL -- YELLOW

UNSATISFACTORY -- RED

UNKNOWN -- GRAY

CONFIDENCE RATING

SUBSTANTIAL – SATISFACTORY – NEUTRAL - LIMITED - NO

RECENCY

(5 Years from RFP)

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation

Ratings

Program Title Contract Type/ Price

PPQ /

CPARs Relevancy

Performance Quality

BETA, INC. (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAXXXX-16-C-0001

FFP

$450M 2 / 3 VR S

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-17-0500

CPFF

$95M 2 / 0 R M

VFY AFB

FAAAB-18-C-0005

FFP

$125M 1 / 1 R E

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Beta, Inc.

13313-06-45

FFP

$38M 0 / 0 SR UK

ABC AFB

FAAAA-15-C-0014

FFP

$78M 1 / 4 R S

TOTAL: 6 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN

SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown-- Exceptional -- RelevantR -- Somewhat RelevantSR -- Not RelevantNR -- UnknownUK-- Very RelevantVR

Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance Information Forms (Prime and Subcontractors)

– Provided by contractor as part of proposal

Questionnaires

– Included as part of the RFP package

– Completed by contractor references

– Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team

(Attn: Tracie Holman at Tracie.Holman@us.af.mil)

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

– Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Other sources as needed

Additional Notes

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in Addendum to FAR 52- 212-2, paragraphs 2.3.2.2.

Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors

– Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 1.7, Proposed Team

List

– Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria.

– Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform.

Additional Notes

Provide details regarding any known adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions. Also discuss if the corrective actions were effective.

Past Performance page limits are preferences and not requirements. Offerors are requested to keep narratives within the page limits. However, offerors may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Price Evaluation Price Reasonableness (“unreasonably high”)

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Unbalanced Pricing

– Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year.

– Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5% from one year to another.

Price Realism (“unrealistically low”)

– Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

– Provide rationale to support price

Price Analysis Techniques FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) includes seven price analysis techniques

i. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price

ii. Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications

iii. Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry

Price Analysis Techniques FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) includes seven price analysis techniques

iv. Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangement

v. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates (IGE)

vi. Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items

vii. Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at FAR 2.201) provided by the offeror

Price Additional Notes

Provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed, such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc

Describe how the proposed price is generally consistent with the technical approach.

SOURCE SELECTION PHASES

AND

AWARD

Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation

Potential Draft FPR

Request for Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Initial evaluation of each offeror’s proposal

ENs prepared and finalized

Discussion briefings with each offeror

Evaluation of EN responses and follow-up ENs

Initial ratings established for each offeror Rating adjustments based on EN responses

Award w/o discussion Competitive Range

Release ENs to offerors

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established for each offeror

SSA Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION DISCUSSIONS FINAL

EVALUATION

RESULT RESULT RESULT

Evaluation Summary

Technical Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Program Management A

Subfactor 2 Supply Support A

Subfactor 3 Maintenance A

Subfactor 4 Small Business Participation A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Factor 2 Past Performance

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Factor 3 Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Trade-off Considerations

Very Relevant in all areas

SATISFACTORY

SUBSTANTIAL

Alpha, Inc.

Beta, Inc.

Overall Satisfactory Performance.

No adverse issues

Marginal performance on 1 contract

Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating

Trade-off considerations are not based on a comparison of Confidence ratings.

They are based on specific relevancy and performance quality aspects.

Trade-off consideration

Note: All offerors rated as Substantial Confidence are considered equal

Very Relevant in all areas except Magnitude, and

Multiple Geographic Locations

Summary

Source Selection is a Subjective process

Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror

SSET evaluation is based on stated factors and written criteria listed in the RFP, not a comparison of offeror proposals

SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria

Keys to Developing A

Good Proposal

Melissa Mitchell Source Selection Advisor

Typical Proposal Shortfalls

Proposal instructions are not followed

– Information not provided in the way it was requested

– Too little or too much information

Statements in the proposal are not well supported

Proposals are not well organized

– Does not follow proposal instructions structure, makes the evaluator hunt for the information Unique Entity ID/CAGE code references do not match

Deficiencies – preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance

– Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements

Not signing the RFP and all amendments

A Good Proposal

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 valid and practical solutions for all requirements

A Good Proposal

Substantiate, don’t simply make claims

– Tell the who, what, when, where, how, how often, etc.

– Give us a reason to believe you; provide information to allow an independent assessment

– Don’t repeat the language in the PWS, just reference the section of the PWS to which you are referring

A Good Proposal

Understand the RFP requirements Understand the PWS Understanding the evaluation criteria will help you know where to place emphasis in your proposal

Follow the proposal instructions – provide material where requested

– Keep pricing data out of the technical volume

Tab the information

– Don’t make us have to guess or search for answers

– Follow the exact numerical outline in the instructions

A Good Proposal

Complete the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G)

– Pricing Matrix –Completed in its entirely with unit prices and rates proposed for all CLINs across all contract performance years

– Include in the pricing volume any notes/explanations that may be helpful in our evaluation of your prices

Don’t make changes to the PWS and submit a new versions

– Document stands as written

– Don’t submit a Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW)

Don’t make changes to the RFP and submit a new version

– Document stands as written and amended by PCO only

Summary

This briefing/training was designed to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions

The formal solicitation is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

Submit questions to the PCO; questions and answers will be posted to www.sam.gov http://www.sam.gov/