ROS_Pre-proposal_Conference_Slides.pdf

Range Operations Support

(ROS)

Pre-Proposal Conference 13 Mar 14

Overview

Welcome and Sign In Introductions Acquisition Information Solicitation Review Q&As

Introduction

Charlene Thomas Contracting Officer

45 CONS/LGCZR

Kristine Lundblad Contract Administrator

45 CONS/LGCZR

Lisa Uminn Program Manager

45 OG/RMA

ACQUISTION INFORMATION

The purpose of this pre-proposal conference is to provide information regarding this effort and to discuss specific aspects of the RFP

No remark shall QUALIFY the terms of this RFP The RFP takes precedence over anything said in this briefing or in answers to questions The terms of the solicitation remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing

All Amendments will be posted to FBO.gov

Unless the formal solicitation is amended, it remains unchanged as a result of this conference

Pre-proposal conference presentation and Q&As will be made available on FBO.gov

Offerors participating in this acquisition are NOT to have contact with any 45th Space Wing members (except the Contracting Officer), 30th Space Wing members, Space and Missile Center (SMC) or any other organization involved in this acquisition until award

RFP release – 25 Feb 14

Proposal due dates Volume III – 27 Mar 14 (but NLT 11 Apr 14) Volumes I, II and IV – NLT 11 April 14, 3:00pm

Contract Award – Dec 14

Phase-In – 1 Jan 15

Performance Begins – 1 Apr 15

• 100% small business set-aside

• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

• Government reserves the right to award this effort based upon the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Alternate proposals will not be considered

Offerors are responsible for accessing all amendments prior to proposal submission at www.fbo.gov

Technical Reference documents available at https://www.liscbidderslibrary.com, under ROS Documents tab.

Offerors required to meet all solicitation requirements including terms and conditions, reps and certs, tech reqs, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors

Any proposal which fails to conform to the requirements or specifications in the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award

CLIN DESCRIPTION TYPE

0700 Phase-in CPFF X001 Program Management FFP X002 Base Ops Support & Logistics FFP X003 Eastern Range Mission Comm FFP X004 Western Range Mission Comm & VESS FFP X005 Contractor Acquired Property (CAP) COST X006 Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) NSP 9000 Phase-Out CPFF

• Offerors shall propose ALL costs within Section B

(except X006)

• Option 7 prices will be used for evaluation purposes only and not included in the affordability assessment

• Clauses incorporated by reference have the same force and effect as if they were given in full text

• It is important to read all clauses and complete all fill-ins. Ensure any clauses requiring fill-in are provided in Volume IV

Price/Cost Evaluation Criteria:

Acceptable/Unacceptable

1) Price Reasonableness using the techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b)

2) Affordability assessment will consider proposed prices as compared to annual budget for all proposed CLINs (except 700X)

3) Unbalanced Pricing as defined by 15.404-1(g)

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance evaluation ratings described in table below:

The Past Performance will review recency and relevancy:

Recency must show the effort is ongoing or has been performed within the past 3 years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation.

Relevancy must demonstrate products provided or service performed closely relate to technical sub factors given within the solicitation.

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort or the Offeror’s performance is unknown.*

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance Evaluation Process Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government including but not limited to:

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Commercial Sources

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Pass/Fail

Acceptable = Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and all identified risks/weaknesses, if any, are acceptable.

Unacceptable = Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and/or the proposed approach poses too great a risk.

Technical Evaluation of CLIN 2005:

Offerors shall submit a matrix addressing CLIN 2005, first full year only. The matrix elements shall include category of expense, applicable PWS chapter, and estimated cost per category of expense for the following categories:

- Material and Supplies

- Equipment

- Vehicles

- Repairs

- Maintenance Agreements

Technical Review

• PWS Structure

• 1 – Executive Summary

• Summarized What/Where/Why

• Information contained are NOT requirements

• 2 – Program Management Requirements

• Overarching requirements both ER and WR

• 3 - Performance Requirements

• ER only unless otherwise noted

• Mainly Base Operating Support (BOS) requirements

• Clarification of geographical location of requirements under task 3.1.7 “CE Asset Management” will be provided in an upcoming amendment.

• 4 - Perform Logistics Management

• Manage, control, acquire, issue and safeguard government-furnished supplies and equipment

• 5- Mission Support Communications

• ER and WR including Antigua and Ascension

• Includes ATCALS

Q&As

Pre-proposal Q&A packages (1 per team) Note cards available for follow-up questions Contractor review Government response