06VanceRFP.ppt
PPT presentation 267 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-06-R-0003
About this file
RFP
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Develop America's Airmen Today ... for Tomorrow
RFP
Aircraft Maintenance and Base Operating Support 71st Flying Training Wing Vance AFB OK
Air Education and Training Command I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Ms. Gwen Mills
AETC CONS/LGCK
Solicitation Request for Proposal (RFP) posted to FedBizOpps on 12 Feb 07
Contract Type: Fixed Price Incentive (firm target) with Award Fee (FPIFAF)
Acquisition is Full and Open Competition
Mobilization: 15 Feb 08 – 31 Mar 08
Contract Term: 1 Basic Period and 6 Option Years (final option ending 30 Sep 14)
Due Dates
| Past Performance Information Sheets (Volume V) |
| Due 09 Mar 07, 3:30 CST, Section L, Paragraph 1.9 |
| Past Performance Information Sheets, Section J, Atch 8 |
Due Dates (cont)
| Past Performance (Volume V) |
| Due 06 Apr 07, 3:30 CST, Section L, Paragraph 1.9 |
| Table of Contents |
| Summary Page |
| Consent Letters |
| Organizational Change History |
| Past Performance Questionnaire, Section J, Atch 7 |
| Sent to each POC identified |
| Sample Cover Letter, Section J, Atch 10 |
| Offeror complete project and evaluator information on questionnaire prior to sending it to POC |
| Completed questionnaires sent directly to Contracting Officer by fax or email |
| Technical Proposal (Volumes I - IV) | |
| Due 6 Apr 07, 3:30 CST, Section L, Paragraph 1.8.1 | |
| Organized by Tabs, Section L, Paragraph 1.8.1 | |
| Carefully provide all Tables, Charts, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and SDB Participation Targets, and other Information required by Section L, Paragraphs 3.1 through 3.6 | |
| Volume I | 15 page limit |
| Volume II | 100 page limit |
| Volume III | 150 page limit |
| Volume IV | no page limit |
| Page limits exclude the manpower matrices |
| Price/Cost Proposal (Volumes VI(a) and VI(b)) |
| Due 06 Apr 07, 3:30 CST, Section L, Paragraph 1.10 |
| Price and Contract Forms, Section L, Paragraph 5 |
| Price (Section L, Paragraph 5.1) |
| Section B |
| Manpower Proposal Matrices, Section J, Atch 5 |
| Cost Model, Section J, Atch 6 |
| Financial Resources (Section L, Paragraph 5.2) |
| Contract Forms (Section L, Paragraph 5.3) |
| No page limitation, Section L, Paragraph 1.12 |
Items of Note
| All primes/subcontractors read Sections A-M, as well as Performance Work Statement (PWS) |
| Proposal based upon requirements in the PWS addressing the evaluation criteria in Section M |
| Note all Section A, Page 2 items. Some items include: |
| To be eligible for award need Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and electronic Representations and Certifications in the Business Partner Network (BPN) |
| Section B, Paragraph B-9, Price Adjustment for Change in Aircraft Flying Hours |
| Adjustments will take place at a variance of plus or minus three percent (3%) |
Items of Note (cont)
| Note all Section H Special Contract Requirements |
| Contractor’s proposal will be incorporated into the contract |
| Proposals meet all Section L submission requirements |
| Note number of copies to be provided |
| Note format requirements at Paragraph 1.12 |
| Use of Non-Government Advisors, Section L, Paragraph 1.7 |
Evaluation Factors for Award
| General Basis for Award |
| Competitive, best value, source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, DFARS Part 215.3, and AFFARS Part 5315 |
Evaluation Factors for Award (cont)
| Four Evaluation Factors |
| Mission Capability |
| Proposal Risk |
| Past Performance |
| Price |
| Mission Capability, Proposal Risk and Past Performance Factors are considered equal in importance |
| Combined, all three are significantly more important than Price |
| Lowest priced proposal may not necessarily receive the award |
| Highest technically rated proposal may not necessarily receive the award |
| The subfactors within each factor are listed in descending order of importance |
| Any further breakdowns within subfactors are also listed in descending order of importance |
| However, ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level |
Evaluation Factors
| Mission Capability |
| Subfactors |
| Mission Integration |
| Flight Operation Support |
| Base Operation Support |
| Small Business Subcontracting Plan and SDB Participation Targets |
| Proposal Risk |
| Past Performance |
| Price |
Subfactor Ratings Blue-Exceptional: Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government; proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.
Green-Acceptable: Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal; proposal rated green must have no deficiencies but may have one or more strengths.
Yellow-Marginal: Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the Request for Proposal, but any such uncertainty is correctable.
Red-Unacceptable: Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements; proposal has one or more deficiencies. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.
Proposal Risk
| Evaluation of this factor is inherent in the Mission Capability subfactor, and is therefore not separately addressed by the offeror |
| Focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with the offeror’s proposed approach |
| Assessment will be at the subfactor level |
| Includes potential for schedule disruption, increased cost, and degradation of performance which will require increased Government oversight |
Proposal Risk (cont) Evaluated using the following ratings:
| High | Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. |
| Moderate | Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. |
| Low | Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. |
Past Performance Confidence assessment rating is established through an integrated analysis of the offeror’s recent, current and relevant past performance
| High Confidence | Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Significant Confidence | Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has significant confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Confidence | Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude and problems. |
| Unknown Confidence | No performance record identifiable. |
| Little Confidence | Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence | Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
Price
| Although the Price Factor is the least important, it will contribute substantially to the source selection decision |
| Will not be rated or color coded |
| Will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and realism |
| May reject an offer as unacceptable if it is materially unbalanced as to prices for the basic and option years, or for certain work |
Source Selection Activities
| The PCO may establish a Competitive Range of the highest rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all the evaluation criteria, IAW FAR 15.306(c)(1) |
| Discussions will be conducted only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range |
| The government will not conduct successive rounds of discussions to give offerors opportunities to strengthen weak proposals |
| Final Proposal Revisions |
| Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation |
| The Government may reject unrealistic offers |
Post Contract Award
| Pre-Performance Conference will be held prior to Mobilization |
| Quality Assurance Personnel are located on the base |
| Collective Bargaining Agreement, Section J, Atch 4 |
Award Fee
| Draft Award Fee Plan, Section J, Atch 12 |
| Award Fee Pool is $2M / year |
| For each contract year, there are two 6-month evaluation periods |
| Fee Determining Official shall be the AFPEO/CM or his designee |
| No award fee is given for meeting contract performance thresholds |
Contract Period of Performance
| Mobilization | 15 Feb 07 – 31 Mar 07 |
| Base Period | 1 Apr 08 – 30 Sep 08 |
| First Option Year | 1 Oct 08 – 30 Sep 09 |
| Second Option Year | 1 Oct 09 – 30 Sep 10 |
| Third Option Year | 1 Oct 10 – 30 Sep 11 |
| Fourth Option Year | 1 Oct 11 – 30 Sep 12 |
| Fifth Option Year | 1 Oct 12 – 30 Sep 13 |
| Sixth Option Year | 1 Oct 13 – 30 Sep 14 |
Summary
| The procuring contracting officer (PCO) is the only person authorized to contact offerors |
| Please submit questions as soon as possible to the PCO |
| Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, full documentation, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the RFP prior to submission to the PCO on the due date |
| The Government intends to conduct meaningful discussions to avoid multiple proposal revisions |
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .