Preproposal_ Slides Taiwan 3 Nov 08.ppt
PPT presentation 1 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Taiwan Aircraft Maintenance Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA3002-08-R-0012
About this file
Preproposal Conference Slides Taiwan 3 Nov 08
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 39
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- 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 The First Command
Welcome to the TAIWAN F-16 Aircraft Maintenance Pre-Proposal Conference
3 November 2008
UNCLASSIFIED
CONFERENCE AGENDA
| 0830-0900 | Registration |
| 0900 | Opening Introductions |
| 0910 | Announcements and |
Background
Ethics Brief Ms. Denise Krems Contract Negotiator
Major Griffeth AETC/JAQ (Legal)
0930 Technical Evaluation Mr. Billy Brown HQ AETC Program Manager 1000 Proposal Evaluation Process Ms. Germaine Miller Contract Negotiator
| Break | ||
| 1100 | Past Performance | Mr. Ralph LaRosa |
Contract Negotiator
CONFERENCE AGENDA
1130 Summary/Open Question Session Ms. Denise Krems Contract Negotiator
| 1145 1300 | Lunch | |
| 1300 - 1600 | Question Session | |
| 15 Minute Increments | Government Panel |
ANNOUNCEMENTS
| Any conflicts between this presentation, the site visit and the RFP, the RFP shall take precedence |
| Nothing is official until put in writing |
| Hold all questions until the Open Question Session |
| Submit questions in writing to Ms. Denise Krems and or Ms. Germaine Miller at: |
| denise.krems@randolph.af.mil |
| germaine.miller@randolph.af.mil |
Other Administrative Information
ETHICS BRIEF
THE PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY ACT
| Ban on Disclosing Procurement Information |
| Ban on Obtaining Procurement Information |
| Reporting All Employment Contacts |
| Must Promptly Report to Ethics Official and |
| Reject the Possibility of Employment or be Disqualified |
| One Year Ban of Compensation or Employment |
| Decisions on Contracts over $10 Million |
| PCO, ACO, SSA, SSET, Financial or Technical Team Chief, PM and Deputy PM |
BACKGROUND
Ms. Denise Krems
BACKGROUND
| Re-compete of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) F-16 Aircraft Maintenance contract for the Taiwan Air Force at Luke AFB AZ |
| US bound by International Letter of Offer and |
Acceptance (LOA) for the Peace Fenghuang III program
| FMS country is paying for and requires quality service |
| Air Force Security Assistance Training (AFSAT) also requires quality service |
PROPOSAL MILESTONES
| Date | Action |
| 26 Sep 2008 | Solicitation Issued and Posted |
| 08 Oct 2008 | Amendment No. 0001 |
| 27 Oct 2008 | Amendment No. 0002 |
| 27 Oct 2008 | Site Visit |
| 03 Nov 2008 | Conference |
| 12 Nov 2008 | Proposals Due |
| 16 Feb 2009 (Estimated) | Contract Award |
| 01 Mar 2009 | Mobilization/Full Performance Begins |
ACQUISITION APPROACH
| This is a Performance Based Service Acquisition |
| A Competitive, Best Value, Source Selection |
| Basis of Award is Performance/Price Trade-off with Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, and Unacceptable Technical Evaluation Factors |
| Past Performance history will be evaluated on a basis of significantly more important than cost or price consideration |
| However, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision |
CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
| MOBILIZATION | 01 - 31 MAR 2009 |
| FULL PERFORMANCE PERIOD | 01 APR 2009 – 28 FEB 2010 |
| FIRST OPTION YEAR | 01 MAR 2010 – 28 FEB 2011 |
| SECOND OPTION YEAR | 01 MAR 2011 – 29 FEB 2012 |
| THIRD OPTION YEAR | 01 MAR 2012 – 28 FEB 2013 |
| FOURTH OPTION YEAR | 01 MAR 2013 – 28 FEB 2014 |
| FIFTH OPTION YEAR | 01 MAR 2014 – 28 FEB 2015 |
| SIXTH OPTION YEAR | 01 MAR 2015 – 29 FEB 2016 |
TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
Mr. Billy Brown HQ AETC Program Manager *
TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY
| Pass/Fail Basis |
| Ratings: |
Acceptable Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable Unacceptable
| Separate ratings will be assessed for each subfactor | |
| Failure to meet a requirement may result in the offer being determined technically Unacceptable | * |
TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS
| Organizational and Personnel Requirements |
| Quality Control |
| Management |
| Maintenance Practices |
| Small Business Subcontracting Plan and |
SDB Participation Targets
DEFINITION OF RATINGS
ACCEPTABLE: Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE: An approach which, as proposed, does not meet specified minimum performance/capability requirements necessary for performance due to error(s), omission(s) or deficiency (ies) which, in the view of the government, may be corrected through discussions without significant proposal revision UNACCEPTABLE: Does not meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 1:
ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
The standard has been met when the proposal demonstrates The ability to start performance with a sufficient and qualified workforce to meet the requirements of the PWS
The offer shall provide evidence of ability to obtain all supplies, licenses, certifications, and equipment necessary to meet the performance work statement requirements by contract start date
Provides an acceptable method for obtaining all supplies, equipment, licenses and certifications to meet PWS requirements by contract start date
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 2:
QUALITY CONTROL
The standard has been met when:
The contractor’s quality control methodology address all quality control requirements indentified in the PWS, outlines a methodical process for quality control, identifies sufficient and qualified inspectors, and includes specific plans for an effective database used to track trend data for quality control
The safety methodology complies with OSHA Public Law 91-596 and the resulting OSHA Standards 29 CFR 1910 and 1926, including DoD and Air Force safety program instructions listed in the PWS
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 3:
MANAGEMENT
The standard has been met when:
The proposal provides a description of how the contract manager will ensure budgetary control for funds, routine status reporting and timely identification of potential overages and shortages
The proposal describes how the contract manager will instill, oversee, and provide supply discipline and effective and efficient maintenance practices that do not lead to unnecessary repairs
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 3 Cont’d:
MANAGEMENT
The standard has been met when:
The proposal provides assurance the contract manager will provide timely alert to government management personnel of work or equipment related problems requiring extraordinary attention and resolution efforts
The proposal provides a plan to staff and manage emergency or extraordinary events
The proposal provides a plan to control disruptive employees
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 4:
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
The standard has been met when:
The proposal provides the company and contract manager’s plan to ensure employees comply with technical orders and directives and confident processes to ensure effective planning and scheduling
The proposal describes how the contract manager will institute effective technical order management processes
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 5:
SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN and SDB PARTICIPATION TARGETS If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, the standard for small business participation is met when the subcontracting plan and the proposal demonstrate the following:
A corporate commitment between parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns and historically black colleges and minority institutions IAW DFARS 252.219-700
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 5 Cont’d:
| The offeror demonstrates, as a minimum, compliance with Air Force Goals | |
| Small Business | 23% |
| Small Disadvantaged | 5% |
| Woman Owned | 5% |
| HUBzone | 3% |
| Veteran Owned | 3% |
| Service Disabled Veteran Owned | 3% |
| Describe how you will meet specific subcontracting percentages and goals for the contract expressed in dollars and in percentages of your total proposed subcontracting dollars for subcontracting in each category above |
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 5 Cont’d:
Compliance with requirements of FAR 52.219.8 and FAR 52.219.9 and in meeting past contract subcontracting plan goals, as evidenced in the SF 294/295s
If a subcontracting plan is NOT required by FAR 19.7, the standard for small disadvantaged business targets is met when small businesses submit the following information for the full and open competition:
| a. A commitment between parties to provide subcontracting opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses | |
| b. As a minimum, compliance with Air Force goal of 5% for small disadvantaged businesses expressed in dollars and in percentages of the anticipated subcontracting dollars for the authorized NAICS Industry Subsectors | |
| * |
TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 5 Cont’d:
c. Realistic (achievable) targets for the SDB Participation Program expressed in dollars and percentages of anticipated total contract value for the authorized NAICS Industry Subsectors with respect to SDB participation, in accordance with FAR 19.12
Evidence of past performance that complied with the requirements of FAR 19.12 and achievement of past contract small disadvantaged business goals
EVALUATION PROCESS
TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE
EVALUATION PROCESS
Ms. Germaine Miller
TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)
Rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)
Price/Cost will contribute substantially to the source selection decision
The Government will require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate offerors’ proposals using price analysis to determine price reasonableness
The Total Evaluated Price for all contract periods, which will be used for award purposes, will be calculated using the TEP matrix and will be presented to the Source Selection Authority
TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)
| TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE MATRIX | |
| CEILING PRICE | 50% |
| TARGET PRICE | 30% |
| TEST FOR 5% OVER TARGET | 10% |
| TEST FOR 5% UNDER TARGET | 10% |
| WEIGHTED PRICE | 100% |
| + MOBILIZATION/TRANSITION | $XX |
| + VEHICLES | $XX |
= TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE
$XX
EVALUATION PROCESS Cont’d The Government intends to:
| Award a contract without discussions. |
| Reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in it’s best interest IAW FAR 15.306(c) |
| When necessary to hold discussions a determination the PCO may establish a Competitive Range of those proposals which are rated Technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable IAW FAR 15.306(c) |
| Discussions will be conducted only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range |
EVALUATION PROCESS Cont’d
| The government will not conduct successive rounds of discussions to give offerors opportunities to modify their proposals |
| Final Proposal Revisions |
| Offerors are advised that unsupported or unexplained final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation |
| The Government may reject unreasonable offers |
PAST PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT
Mr. Ralph LaRosa
PAST PERFORMANCE
Performance Confidence Assessment
| Purpose: To assess the offeror’s ability to fulfill contract requirements while meeting |
| Schedule |
| Budget |
| Performance /Quality constraints |
| Recency: |
| Within the past 3 Years |
| Relevant: |
| Performance efforts similar in scope, magnitude and complexity |
| Assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant * |
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d
| RELEVANCY RATINGS | RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS |
| VERY RELEVANT | |
| Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires |
| RELEVANT | Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires |
| SOMEWHAT RELEVANT | Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires |
NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d The following performance definitions will be used in the assessment of performance:
| PERFORMANCE RATINGS | PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS |
| EXCELLENT | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. |
| VERY GOOD | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. |
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d
PERFORMANCE RATINGS PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS
SATISFACTORY
Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.
MARGINAL
Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d
PERFORMANCE RATINGS PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
NOT APPLICABLE
Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d The Performance Confidence Assessment will integrate the recency/relevancy and performance on all the efforts evaluated for the offeror; the integration will result in a performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in the next charts.
Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating of “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d
PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT
| RATINGS | DEFINITIONS |
| SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE | Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort |
SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort
LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort
PAST PERFORMANCE Cont’d
PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT
| RATINGS | DEFINITIONS |
| NO CONFIDENCE | Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort |
UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Ms. Denise Krems
SUMMARY
| Ms. Krems, Ms. Miller or a designated contracting officer will be the only individuals authorized to contact offerors |
| Please submit questions as soon as possible |
| 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 |
SUMMARY
| PROPOSALS ARE DUE 12 NOVEMBER 2008 AT 3:30 P.M. LOCAL TIME. |
| Note: Veterans Day Holiday is observed on 11 Nov 2008. |
| Late is late!! |
SUMMARY
QUESTIONS?
Sustaining the Combat Capability of America’s Air Force
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 Air Education and Training Command
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .