Sheppard_BMC_Pre-Proposal_Conf_Brief_Final.ppt

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 Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Pre-Proposal Conference & Site Visit Mr. Brian T. Reese Contracting Officer, 338 SCONS

Mr. Tony Williams Program Manager, AETC A4PM

Mr. Richard Milhollon Chief COR, 82 CES/CEY

July 24, 2017 Sheppard AFB Base Maintenance Support

Good morning ladies and gentlemen! Welcome to the Sheppard Base Maintenance Support Pre-proposal conference and site visit. My name is Brian Reese, Procuring Contracting Officer, from Randolph AFB in San Antonio, TX. We’ll begin with introductions to Team Sheppard and move along to the Mission brief provided by Mr. Todd Raines.

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

82 TRW MISSION BRIEF

Mr. Todd Raines 82d Contracting Squadron

AGENDA & ANNOUNCEMENTS

Conference Agenda

- PWS Requirements

- Performance Oversight

- RFP & Evaluation Process Mr. Brian T. Reese, PCO Mr. Tony Williams, PM Mr. Richard Milhollon, Chief COR Mr. Brian T. Reese, PCO

During the tour of the facilities, please limit your verbal questions but please write them down. We’ll gather here again for brief questions and answers after the tour and we will provide verbal answers if we can. But please remember, no verbal answers are official until they are written and posted on FBO.

Announcements

As you know, the RFP was released on 11 Jul and your proposals are due on 8 Sep at 12:00 PM Central Standard Time.

I must make a few disclaimers here. First, if anything said today differs from what’s stated in the RFP, the formal RFP will take precedence. Also any verbal Government responses are not official until provided in writing and posted on FBO. We’ll have a open Q&A session at the end of this briefing so please try to hold your questions, unless something that needs to be corrected during the briefing.

Now, Mr. Milhollon who is the Chief COR here at Sheppard will give you some useful facility orientation and local information. Please note photographs and video are strictly prohibited so please refrain from using your devices during the site visit.

PWS REQUIREMENTS & CONTRACT SURVEILLANCE

Mr. Richard Milhollon Chief COR, 82 CES/CEY

Mr. Tony Williams Program Manager, HQ AETC

I will turn it over to Mr. Williams and Mr. Milhollon for the PWS requirements and Contract surveillance.

(10) Installation Management

(11) Operations Management

(12) Installation Engineering

(14) Readiness and Emergency Management

Overview

Performance Work Statement

CE Service Contracts: Custodial Services, Elevator Maintenance, Grounds Maintenance (SAFB, Frederick & Lake Texoma), Kitchen Exhaust Hoods Cleaning, Oil/water/grease Traps, PCM (Paint & signs)(Greater than 32 sq. ft. of painted area), Integrated Solid Waste Management (SAFB & Lake Texoma)(Includes Recycling), Environmental Services (ESOHMS & HMMP), Wastewater Treatment (Lake Texoma)

Housing Management Office provides oversight and referral services in support of privatized housing on/off base, as well as local community referral services; Directly manages three Permanent Party dormitories with a total of 436 bed spaces; Accountable for furnishings in 19 dormitories, with 5K+ bed spaces; Oversees three warehouses for lodging and dormitories; total Sheppard AFB furnishings worth $65M

82 CES/CEY Performance Management Function

Contract Oversight

Contract Oversight & Performance Evaluation

Performance Management Review (PMR), chaired by the 82 Mission Support Group Commander or delegate.

Annual Execution Reviews

Performance Requirement Performance Plan & Metrics

RFP & EVALUATION PROCESS

Mr. Brian T. Reese Procuring Contracting Officer, AFICA 338 SCONS

Tentative Proposal Milestones

These are some of the projected major milestone dates and events.

Acquisition Approach

I am not saying anything here that wasn’t already clearly stated in the RFP. But I’d like to bring your attention to the last bullet. I keep saying the same thing on every site visit I conduct…please make sure your initial proposal represents your best price and technical approaches. Don’t automatically assume the Govt. will hold discussions to bring your technical proposal to an acceptable rating. Please keep in mind the Govt. always reserves the right to award without discussions, if it is in the best interest for the Govt.

(Possible example: It could be price and/or non-price variables such as time and effort it will take to hold discussions may not be worth the contract cost savings.)

Discussions & Evaluation Process

As used above, the term “Acceptable Proposal” means the proposal is rated acceptable in the Technical and Past Performance factors, the price is determined fair and reasonable and the CO determines the offeror to be responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1.

As stated in the RFP, your proposals will be racked and stacked by the initial prices from low to high. Then our price, technical and past performance teams will start the evaluation concurrently and independently with the lowest price offeror. This is where your basic math accuracy in Section B becomes very important because inaccurate total price can mean your proposal being looked at or not looked at.

Under Step 2, the first sub-bullet is clear. If the lowest priced offer with an acceptable technical and past performance represents the best value for the Govt., we may cease further evaluation and award without discussions.

The SSA may make the decision to award without discussion or establish a competitive range to hold discussions. It is also noteworthy to note that if it is in the Government's best interest to conduct discussions, the CO may recommend the SSA establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). **If there is a high volume of proposals received, for the purposes of efficiency, the CO may limit the number proposals in the competitive range to an efficient number that will permit an efficient competition for this LPTA source selection.

Proposal Organization

Volume I: Price and Other Contracting Considerations

When evaluating price, the team will determine if price is reasonable and balanced. The price team will collaborate with the technical team to conduct a technical analysis as a part of the overall price analysis by using many tools listed in FAR 15.403.

In Section B, please provide prices for Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs and ensure the unit prices are a whole dollar amount with no hidden decimals in your electronic file submission. The Total Evaluated Price, TEP, equals the sum of all fixed-price CLINs. It is important to note Schedule B will only be accepted using the excel worksheet provided in the RFP; any other format will not be accepted so please adhere to the instructions in Section L for filling this out.

Subcontracting Plan is required by all large business offerors; however, it is not an evaluation criterion. The apparent awardee’s Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed under Responsibility Determination and will be determined acceptable prior to award.

Volume II: Technical

Failure to meet subfactor requirement may result in a “technically unacceptable” determination

Technical Subfactors

All these elements subject to technical evaluation are listed under each Subfactor in the RFP.

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposal of the lowest priced offeror, and, if needed thereafter, the technical proposal(s) of higher priced offerors, in order of price rank, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal evaluated shall be evaluated utilizing the four (4) technical subfactors listed below, as they apply to the PWS.

Note: Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and, therefore, unawardable.

Volume III: Past Performance

Recency: The Govt. will consider proposed past performance information that occurred within the last 3 years of the date of the solicitation and will include at least 6-month of documented performance prior to the date of issuance of the solicitation. Once the proposed contract meets this recency criteria, the Govt. will evaluate performance information for the entire contract period of performance.

Relevancy: It has 3 components – Scope, Magnitude and Complexity.

Scope refers to BMC work. When judging similarity, we will look at BMC work performed as the prime contractor.

Magnitude refers to the duration and contract dollar value for base maintenance operations similar to those described in the solicitation. In other words, we’ll assess how closely the term of the evaluated contract related to the overall 7-yr period of the RFP. For the dollar value, we’ll assess how closely the dollar value of the evaluated contract compared to this solicitation based on IGE, dollar values of the current contract and other similar contracts within the DoD.

Complexity refers to the number and volume of primary PWS areas. For the number, the evaluation team will assess how closely the evaluated contract relates to the primary PWS functions such as if the contract effort includes important PWS areas that Mr. Williams and Mr. Milhollon briefed you earlier. The bottom line: the more you have experience in these critical functions, the more credit will be given to complexity. For the volume, we will consider the number of functional areas, etc. as size indicators of the complexity of the requirement. So the relevancy increases as an evaluated contract performed a greater volume of work when compared to the requirements at Sheppard. The Govt. will assign a separate rating for scope, magnitude and complexity, and then integrate these ratings into a combined relevancy rating for each contract. Each contract evaluated will be given a rating of R or NR.

Volume III: Past Performance Performance Quality Assessment Ratings:

To assess performance quality ratings, the Govt. will make an integrated assessment of your past performance as it relates to factors such as your meeting basic contract PWS and technical requirements, adhering to schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance, and commitment to customer satisfaction. For this, we’ll rely primarily on CPARS and PPQ but we also conduct phone interviews to get more performance information or validate the CPARS or PPQ rater’s comments. We’ll also do an independent research through the DoD contract data base such as PPIRS or Google, in effort to find other similar requirements that you have performed that meet our recency criteria. The Past Performance team gather information on already adjudicated ratings and substantiate discrepancies we may find.

After all that, the team will assign a performance quality assessment rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable per offeror based on integrated recency, relevancy, performance quality on all evaluated contracts.

Performance Incentive Plan

There are two Incentive Option Periods, IOPs, the 6th and 7th option periods. When you become eligible for one or both IOPs based on at least “Satisfactory” CPARS ratings on all categories, it still does not guarantee additional performance periods. Once eligible, each IOP will be executed in accordance with -9, as a regular option exercise. So even after the IOP eligibility early on, if the performance starts to decline, the Govt. has the right not to exercise the 6th or/and 7th options. The IOP pricing will be evaluated as a part of the TEP.

IOP Implementation

This flow chart was included in Attachment#11 of the RFP. Was this chart clear for you to see how the IOP implementation will be carried out?

Tips for Building Solid Proposal

I’d like to provide you with some unsolicited advice on how to build a good proposal. Some are just emphasis pertaining to the Sheppard requirement and some are based on my experience from having gone through more than enough source selections. So I humbly ask you to pay attention to these tips.

For the Price Factor – I am going to repeat one more time to double check your math and adhere to whole dollar unit prices in Section B.

For the Technical Factor – Please review the PWS and CBA very carefully. When building your workforce, please use the workload data provided in the RFP. Often, I’ve seen offerors take initiative to use their own workload estimation and build the manpower accordingly. The Govt. can only evaluate it against what we posted in the RFP. We cannot validate the accuracy of any privately developed workload estimation. Also, when the annual manning increases or decreases, please provide sufficient explanation with supporting calculations. We cannot assume anything.

Tips for Building Solid Proposal

For the Past Performance Information – please include sufficient description of each contract in PPI. We want to know what you actually performed under that contract and relate it to the scope, magnitude and complexity determination. Also provide justification why you think that particular contract is relevant to the Keesler requirement. And this is important…when proposing a subcontractor, teaming or joint venture partner, be specific as to what that partner will perform and what role that partner will play. A vague statement like, “we’ll borrow the company X’s technical expertise” or “Company X will play a important management role to enhance overall performance” provides very little useful information for us.

Miscellaneous

Question submittal shall be done in both formats as this is an administrative requirement on our end and we greatly appreciate your cooperation submitting it as required in Section L. The only POCs for this requirement are the individuals listed above. Offerors are prohibited from having contact with personnel outside this list regarding this requirement.

Experience with AMRDEC? In order to facilitate organized file transmittal we are using AMRDEC as the tool to get you the RFP attachments. The only documents which will be uploaded on FBO are the RFP documents and any amendments. Any revised documents as a result of any amendments require you to request access from the individuals above. Offerors have 14 days to open, view and download the documents transmitted via AMRDEC. If for some reason you forget to download or lose the link all you need to do is send us another request. Also, if any RFP attachments are revised as a result of an amendment, a new AMRDEC request needs to be sent so you can access the amended documents. Any questions?

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

15 Minute Break – Please pass/bring question forms to front

I know many of you have a plenty of experience and attended many site visits like this one, perhaps more than you want to count. But I sincerely hope this briefing was useful to you in some way. I am pretty open and straightforward in my communication with industry because I’d really like to get solid proposals from you. No hidden agenda. Self interest? Absolutely. So I ask you to communicate with me the same way and I will make myself available to answer all your questions since I am your only point of contact. Please bring your questions and see you in 15 min.

SITE VISIT

Site Visit

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

SUMMARY

Summary

*Ask if the due date for questions is sufficient time for vendors to review the package and submit valid questions prior to proposals being due.