RC OC WC_135 and E4B PreProposal Conference Slides 12 Feb 2020.pptx

Pre-Proposal Conference RC/OC/WC-135 and E-4B Contract Aircrew Training and Courseware Development

Offutt AFB NE

12 Feb 2020

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

TO FAMILIARIZE CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENT

Clarify Requirements Address Advance Questions Invite Additional Questions (in writing) Review Courseware Tour Facilities

PURPOSE

AGENDA

0900 – Welcome and Introductions 0910 – Program Review and Evaluation Criteria 1000 – Review Advance Questions 1030 – Break 1100 – View Courseware 1200 – Lunch 1300 – Tour Classrooms 1400 – 1430 Tour MCTS 1500 – 1530 Tour OFT 1600 – Wrap Up / Submit Additional Questions

338 CTS WELCOME

338 CTS Commander Lt Col Zambrano

WELCOME

Administrative Issues Refreshments Restrooms Smoking Emergency Evacuation

INTRODUCTIONS

Lt Col Fwamay Sullivan – ACC TRSS Det 10/CC

Mr. Bob Wind – ACC/TRSS Program Manager

Mr. Doug Barnard – ACC/TRSS Program Manager

Capt Antonio McCartney – ACC AMIC/PKB Contracting Officer

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Contracting Office (ACC AMIC/PKB) is the POC for all information.

Questions during this conference should be directed to the briefers and must be submitted in writing for a formal response.

Terms of the solicitation and/or PWS will remain unchanged unless formally amended in writing and issued by the Contracting Officer.

Conference slides and all Q&As will be posted on Beta SAM.Gov (https://beta.sam.gov)

Government is not liable for expenses incurred by offerors prior to contract award.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Procurement History Program Mission / Requirements

Procurement / Description

Current Contract: FA4890-15-C-0015 Title: RC/OC-135 E-4B CAT and CWD

Incumbent: Sonoran Technologies & Professional Services, LLC

Awarded: 2 Feb 2015 – 100% Small Business (2-month Phase-In, Base Year and 4 Option Years)

Awarded Cost: $25.9M

Contract Start: 1 Apr 2015

Contract Expires: 31 Mar 2020

6 Mos. Extension: 1 Apr – 30 Sept 2020

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Overview

Procurement History

Key PWS Requirements

Performance Locations

Funding Requirements

Risk Assessment

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

RC-135 Offutt AFB, NE E-4B Offutt AFB, NE Customer

RC/WC/OC-135 338 CTS

E-4B1 ACCS AFGSC

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Requirement: Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision and services necessary to perform:

Contract Aircrew Training Courseware Development Continuation Training General Tasks

KEY PWS REQUIREMENTS

Contract Aircrew Training (CAT) Academic Classroom Instruction Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) Training Device Instruction Continuation Training OC/WC Pilot/Nav Flight Instruction

Courseware Development Develop New Courseware Review and Revise existing Courseware Respond to Out-of-Cycle changes and Urgent Action Directives Use AF Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Model

KEY PWS REQUIREMENTS

Other Tasks

General Tasks Admin Support Scheduling Registrar TTL / Syllabi Document Management Courseware Development Schedule

Contractor IT System Courseware / Content Management System

Capt Antonio McCartney Contracting Officer

ACC AMIC/PKB

antonio.mccartney.1@us.af.mil

(757) 225-2153

SOURCE SELECTION AND CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

PROCUREMENT DATA

Authority FAR Part 12: Acquisition of Commercial Contracts FAR Part 15: Contracting by Negotiations AFFARS MP 5315.3: Source Selection as revised 25 May 2018 DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016

Notice to Offerors Sufficient number of Proposals/Competition is expected

Government intends to make award without discussion but reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. Therefore, you are cautioned that the initial proposal should contain your best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

PROCUREMENT DATA

Follow-on Acquisition: 100% Set-aside for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

NAICS Code: 611512 Size Standard: $30.0M

Contract Type Non-Personal Services Firm-Fixed Price with FFP NTE Line Items for Travel Data Deliverables – NSP

Performance Period

KEY MILESTONES

SOLICITATION REVIEW

SF 1449

Ensure all blocks are filled in as necessary and signed Complete block 26 Total Award Amount with your total proposal amount

Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost Complete all pricing data The Total Price should be divisible by 12 Insure unit price multiplied by 12 equals the Total Price Include all pre-populated travel amounts in your Total Price

Contract Clauses and Provisions Complete as applicable

List of Attachments

Section 6: Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors / Addendum to 52.212-1

Section 7: Evaluation Factors for Award

SPECIAL CLAUSES / CONSIDERATIONS

Collective Bargaining Agreements (1) Effective Dates: 1 Jan 2019 – 21 Jan 2022

Offutt Aircrew Training Employees Association (OATEA)

** Ensure labor rates used in development of your proposal are FY20 (under column 1 Apr 2020)

The CBA and associated WD were provided as attachments to the Solicitation

Past Performance evaluation is waived as evaluation criteria but will be used to determine contractor responsibility

Acquisition Overview Basis of Award This is a competitive best value source selection utilizing the Combined Technical Capability/Risk Trade Off source selection procedures

May result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror

Award will be made to one contractor whose offer is determined the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered

Price is not the most significant factor in the selection of an offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government

Intend to award without discussions; therefore, final determination as to best value may be solely based on the initial proposal as submitted; however, government reserves the right to open discussion if in the best interest of the government

BASIS FOR AWARD -- Combined Technical Capability/Risk Trade-Off Procedures

Three Volumes:

Volume I: Prerequisites Volume II: Technical Capability Volume III: Price

Two Factors:

Factor 1 – Combined Technical Capability and Risk Factor 2 – Price

Hierarchy of importance:

Technical Capability/Risk is most important Price is less important

* The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price becomes in the best value selection decision

EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

BASIS FOR AWARD -- Combined Technical Capability/Risk Trade-Off Procedures

Three Volumes:

Volume I: Prerequisites – Must contain the following four Requirements Transition Plan: Contains six elements Instructor Training and Certification Plan (ITCP): Contains five elements Quality Program Plan (QPP): Contains three elements Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE): Contains two elements

Volume I: Prerequisites Each requirement will be assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Each Requirement Evaluated Separately

Any identified deficiency(s), (one deficiency (a material failure to meet a requirement)) will render an Unacceptable rating of that requirement.

Should any element within a requirement be considered Unacceptable, then the entire Prerequisite volume will be found Unacceptable and the offeror will not progress any further in the source selection process.

For offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating, the offeror will be automatically eliminated. No discussions will be conducted or evaluation notices issued. Further, no tradeoffs will be made for the Prerequisites volume.

Those offerors that meet each requirement will receive an overall Acceptable rating at the Prerequisite level and will be eligible to move forward in the evaluation process.

Requirement 1: Transition Plan IAW PWS 4.10.5: The offeror’s proposal volume provides a Transition Plan that sufficiently meets PWS 4.10.5 requirements. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a) Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of all transitions requirements and identifies priority allocation of resources and personnel.

b) Proposal identifies key personnel for transition period and complies with program manager/site manager hiring requirements ref PWS Section 4.

c) Proposal identifies risk factors and plans for mitigating any identified risk during the transition period.

d) Proposal provides a spreadsheet that clearly depicts all Phase In actions with appropriate start and completion dates which ensures the offeror is prepared on the contract start date.

e) Proposal clearly explains how the incoming contractor shall interface with Government personnel in a manner that minimizes disruption of student training activities.

f) Proposal clearly explains how the contractor shall ensure continuity of services in the event the incumbent does not receive the follow-on award.

Requirement 2: Instructor Training and Certification Plan IAW PWS Section 1.7.2 and 4.10.3: The offeror’s proposal volume provides an Instructor Training and Certification Plan the sufficiently meets PWS 1.7.2. and 4.10.3 requirements. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a) Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of instructor qualification requirements (ref PWS Section 4.4 and A5.2 for each training specialty.

b) Proposal clearly explains how the offeror will train and certify new personnel and certify previously qualified personnel to instruct in each training block they are responsible for (ref PWS 1.7.2). It will also explain how the contractor will provide continuation and proficiency training (ref PWS 1.7.1, 1.7.2.).

c) Proposal clearly explains the re-qualification process/procedures in the event an instructor is de-certified or goes non-current PWS 1.7.2.3.

d) Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of courseware development personnel hiring requirements (ref PWS paras 4.4.5, 4.4.6 and clearly explains how all courseware personnel will be ISD trained to support the CWD effort.

e) Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of support personnel hiring requirements (ref PWS paras 4.1, 4.2.3, 4.4.3, 4.4.4.).

Requirement 3: Quality Program Plan (QPP) IAW PWS Section 4.10.4: The offeror’s proposal volume provides a Quality Program Plan the sufficiently meets PWS 4.10.4 requirements. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a) Proposed QPP contains ISO 9001 compliant quality management systems.

b) Proposal clearly explains the inspection system used to cover all services listed in the Service Summary (PWS Section 2), with specifics as to the areas to be inspected on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, frequency of inspections, and the title and organizational placement of the inspectors.

c) Proposal clearly explains the records documenting inspections, and corrective or preventive measures taken and how these records will be maintained and made available to the Government.

Requirement 4: Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) IAW PWS 3.5: The offeror’s proposal volume provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) and sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a) Proposal provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment that is required in the performance of the contract that is sufficient to meet all PWS requirements.

b) Proposal demonstrates that any proposed Contractor Furnished computers or server equipment is compliant with the USAF LAN and Base Communication Squadron computer guidelines.

Volume II: Technical Capability/Risk Each requirement will be assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Utilizes the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 3 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

In conducting the assessment, the Government will also consider information provided in the proposal as to how the offeror will manage and mitigate risk.

Each Aspect shall be assigned a technical/risk rating as shown below in Tables 3 and 2B. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements.

If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. The severity of the deficiency will determine if the offeror will be able to correct the deficiency through discussions.

To be eligible for award, all Technical aspects must receive a minimum color rating of “Green/Acceptable”.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume II - Factor 1: Technical Capability/Risk

One Subfactor: Manning, TWMP, IT and Org Structure

Four Aspects:

Aspect I: Manning Workload Analysis Aspect II: Training Workload Management Plan Aspect III: Contractor IT System Aspect IV: Organizational Structure

In terms of hierarchy of importance, Aspects I and II are equal in importance and significantly more important than Aspects III and IV.

Aspect III is more important than aspect IV.

Technical Capability/Risk will be rated at the Subfactor level.

An overall Factor-level rating will not be assigned.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Aspect I: Manning Workload Analysis IAW PWS Appendix 1-5:

a) Proposal demonstrates a detailed CAT manning workload analysis derived from PWS workload tables (ref. PWS Appendix 1,2,3 and 5) that clearly explains all proposed CAT manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used), for CAT instruction and management. Your CAT man-year calculations will include all direct, indirect and ancillary time; scheduled leave, holidays, and any other workload capability. The analysis should show how offeror arrived at proposed manpower ensuring all PWS requirements are met.

b) Proposal demonstrates a detailed CWD manning workload analysis derived from PWS (ref Appendix 4) for all courseware requirements that clearly explains all proposed CWD manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees. Explain the proposed development time in hours for each lesson instructional hour, providing a percentage breakdown of each proposed courseware skill for each type of courseware, and clearly identified proposed manpower for each skill to meet all PWS requirements.

c) Proposal demonstrates a detailed support manning workload analysis and a clear understanding of all proposed support position manpower requirements (ref. PWS 4.1, 4.2.3, 4.4.3, 4.4.4) that clearly explains all proposed support manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees.

Aspect II: Training Workload Management Plan IAW PWS 4.10.1:

a) Proposed Training Workload Management Plan clearly demonstrates methods, procedures, efficiencies and policies which ensure all required work is accomplished IAW the PWS.

b) Proposal provides detailed individual position manning table resulting from workload analysis of each CAT/CWD and support manning position and the number of full time/part time personnel required for each position. An overall manning table shall be submitted to ensure manning numbers line up with all other CAT/ CWD manning tables presented by the contractor.

c) Proposal provides overall manning table resulting from manning workload analysis of each CAT/CWD and support manning positions and the total number of full time/part time personnel required. An overall manning table shall be submitted to ensure manning numbers line up with all other Support Position manning tables presented by the contractor.

d) Proposal demonstrates effective processes for daily and long range scheduling that mitigate risk associated with workload fluctuations or other factors to ensure all PWS work is accomplished.

Aspect III: Contractor IT Systems IAW with PWS 1.6:

a) Proposal will outline contractor IT system(s) demonstrating an understanding of the IT requirements to a degree that the Government has confidence in the contractor’s ability to execute the contract.

b) Proposal provides contractor provided IT system(s) addressing each item listed in Para 1.6 in sufficient detail to demonstrate the capability to support required training operations.

c) Proposal provides detailed CMS functionality addressing the specifics of all three core CMS functions listed in Para 1.6.1. It will also address all 15 items the contractor CMS must perform to support training operations.

d) Proposal provides contractor description of exactly how it will interoperate all contractor IT system(s) to execute the requirements of the PWS IAW Para 1.6.2. The contractor will also outline what systems they will use IAW the order of precedence and why.

e) Proposal provides specific contractor security measures to address security of contractor provided IT systems outlined in Para 1.6.3. The contractor will also address how it will provide hardware and software maintenance of the provided systems in a transparent fashion.

Aspect IV: Organizational Structure:

a) Proposal demonstrates an effective organizational structure detailing contractor's line(s) of authority to include subcontractors and/or teaming partners and provide an organizational chart depicting each participant’s role.

b) Proposal demonstrates cohesive functional relationships and effective roles and responsibilities that will ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the Government representatives to effectively execute the PWS requirements.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Volume III - Factor 2: Price

Price will be evaluated on the Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP) using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price.

The TOEP consists of the total proposed price for all Fixed Price CLINS for Phase-In, Base Year and all Option years and fifty percent (50%) of the last option year price to cover the Option to Extend Services clause, 52.217-8.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical approach.

Price competition will be the primary method to establish price reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors' Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP).

The Government has provided pre-established Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for the Fixed Price Travel CLINs. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offeror's proposal and will be evaluated as part of the TOEP.

This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer is determined affordable and represents the best value to the Government.

EVALUATION FACTORS

SUPPORTING PRICE BACKUP DATA

Offerors are required to complete and submit Attachment (5) of the RFP, (Excel Spreadsheet) as part of their pricing data. A tab for Phase-In, Base Year and each Option Year shall be included on the spreadsheet. Offerors can change the template as needed to reflect the rate structure they are proposing, but it should clearly show the build up to the proposed fully burdened rates and total price.

Offerors shall provide a narrative describing their pricing methodology at a level of detail sufficient for the government to determine price fair and reasonable. Offerors are responsible for ensuring all calculations and totals are correct and tie to the proposed values for each CLIN. Offeror's ODCs shall also be proposed with enough detail to determine costs are fair and reasonable.

Requested to verify price is balanced and to ensure price is consistent with offeror’s Technical Proposal.

Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.

Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned to the Price Factor.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality assurance/inspection/acceptance for the Government will be conducted by the appointed Contracting Officer Rep (COR)

Appointed Government/Subject Matter Experts (G/SMEs) at each site

Training SMEs: TRSS DET 6, FTU Squadron Courseware SMEs: TRSS DET 6

COR appointment(s) will be provided to the awardee in writing

Program Manager / COR ACC TRSS: Mr. Bob Wind ACC TRSS: Mr. Doug Barnard

Please submit written questions to the following POCs:

Capt Antonio McCartney – Contracting Officer antonio.mccartney.1@us.af.mil

Ms. Susan Dunnigan – Contract Manager susan.dunnigan@us.af.mil

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

Questions and Answers will be posted on https://beta.sam.gov/

Thank You For Attending image2.png image3.jpeg image4.jpeg image5.jpeg image6.jpeg image1.png