PMEL PPC Brief 17 Nov 09.pptx

Multi-Command Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) Pre-Solicitation Conference Solicitation Number: FA4890-09-R-0019 19 November 2009

Headquarters Air Combat Command

This Briefing is Classified:

UNCLASSIFIED

WELCOME

Ms. Judy Seay-Coker Project Lead

HQ ACC AMIC/DRXA

Agenda Program Overview Mr. Steve Lahr PMEL Program Manager

HQ ACC AMIC/PMSP

Request For Proposal (RFP) Overview Ms. Joanna Vallas/Mr. Stephen Newport Contracting Officer/Contract Manager

HQ ACC AMIC/PKC

Site Visit Information Mr. Steve Lahr Question and Answer Session

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Mr. Steve Lahr PMEL Program Manager

HQ ACC AMIC/PMSP

Program Overview Contract Scope of Work PMEL Site Locations Summary of PWS Changes Since Draft PWS

Contract Scope of Work Provide support for workload Current projections are approximately 54,000 items resulting in approximately 51,000 actions CONUS and another 13,500 items resulting in approximately 12,500 actions OCONUS Responsible for work in the following technical areas: advanced electrical, electronics, electromechanical, mechanical, physics, optics and thermal principles Responsible for the operating principles of complex and intricate Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) and usage of laboratory standards

Projected workload, total of 67,000 items between CONUS and OCONUS historically resulting in approximately 41,000 actions in the CONUS and another 11,000 OCONUS.

Locations Barksdale AFB, LA Beale AFB, CA Cannon AFB, NM Dyess AFB, TX Ellsworth AFB, SD Minot AFB, ND Moody AFB, GA Offutt AFB, NE RAF Feltwell, Thedford, Norfolk, UK Whiteman AFB, MO

Here are the current locations, key again is to support the workload currently supported by these PMELs not necessarily operate the actual PMELs however all requirements of the PWS must be met without concessions. TAT, Priority support etc…

Summary of PWS Changes Summary of changes in Draft RFP, posted 16 Nov, from Draft PWS posted 14 July:

Award Fee Plan finalized Performance Assessment Plan finalized Appendix “G” was updated to reflect current workload from each of the locations Updated Appendices “D, E, F, and H” Throughout the PWS, stipulated calendar or duty days as appropriate for the specific requirement Removed duplicate instructions from PWS if included within a Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL)

Summary of changes in Draft RFP, posted 16 Nov, from Draft PWS posted 14 July:

The Award Fee Plan and Performance Assessment Plan were finalized All appendices were updated to reflect current conditions Went through the PWS and stipulated between calendar or duty days as appropriate for the specific requriement Removed instructions from the PWS and instead included the instructions within the CDRL

Summary of PWS Changes (continued)

PWS, Section A, para 2.1.5 updated to read, "The contractor shall identify, document, and notify the GPO of actual or potential contractor program management problems and deficiencies; report unresolved problems to the GPO. Promptly report site-specific problems affecting mission accomplishment to the operational reporting authority and GPO; resolve problems at local level whenever possible. Provide corrective actions for all Government-identified contractor program management problems and deficiencies IAW timeframes specified by the CO.”

Previous verbiage:

Resolves problems or deficiencies involving support from external agencies. When outside contract program management’s control, identify, document, and notify the GPO. KEY Further expanded the requirement to identify and correct problems

Summary of PWS Changes (continued) PWS, Section A, para 2.4.5 updated to read, "The contractor shall be proactive and ensure that all contract compliance non-conformance notifications discovered and reported by the contractor and/or government or their representative (such as third party), receive the appropriate and necessary corrective and preventive actions. The contractor shall ensure all audits/inspections results are analyzed for performance trends. The contractor shall use data analysis tools appropriate for the specific pattern and trend analysis. The contractor shall rework outgoing defective equipment using the original job control number.”

PWS Section A, para 6.2.4 added to reflect usage of the Item Unique Identification Registry including specific instructions

Previous Verbiage:

2.4.5 Take immediate corrective action for all defects identified during government surveillance. The contractor shall make every effort to resolve defects during the period of on-site government surveillance. The contractor shall rework outgoing defective equipment using the original job control number. KEY Further expanded the requirement to identify and correct problems

6.2.4 is new

Summary of PWS Changes (continued) PWS, Section A, para 6.3.1 updated to read, "Ship and receive equipment, when necessary to satisfy TO requirements, through Air Force transportation channels unless directed otherwise by specific program guidance or commercial transportation deemed more cost effective.”

PWS Section B, para 1.3.1, updated to read, “A nonconformance that adversely impacts (or has the potential to adversely impact) mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), cost. It also increases risk to the Government. An example of increasing risk would be significant number of recurring nonconformances, which is an indication of inadequate preventive measures/actions thus lowering the confidence of quality services to be provided on time and within costs. This increases operational risk to the Government.”

6.3.1 Ship and receive equipment, when necessary to satisfy TO requirements, through Air Force transportation channels to maximum extent possible unless directed otherwise by specific program guidance. KEY commercial transportation deemed more cost effective

1.3.1 Major Nonconformance: A nonconformance that adversely impacts mission, safety of personnel and/or equipment, performance (quality), schedule (delivery), cost. It also increases risk to the Government. An example of increasing risk would be significant number of recurring nonconformances, which is an indication of inadequate preventive measures/actions thus lowering the confidence of quality services to be provided on time and within costs. This increases operational risk to the Government. KEY (or has the potential to adversely impact)

Summary of PWS Changes (continued) PWS Section B, para 2.1, updated to read, “The Government will evaluate performance of the services listed in the SS Table to determine if they meet the performance thresholds. When the proper level of performance is not met, the CO may issue a Notice or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) based on the nature and criticality of the deficiency. A Second Notice is used when the First Notice does not result in contractor correction of the deficiency. A CAR will be issued when First and Second Notices fail to result in acceptable performance or when a major non-conformance is identified.”

PWS Section B, para 2.1.2, updated to read, “When a CAR is issued, the contractor shall respond by completing the appropriate blocks of the CAR and return it to the CO within 15 calendar days of receipt. At a minimum, the contractor shall include root cause analysis, corrective and preventive actions, as well as any actions required by the contractor’s Quality Manual. Use this space for all responses to include follow up responses. All supporting evidence, updated manuals/instructions, etc. shall be embedded in this section to maintain a single point document.”

2.1 The Government will evaluate performance of the services listed in the SS to determine if they meet the performance thresholds. When the proper level of performance is not met, the CO may issue a Notice or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) based on the nature and criticality of the deficiency. A Second Notice to that site is used when the First Notice does not result in contractor correction of the deficiency. A CAR will be issued when First and Second Notices to that site fail to result in acceptable performance. KEY “or when a major non-conformance is identified.”

2.1.2 When a CAR is issued, the contractor shall respond by completing the appropriate blocks of the CAR and return it to the CO within 15 calendar days of receipt. At a minimum, the contractor shall address why the performance threshold was not met, how performance will be returned to acceptable levels, and how recurrence of the cause will be prevented in the future. KEY greater detail of the requirements

Summary of PWS Changes (continued) PWS Section B, Service Summary 2 Performance Threshold updated to read, “No major nonconformance is allowed.”

PWS Section B, Service Summary 3 Performance Threshold updated to read, “At least 92% of the total monthly production shall meet TAT requirement with no single operating location below 90%.”

PWS Section D, para 1.1, updated to read, “The contractor shall assume responsibility for all workload and PMEL operations on the performance start date. This workload will include calibration, repair, inspection, and maintenance of those items listed on the government provided PMEL MIS inventory to include equipment AWM and in work in the PMEL, equipment AWM and in work on-site, equipment awaiting quality control action, equipment awaiting customer pickup, all delay coded equipment, and equipment in the customer’s possession.”

PWS Section D, para 9.1.2, updated to read, “Fuel for any vehicles within CONUS used in the performance of the contract.”

Previous Verbiage SS 2 Up to three defects in randomly selected sample size of 20 is acceptable. Lot is certified items outgoing plus CFE/GFE certified in the last 30 calendar days. KEY Previous contracted requirement Quality Control instead of Quality Assurance

SS 3 At least 90% of the total monthly production shall meet TAT requirement KEY although we are looking at overall performance, previous verbiage allowed substandard performance at an operating location

1.1 The contractor shall assume responsibility for all workload and PMEL operations on the performance start date. This workload will include calibration, repair, inspection, and maintenance of those items listed on the government provided PMEL MIS inventory to include equipment AWM and in work in the PMEL, equipment AWM and in work on-site, equipment awaiting quality control action, equipment awaiting customer pickup, all delay coded equipment, and equipment in the customer’s possession. All relocation costs are cost reimbursable exclusive of fee and shall be limited to shipment of household goods, per diem, and mileage. GPO approval shall be received prior to expending contract funds for relocation costs after contract performance start on 1 Oct 10. KEY removed all references to relocation

9.1.2 Fuel for any vehicles used in the performance of the contract. KEY CONUS, fuel is provided for OCONUS vehicles

RFP OVERVIEW

Ms. Joanna Vallas Contracting Officer

HQ ACC AMIC/PKC

RFP Overview Contract Type RFP Sections Major Milestones

Contract Type Firm Fixed Price/Award Fee with Cost Reimbursable line items RFP section overview:

Sections A – M: Uniform Contract Format Sections B, K, and L: Required information from offeror Section M: Evaluation factors

Section A, SF 33 Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) rated contract - DO A7 Block 12 – Proposals will be valid for 180 calendar days from the date for receipt of offers Blocks 12 – 15 - To be completed by offeror Proposal due date 5 Jan 10 Past Performance volume due 21 Dec 09

(continued) Section B Fixed Price Line Items - Price the various line items Cost Reimbursable Line Items - estimated “unit” prices established by the Government Handling rate is applied to the estimated unit amounts to equal the total price

Can we expand what we have here or at least speak to one conus price and one oconus price because this is a significant change both from our draft and how we have done business in the past…(steve)

RFP Sections (continued) Section B Transition Government’s intent is to provide at least 90 days for transition Separate transition CLINs will be awarded for CONUS and OCONUS Award Fee pool has been established by the Government

(continued) Section E, Inspection and Acceptance FAR clauses for Inspection of Services ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001-2008: Quality Management Systems - Requirements Must be compliant Certification is not required

(continued) Section F, Period of Performance RFP includes transition period, base year, and five option years

(continued) Section G, Contract Administration Data G-1: Invoicing Instructions WAWF combo documents with back documentation e-mailed to Government Cost reimbursable data to support CDRL A001 Section H, Special Contract Requirements Transition Periodic Progress Meetings Rights to Deliverables Technical Direction Award Fee Base Support Clause for RAF Lakenheath

(continued) Section I, Contract Clauses Full text of those clauses incorporated by reference are available on-line at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/farsite.html Section J, Attachments Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Appendices Section B – Pricing Schedule DD Form 254 Service Contract Act Wage Determinations WD No. 2005-2544 Rev No. 10

WD CBA-2008-2434

WD CBA-2008-2439

(continued) Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors Fill-ins require completion by offeror Can complete on-line at http://orca.bpn.gov Section L, Instructions for Offerors L-1 -- Special Notice to Offerors L-3 -- Formal Communications L-6 -- Proposal Preparation Instructions - Copies/Page Limits/Submission dates L-8 -- Instructions for Volume I, Mission Capability

(continued) Section L, Instructions for Offerors L-8 -- Instructions for Volume 1 - Mission Capability Volume (Factor 1) Subfactor A: Program Management Subfactor B: Quality Management Subfactor C: Maintenance Management Subfactor D: Transition L-9 -- Instructions for Volume II - Past Performance Volume (Factor 2) Submit one-page summary per contract Submit Past Performance Information Sheet per reference Submit consent letters from subcontractors (if applicable)

(continued) Section L, Instructions for Offerors L-11 -- Instructions for Volume III - Price Volume (Factor 3) Submit proposed prices Supporting Price Backup Data Include completed SF33, acknowledge amendments, necessary fill-ins & certs for Sections C through K Description of any exceptions and deviations to RFP Identify cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency and DCMA field offices that have oversight to offeror’s organization Provide copy of Disclosure Statement and identify Cost Accounting Standards compliance

(continued) Section M, Evaluation Factors Competitive best value source selection using AFFARS Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5313.3 dated March 2009 Government intends to award without discussions Only one offeror will be selected Offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements (terms & conditions, certifications, evaluation factors) to be eligible for award

(continued) Section M, Evaluation Factors Mission Capability (Technical/Risk) Subfactor A: Program Management Subfactor B: Quality Management Subfactor C: Maintenance Management Subfactor D: Transition Past Performance Recency Relevancy Price Reasonableness (price analysis) Adequate Price competition is expected

(continued) Section M, Evaluation Factors Factor Weighting Mission Capability is the most important factor Past Performance and Price are equal in importance Mission Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past Performance and Price are equal in importance but are less important than Mission Capability. Price, while not the most important factor, will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

Mission Capability - Sub-Factor Weighting Program Management, Quality Management, Maintenance Management are equal in importance and are the most important subfactors Transition is the least important subfactor

Mission Capability Technical Subfactor A: Program Management Management and Integration - Manning levels and skill mix to ensure successful management and execution, efficiency of the organizational structure, and staffing processes Human Resources - Sufficiency of plan to attract and retain personnel, qualifications of key personnel Subfactor B: Quality Management Approach to develop, implement, maintain and continually improve comprehensive quality management system Provide proactive, maintenance to reduce network downtime and maximize control of flight operations

Technical Subfactor C: Maintenance Management Approach to providing calibration and maintenance program that meets requirements of PWS Timely and responsive support of maintenance requirements Innovations or efficiencies that could result in cost reductions, cost avoidance, or qualitative improvements Subfactor D: Transition Transition Plan – process to ensure continuity of mission support and contract performance Personnel and resources Open actions (work orders, repairs) Transfer of workload/stored items Management plan for continuity of support

Risk Risk will be assessed at the subfactor level, and includes:

Potential for disruption of schedule Increased cost Degradation of performance Need for increased government oversight Likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Past Performance Past Performance Factor – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Group will determine:

Recency – 3 contract performance references within the last 3 years from solicitation issue date for prime & major/critical subs Relevancy – Provide operations and/or maintenance services or other multi-dimensional services similar to the size, scope and complexity of the program Range of performance areas (multiple sites/geographically-separate, OCONUS) Type of service provided (skill sets/labor force) Contract type/dollar value Comparison with Mission Capability subfactors

Price The Contracting Officer will evaluate price for:

Reasonableness (price analysis) Adequate price competition is expected Comparison of the proposed prices Comparison with historical pricing May require field pricing support if inadequate competition obtained Proposed prices will be evaluated for consistency with various elements of the offeror’s Technical Proposal

*Note: Dates are subject to change

Site Visit Information Mr. Steve Lahr Program Manager

Rules of Engagement PMEL will be conducting normal operations during visit Listen and adhere to site administrative briefing All questions shall be directed to Government PM & CO Only written questions will have official answers posted to FedBizOpps Do not separate from the group without a Government escort Do not interfere with or solicit information from site personnel during visit No Cameras permitted Cell phones limited, no pictures permitted

QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION

Source Selection Sensitive – See FAR 3.104

(continued) Section M, Evaluation Factors Factor Weighting Mission Capability is the most important factor Past Performance and Price are equal in importance Mission Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past Performance and Price are equal in importance but are less important than Mission Capability. Price, while not the most important factor, will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

Sub-Factor Weighting Program Management and Operations & Maintenance are of equal importance

Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Management and Integration - Manning levels and skill mix to ensure successful management and execution, efficiency of the organizational structure, and staffing processes Human Resources - Sufficiency of plan to attract and retain personnel, qualifications of key personnel Data Management System (DMS) - a computer-aided data management system-hosted on a Contractor web site Provides a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and program management information

Technical Subfactor 2: Operations & Maintenance System Administration Provide proactive, maintenance to reduce network downtime and maximize control of flight operations Maintain/Sustain real time monitoring of the entire UAS architecture Network administration/maintenance that meets requirements supporting multiple classification levels to include TS/SCI Equipment Maintenance Provide a comprehensive maintenance program that meets requirements stated in the PWS for UAS operation sustainment Maintain/Manage long-haul communications networks

Technical Subfactor 2: Operations & Maintenance (continuation) Maintenance Management Prioritize/control scheduled/unscheduled maintenance Integrated with Logistics Programs Provide updates on Equipment operational status

Risk Risk will be assessed at the subfactor level, and includes:

Potential for disruption of schedule Increased cost Degradation of performance Need for increased government oversight Likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Past Performance Performance Confidence Assessment Group will determine:

Recency – 3 contract performance references within the last 3 years from solicitation issue date for prime & major/critical subs Relevancy – Provide operations and/or maintenance services or other multi-dimensional services similar to the size, scope and complexity of the program Range of performance areas (multiple sites/geographically-separate) Security Clearance Levels Type of service provided

Past Performance Draft Relevancy Ratings HIGHLY RELEVANT - Past or present performance effort: involved essentially the same type work, magnitude of effort and complexity sustaining two or more command and control operation centers in geographically-separated locations; and required top secret with sensitive compartmented information clearance; and provided critical command and control data, long haul and voice interconnectivity, video dissemination; and design, development and maintenance of C2 operations center systems architecture, system administration of ATM and internet protocol networks, and help desk functions in an extremely time sensitive and highly reliable environment RELEVANT - Past or present performance effort: involved essentially the same type work, and much of the same magnitude of effort and complexity sustaining two or more command and control operation centers in geographically-separated locations, or essentially the same type work, magnitude of effort and complexity at a single location; and required top secret with sensitive compartmented information clearance; and provided critical command and control data, long haul and voice interconnectivity, video dissemination; and design, development and maintenance of C2 operations center systems architecture, system administration of ATM and internet protocol networks, and help desk functions in an extremely time sensitive and highly reliable environment

Past Performance Draft Relevancy Ratings SOMEWHAT RELEVANT - Past or present performance effort: involved a lesser magnitude of effort, type work and complexity sustaining a command and control operation center; and required less than top secret with sensitive compartmented information clearance; and provided critical command and control data, long haul and voice interconnectivity, video dissemination; design, develop or maintain C2 operations center systems architecture, system administration of ATM and internet protocol networks, and help desk functions in a time sensitive and reliable environment.

NOT RELEVANT - Past or present performance effort: involved a few or no similarities in magnitude of effort, type work and complexity sustaining an operation center; and did not require a security clearance.

Past Performance (continued) Past Performance may be obtained through one or more of the following:

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Questionnaires tailored to the PMEL acquisition Interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers Other sources, including commercial sources

Price The Contracting Officer will evaluate price for:

Reasonableness (price analysis) Adequate price competition is expected Comparison of the proposed prices Comparison with historical pricing May require field pricing support if inadequate competition obtained Proposed prices will be evaluated for consistency with various elements of the offeror’s Technical Proposal

*Note: Dates are subject to change

Site Visit Information Mr. Steve Lahr Program Manager

Site Visit Itinerary 19 Nov – 0830 hrs Meet at Whiteman Visitors Center 19 Nov – 0900 hrs Pre-proposal conference briefing 19 Nov – 1000 hrs Tour PMEL 19 Nov – 1100 hrs Questions and Answers in PMEL Conference Room

Site Visit Itinerary 2 Dec – 0800 hrs Meet at RAF Lakenheath Visitors Center 2 Dec – 0830 hrs Site Visit Briefing 2 Dec – 0900 hrs Tour RAF Feltwell PMEL 2 Dec – 1000 hrs Questions and Answers in PMEL Conference Room

Rules of Engagement PMEL will be conducting normal operations during visit Listen and adhere to site administrative briefing All questions shall be directed to Government PM & CO Only written questions will have official answers posted to FedBizOpps Do not separate from the group without a Government escort Do not interfere with or solicit information from site personnel during visit No Cameras permitted Cell phones limited, no pictures permitted

QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION

Source Selection Sensitive – See FAR 3.104 image2.png image1.png