FINAL - RPA Industry Day Brief

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Industry Day - Open Forum

19 January 2011 Hilton Garden Inn

Newport News, VA

Welcome

Colonel Michael Debreczeni Deputy Director

ACC AMIC/DD

Agenda Rules of Engagement

Project Overview

Ms. Judy Seay-Coker Project Lead

ACC AMIC/DRXA

Agenda

• 0900 – 1000

• Open Forum Briefing

• 1000 – 1015

• Break

• 1015 – 1100

• Q&A session

• 1100

• Open Forum Conclusion

• 1300

• One-on-Ones begin as scheduled through 20 Jan 11

Topics of Discussion

• Rules of Engagement

• Project Information

• RPA Program Overview

• Acquisition Strategy / Solicitation Overview

• Post Award Management Approach

Rules of Engagement

• Questions

• Questions welcome during the briefing or…

• Write Open Forum questions on the paper found in your packet and turn into marked box at the break

• Write One-on-One questions on paper and turn into marked box at the conclusion of the Open Forum briefing

• Proprietary Information

• Clearly identify any questions/information you consider proprietary

• Q&A Session

• Non-proprietary, Open Forum questions will be answered during the Q&A session as time allows

• Verbal answers are “Unofficial”

Rules of Engagement, cont

• The Government will consolidate all written questions received and post the “official” answers to FedBizOpps

• Proprietary question responses will be provided directly to the company

• All items briefed today and discussed at the One-on-Ones are preliminary and are subject to final acquisition strategy and solicitation approval

• All communications from potential offerors shall be sent to both: sharon.potter@langley.af.mil AND donna.rankin@langley.af.mil

• After the final solicitation is released / posted, communications are limited to the Contracting Officer mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil� mailto:donna.rankin@langley.af.mil�

AMIC Integrated Culture

• SPO Type / Acquisition Center of Excellence organization

• Dedicated Program Managers and Contracting Officers

• Functional support within organization and matrixed to programs

(i.e., Quality Assurance, Civil Engineering, Finance, etc.)

• Report to single Director

• Project Lead inserted in complex service acquisitions to facilitate the process and employ project management disciplines

• Maintain philosophy of partnering with contractors to create business-like environment conducive to meeting the mission

ACC AMIC Organization Chart

Installation & Mission Support

Directorate

ACC/A7

Advisory & Assistance

Services

AMIC/DRA

Financial Management

Information Management

Executive Support

Legal Advisor

ACC/JAB

Acquisition Management &

Integration Center

AMIC/DR

Counter Drug & Maintenance

Operations & Training

Technology & Environmental

Mission Support

Civil Engineering

ContractingProgram Management

Surveillance

Logistics

Quality Assurance

AMIC/PQA

Comm - Electronics

Aircraft Maintenance

Plans & Acquisitions

AMIC/DRX

Standards & Training

Acquisitions

AMIC/DRXA

Project Environment

• Acquisition falls under the Air Force Program Executive

Officer for Combat and Mission Support (AFPEO/CM) portfolio since contract value is greater than $100M

• AFPEO/CM: MGen Wendy Masiello

• MGen Masiello has acquisition approval authority

Notional Project Milestones Milestones Date

Post Draft Performance Work Statement & Appendices 7 Dec 10 Small Business Capabilities Request 4 Jan 11 Industry Day / One-on-Ones 19 – 20 Jan 11 Release Draft Solicitation 18 Mar 11 Final Solicitation Issued / Pre-Proposal Conference 28 Nov 11 Proposals Due (50 days allotted for preparation) 19 Jan 12 Source Selection (12 months allotted) Jan 12 – Jan 13 Contract Award Jan 13 Transition (120 days allotted) Feb – May 13 Performance Start May 13

Project Team Multi-Functional Team

Project Lead Judy Seay-Coker, AMIC/DRXA

Program Manager Jim Denkert, AMIC/PMAU

Contracting Officer Sharon Potter, AMIC/PKCA

Contract Manager Donna Rankin, AMIC/PKCA

Quality Assurance Manager Andy Lipko, AMIC/DRQA

Legal Advisor Beatrice Foster, ACC/JAB

ACC Base Monitor Lt Col, Kristian Ellingsen, ACC/A7KO

ACC Director of Small Business Becky Carpenter, HQ ACC/A7K

AFPEO/CM Action Officers Rob Clarke & Jan Tweed, AFPEO/CM

RPA Program Overview

Mr. Jim Denkert RPA Program Manager

ACC AMIC/PMAU

Program History

• MQ-1 Predator contract competitively awarded to

Battlespace Flight Services in 2007

• Hybrid firm fixed price and cost reimbursable with award fee

• MQ-9 Reaper contract awarded sole-source to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in 2007

• Cost reimbursable with fixed fee

• Both efforts currently scheduled to end 30 Sep 11

Program History, cont

• Major customers

• ACC/A8Q (MQ-1 & MQ-9 functionals)

• Combatant Commanders

• 432 Wing, Creech AFB, NV

• Air Force Special Operations Command

• United Kingdom

• Reachback communications customers

• MQ-1 & MQ-9

• RQ-4

• Other Mission Design Services (MDS) as required

Program Management

• Aircraft Maintenance Unit (AMU) environment

• Deployments

• Meet all enroute/host country travel and work requirements

• Visas, entry/exit requirements, etc.

• German Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA)

Program

• Ancillary programs

• Environmental, Safety, Health

• Security

• Information Management

Contract Scope, cont

• Provide organizational-level (O-level) maintenance for

MQ-1 and MQ-9 weapons systems and communication reachback support for remotely piloted aircraft

• Depot-level maintenance provided under separate Contracted

Logistics Support (CLS) through Air Force Material Command

• Direct system support includes aircraft, ground control station, associated communication equipment

• Weapons loading

• Munitions

• Storage, inventory, control, build-up, flightline delivery

• AF retains Munitions Accountable Systems Officer (MASO) responsibilities

• Support tailored to unique site requirements

• Communications reachback support

• Support, operate, maintain, configure, repair C4ISR systems

• Includes tactical and fixed satellite terminals and associated circuits and equipment

• Maintenance documentation

• Aircraft forms and Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS)

• Plans, Scheduling, and Documentation

• Maintenance Analysis

• Track metrics, provide Monthly Logistics Indicators Report

(ACC-A4P(M)9302), and other reports as required

• Manage Support Section

• Tool room, technical order library, Precision Measurement

Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) (tracking, scheduling, pickup/delivery)

• Supply Management

• Support Equipment (SE) identified & accounted for on allowance standard

• Contractor maintains custodial responsibility for SE

• Standard Base Supply System (SBSS)

• Mobility Readiness Spares Package (MRSP) supply kit management

• Mission capable (MICAP) parts

• Bench stock

• Repair asset management (Due in From Maintenance)

• Item Unique Identification (IUID)

• IUID registry

• >$5000

• Meetings

• Local daily/weekly/monthly as required by local policy

• Maintenance metrics

• Aircraft availability rate

• Mission capable rate

• Non-mission capable for maintenance rate

• 12-hour fix rate

• Repeat/recur rate

• Cannibalization rate

• Scheduling effectiveness rate

• Communications equipment operational readiness (Ao) rates

• Reachback communications circuit Ao rate

Deployments, cont

• Deployment packages provide capability for 24 hour ops

• Tailored to fit individual site requirements

• Combat Air Patrol (CAP)

• The total effort (personnel, aircraft, equipment, etc.) required to generate and sustain a combat capable aircraft in the air, 24 hours a day, continuously as dictated by mission requirements.

• The government reserves the right to schedule a CAP as two separate operational sorties. The second sortie is considered part of the original CAP.

• Contractor shall launch additional aircraft as required to support a CAP when original aircraft is unable to support mission requirements (Ex: maintenance abort, fuel/munitions, etc.).

• Stand-Alone CAP

• The first CAP at a given deployed location (core maintenance/support package).

• The government shall assign up to 4 MQ-1 or MQ-9 RPAs as applicable, up to 2 Ground Control Stations (GCSs), and up to 2 Ground Data Terminals (GDTs) per stand-alone CAP.

• Collocated CAP

• All additional CAPs at a given deployed location after the stand-alone CAP.

• The government shall assign up to 4 MQ-1 or MQ-9 RPAs as applicable for each collocated CAP.

• Two additional GCSs & 2 GDTs may be assigned for every 6 additional collocated CAPs, after the first 5 collocated CAPs.

• Commander Discretion Sorties

• Contractor shall support up to 2 "Local Line of Sight" sorties per day at deployed locations to be used at the local commander’s discretion.

• Any sortie performed under this section shall be deemed ineffective if the aircraft air aborts for any maintenance malfunction during the first 2 hours and the contractor shall launch a spare aircraft to replace the primary aircraft.

• Divert Aircraft

• The government may need to divert MQ-1 or MQ-9 aircraft to a base other than the originating base, due to an in-flight emergency, unforeseen maintenance problems, unpredicted weather issues, or for other unforeseen circumstances.

• The contractor shall recover, service aircraft, upload/download weapons, perform required maintenance, and launch these aircraft.

• Since the additional workload may exceed the normal contracted level-of-effort at the divert site, the contractor shall coordinate with local military leadership at the divert site to determine contractor capabilities, operational priorities and build a mutually agreeable plan to support all operational requirements.

CONUS Operational Requirements

• Main operating base is Creech AFB, NV

• Up to 14 MQ-1/MQ-9 aircraft and 6 GCSs, and equipment

• Average 8 sorties per day; 1,584 flying hours per month

• Additional CONUS sites:

• Grand Forks AFB, ND (support local flying only)

• Whiteman AFB, MO (support GCS flying OCONUS missions only)

• Additional sites as required per PWS Appendix N, Operational

Requirements

• Mix of local flying support and GCS only support

OCONUS Operational Requirements Contract Year Max # Locations Max # CAPs

FY12 8 40

FY13 8 40

FY14 8 40

FY15 9 45

FY16 9 45

FY17* 10 50

* FY17 if required – dependent on actual contract start date

• Actual # of locations and # of CAPs per site highly likely to change

Satellite Relay Site Requirements Location # Satellite Estimated

Terminals Start Date

Ramstein AB (Site A) 16 Contract Start Ramstein AB (Site B) 16 FY13 European Theater (Site B) 16 FY14 Pacific Theater (Site A) 12 FY13 Pacific Theater (Site B) 12 FY15

RPA Program Risks

1. Volatility of Program Requirements

2. Enemy Attack

3. Growth of Communication Systems Architecture

4. Adequate Notice of Changing Wartime Requirements

5. Refusal of Contractor Personnel to Remain in War

Zone

Quality

• Service Summary (PWS Section B and Appendix H)

• Integrated program management

• Operations and maintenance

• C4ISR Operational Readiness Rates

• Standard AF Weapons System Metrics

• Performance management

• Comply with ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001-2008

• Mission support

• Compliance with applicable technical orders is mandatory

• AFI 21-101, 21-201, 21-200 compliance matrix

Acquisition Strategy / Solicitation Overview

Ms. Sharon Potter Contracting Officer

ACC AMIC/PKCA

Key Contractual Aspects

• Solicitation Number: FA4890-10-R-0009

• Anticipated Contract Type

• Single Award Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity with

Incentive Fee

OR

• Cost Plus Incentive Fee

• Incentive Fee will contain objective and subjective criteria

• Will seek industry input at later date

• Period of Performance

• Transition: 4 months

• Contract: 1 base year plus 4 option years

• Government Furnished Property/Equipment

• Need to be familiar with FAR Part 45 32

Key Contractual Aspects, cont

• Small Business Set Aside Determination has not been made

• Questionnaire posted to FedBizOpps on 4 Jan 11

• Industry review and input encouraged by 4 Feb 11

• NAICS: 488190, Other Support Activities for Air Transportation

– (Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services (except factory conversion, factory overhaul, factory rebuilding)) ($7M)

• Subcontracting plans will be required for Large Businesses IAW FAR Part 19

• Use of Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned

Businesses, etc

• DFARS 219.705-4 - small disadvantaged business goal of <5% requires approval above Contracting Officer

• Additional goals TBD

Key Contractual Aspects, cont

• Commerciality Determination: FAR Part 15 vs. Part 12

• Anticipate using FAR Part 15

• Market Research questionnaire posted on 4 Jan 11

• Industry review and input encouraged by 18 Jan 11

• Draft PWS, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Appendices posted to FedBizOpps on 7 Dec 10

• Mandated that the PWS be written in performance-based terms in accordance with AFI 63-124

• Appendix for Incentive Fee will be posted at a later date

• Industry review and input encouraged

Site Visit

• Formal site visit

• Typically held in conjunction with Pre-proposal Conference after final RFP release – notional date on/about 28 Nov 11

• Before Final RFP release? (Industry input requested)

• Locations

• Creech

• Possibly Reachback Site

• Any other areas of interest? (Industry input requested)

• Information needed prior to site visit

• Individual Name

• Company Name

• Job Title

• Photo Identification

• Additional information will be posted to FedBizOpps

Evaluation Methodology

• Agency Source Selection – Best Value Performance Price

Tradeoff (PPT) Award, IAW Informational Guidance IG5315.101-1, Jan 2008

• Factor 1 – Technical

• Evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis using subfactor ratings

• Subfactor Ratings: “Acceptable”, “Reasonably Susceptible of Being

Made Acceptable”, “Unacceptable”

• A rating of “Acceptable” will be required in all Technical subfactors in order to be eligible for award

• Any subfactor rated “Unacceptable” will result in an overall Fail

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• No more than 3 recent (within 3 years of solicitation date)/relevant contracts per prime contractor/teaming partner/critical sub

• Receive rating at Factor Level: Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No, Unknown Confidence

• Factor 3 –Price

• Complete, Reasonable, Realistic, and Balanced

Evaluation Methodology, cont

• Tradeoffs permitted between Past Performance and Price

• Past Performance will be approximately equal to Price

• Intend to award without discussions

• If discussions are not held, “Reasonably Susceptible of being made Acceptable” proposals are considered technically “Unacceptable” and are not awardable

• Industry review and input encouraged

• Will take into consideration page counts for proposal volumes and proposal prep time

Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable: The proposal does not meet all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as subfactors within the Technical Factor, however, there is reason to believe that through minor revisions an acceptable proposal could result. If the Government elects to award without discussions, “Reasonably Susceptible of being made Acceptable” proposals are considered technically “Unacceptable” and are not awardable

Evaluation Methodology, cont Technical Ratings

Acceptable: The proposal meets all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as subfactors within the Technical Factor without introducing an unacceptable level of risk. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all technical proposals are considered to be equal

Unacceptable: The proposal fails to meet all the minimum mandatory requirements in the solicitation identified as subfactors within the Technical Factor or creates an unacceptable level of risk. An unacceptable level of risk is defined as very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule or severely degraded performance.

Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable

Past Performance Relevancy Definitions

RATING DEFINITION*

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

* Relevancy Definitions will be tailored to RPA *

Past Performance Confidence Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a 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.

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 reasonable assigned.

Evaluation Factors

E v a l u a t I o n

• Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debrief

Evaluation Methodology

Offeror Proposals

Award w/o Discussion

Initial Evaluation

Briefing

Interim Evaluation

Competitive Range

Determination

Discussions

ENs

Final Evaluation

Revise Ratings

Award

Source Selection Decision Briefing

Best Value Decision

ENs

Pre-Final Proposal Revision Briefing

Close Discussions

Receive Final Proposals

Post Award Management Approach

Mr. Jim Denkert RPA Program Manager

ACC AMIC/PMAU

Post-Award Management

• Structure

• Full-time, dedicated RPA Program Management Office

• PM, CO, CM and Quality Assurance Manager (QAM)

• Government web-based database will be used to maintain data and metrics

• Quality Assurance Approach

• QAM will provide policy and support to QAPCs

• QAEs inspect performance IAW Performance Plan and Quality

Control Plan

• Conduct PMRs

• Held semi-annually; more frequently if needed

• Emphasis on overall performance, process improvement, sharing of info, and cost control

Wrap - Up

We Want to Hear From You…

• What are your thoughts on a single vs. multiple award IDIQ for the RPA Effort?

• Do you have issues with using labor categories and a negotiated maximum allowable rate if IDIQ contract type is used?

• What is a realistic small business subcontracting goal for Large Businesses to achieve?

• Do you have any feedback on the PPT approach?

• How should the relevancy definitions be tailored?

• What are your thoughts in reference to Incentive Fee?

• Do you have any recommendations for additional performance objectives?

One-on-One Information

• Location

• 19 Jan 13:00 – ACC AMIC, 5th Floor Conference Room

• 20 Jan – ACC AMIC, 5th floor Conference Room

• ACC AMIC is located at 11817 Canon Blvd, Newport News, Virginia (in the SunTrust building)

Points of Contact & Links

• ACC AMIC/PKCA

• Ms. Sharon Potter, Contracting Officer, 757-764-9371

• Ms. Donna Rankin, Contract Manager, 757-225-3703

• Submit questions & responses to FedBizOpps postings to both:

sharon.potter@langley.af.mil AND donna .rankin@langley.af.mil

• Internet Links

• www.FBO.gov or www.FedBizOpps.gov

• Reference Solicitation No. FA4890-10-R-0009

• http://farsite.hill.af.mil (Federal Acquisition Regulation)

• Note 4 Feb 11 deadline for small business capabilities packages 47 mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil� mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil� mailto:rogernetta.burbridge@langley.af.mil� mailto:.rankin@langley.af.mil� http://www.fbo.gov/� http://www.fedbizopps.gov/� mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil� mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil� mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil� http://farsite.hill.af.mil/� mailto:sharon.potter@langley.af.mil�

Break

TURN IN ALL WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Q&A Session

Closing Remarks

TURN IN ADITIONAL QUESTIONS AND SURVEYS