PreproposalConf 16Nov10.ppt
PPT presentation 635 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cockpit/Crew Resource Management CAT/CWD Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-11-R-0002
About this file
Pre-proposal Conference Slides.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CRM Interested Parties List.doc | DOC document | |
| Signed Conference Minutes.pdf | ||
| CRM Q A Final.doc.docx | DOCX document | |
| Pre-proposal Conference Attendees.pdf | ||
| SOW Amend1.doc | DOC document | |
| Amendment 0001.doc | DOC document | |
| SOW Final.doc | DOC document | |
| CRM RFP 3 Nov 10.pdf | ||
| Q A Draft RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOWdraftAmend 1.doc | DOC document | |
| CRM Draft 6Oct10.doc | DOC document | |
| SOWdraftOct10.doc | DOC document |
Show all 12
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
This Briefing is:
UNCLASSIFIED
Headquarters Air Combat Command
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE
CAF Cockpit/Crew Resource Management Aircrew Training and Courseware Development Contract
Pre-Proposal Conference Mr. Ray Churchill, ACC TRSS/ACQ MSgt Imelda Reantaso, ACC AMIC/PKB 16 Nov 2010
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE
AGENDA
| 0900 | Opening Remarks | |
| 0910 | Program Review | |
| 1000 | Break | |
| 1015 | Case Study Review | |
| 1100 | Break | |
| 1115 | Courseware Review | |
| 1200 | Lunch | |
| 1330 | Courseware Review | |
| 1500 | Turn in Questions / | Closing Remarks |
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
ACC AMIC/PKB
| Capt Hayes Weidman |
| Contracting Officer |
| Hayes.weidman@langley.af.mil |
| 757-225-3165 |
| MSgt Imelda Reantaso |
| Contract Manager |
| Imelda.reantaso@langley.af.mil |
| 757-225-5797 |
| Liz Pangrac |
| Contract Manager |
| Elizabeth.pangrac@langley.af.mil |
| 757-764-9266 |
PURPOSE
To Familiarize Contractors with the Government Requirement
Clarify Requirements Answer any Advance Questions Invite Additional Questions (in writing) Show Current Case Studies Review Courseware
REQUIREMENT
Mr. Ray Churchill
ACC TRSS/ ACQ
PROGRAM HISTORY
Fourth Contract Solicitation for this Requirement Previous solicitations were 1994, 1999 and 2005
Current CAF Customers Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE)
Current Acquisition Total Small Business Set-Aside Awarded Jun 2005 / Expires 30 Sept 2011 (6 year contract)
CRM PROGRAM OVERVIEW
AFI 11-290 Mandates CRM Training
CRM Program Goals Maximize operational effectiveness and combat capability Preserve Air Force personnel and material resources
CRM Training Objectives Develop aircrew skills in recognizing and responding to the conditions that lead to aircrew error Develop aircrew proficiency in CRM skills
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
Here are the main topics, as you know that last one is the biggest hurdle we have
CRM TRAINING
CRM Core Skills Situational Awareness Crew Coordination / Flight Integrity Communication Risk Management / Decision Making Task Management Mission Planning / Debrief
CRM Training Phases
NEW REQUIREMENT
CAF Customers Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC)
USAFE not participating
6 Year contract Base year with 5 options FY 12 – 18 (Jan 2018)
KEY SOW REQUIREMENTS
Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and services necessary to perform all aspects of the Statement of Work.
Specific tasks for this contract are divided into three main categories:
Contract Aircrew Training (CAT) Courseware Development (CWD) General Tasks
KEY SOW REQUIREMENTS
Contract Aircrew Training:
ACC pilots, navigators, weapon system officers, air battle managers, flight surgeons, career enlisted aviators, and other mission crew officer and enlisted aircrew AETC Luke (F-16) and Tyndall (F-22) FTUs PACAF Fighter and AWAC units AFGSC B-2, B-52 and T-38 pilots and aircrew F-35 CAT Optional CLIN
KEY SOW REQUIREMENTS
Contract Aircrew Training per Appendix 1 Trains approx. 6000 personnel per year 30 different bases world wide
Over 20 different MDS specific training courses Formal Training Unit (4 hours) Continuation Training (2 hours) Instructor Upgrade Training (2 hours)
KEY SOW REQUIREMENTS
Courseware Development per Appendix 2 Produce, update, review and revise courseware to support all weapon systems Develop all courseware using the current, updated model of ISD.
Develop new CT courses every 2 years Develop new case studies in response to any mishap board recommendation Develop additional training materials for unit use
Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Mgmt Plan
KEY SOW REQUIREMENTS
General Tasks
| ISD Management Plan |
| Class Scheduling |
| Courseware Development Schedule (CDS) |
| Maintain Master Files |
| Required Reports |
| Employee Training |
| Quality Assurance |
| Security Requirements |
| Government Rights to Deliverables |
| Hours of Operation |
KEY SOW REQUIREMENTS
General Tasks (continued)
| Case Study Development per Appendix 3 |
| Quarterly Training for units per Appendix 3 |
| Daily Training Objectives per Appendix 3 |
| LMS/TMS on Web |
| CRM survey analysis |
FUNDING
Each MAJCOM is responsible for their funding Pricing CLINS will be set up as follows:
ACC 60%
AETC 20%
PACAF & AFGSC 10% each Up to you how CAT & CWD is divided up
FY12 Phase-In is scheduled for 1 Dec 11 – 31 Jan 12
QUALITY ASSURANCE
QAPs to be appointed in writing prior to contract award
Program Manager/Chief QAP Mr. Ray Churchill, ACC TRSS/ACQ
MAJCOM QAPs – One from each participating MAJCOM (usually from the A3T/F staffs)
Courseware Approval – Chief QAP through TRSS Dets, USAFWS, and
AETC FTU
CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS
Capt Hayes Weidman MSgt Imelda Reantaso
ACC AMIC/PKB
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
| Period of Performance |
| Milestones |
| Acquisition Strategy |
| Source Selection Method and Evaluation Factors |
| Question & Answer |
| Quality Assurance |
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
Estimated Contract Award: May 2011
Contract Start Date: 1 Feb 2012
| Phase In: | 1 Dec 11 – 31 Jan 12 |
| Base Year: | 1 Feb 12 – 31 Jan 13 |
| Option One: | 1 Feb 13 – 31 Jan 14 |
| Option Two: | 1 Feb 14 – 31 Jan 15 |
| Option Three: | 1 Feb 15 – 31 Jan 16 |
| Option Four: | 1 Feb 16 – 31 Jan 17 |
| Option Five: | 1 Feb 17 – 31 Jan 18 |
KEY MILESTONES
| Initial Draft SOW | 21 Jun 10 | |||
| Post Sources Sought & Draft SOW | 9 July 10 | |||
| Convene ASP | 9 Sep 10 | |||
| Set-Aside Determination | 22 Sep 10 | |||
| Release Draft RFP | 6 Oct 10 | |||
| Receive Business Clearance | 3 Nov 10 | |||
| Issue Final RFP | 3 Nov 10 | |||
| Pre-Proposal Conference | 16 Nov 10 | |||
| Past Performance Due | 30 Nov 10 | |||
| RFP Due | 3 Dec 10 | |||
| Initial Evaluation Board Complete | 13 Jan 11 |
Contract Clearance/Close Discussions 23 Mar 11
| Request FPRs | 4 Apr 11 | |
| Notice of Award | 20 May 11 |
ACQUISITION STRATEGY
| Authority |
| FAR Part 12: Commercial Contracts |
| FAR Part 15.3: Negotiated Contracts |
| AFFARS 5315.3: Mandatory Procedure/Source Selection |
| Evaluation and Selection Procedures |
| Timeline is approximately 9 months |
| Sufficient number of Proposals/Competition are expected to award using the Best Value Source Selection Process |
ACQUISITION STRATEGY
| Competed Action |
| Award Under FAR Part 15 |
| Base plus five, one-year Option Periods |
| Firm Fixed Price |
| CLIN Structure Example |
Base Year
| 0001 Main CLIN | Priced | |
| 000101 Sub-CLIN | Informational | |
| 0002 Main CLIN | Priced | |
| 000201 | Informational |
SOURCE SELECTION METHOD
Best Value:
“The expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.”
EVALUATION FACTORS
Three Factors listed in order of importance
| Past Performance |
| Mission Capability |
| Technical |
| Risk |
| Price |
Past Performance Mission Capability Price
Equal in order of importance
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
| Past Performance is evaluated to appropriately consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance. |
| Request up to (4) four, recent and relevant past performance references/CPARS to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code (611512) for aircrew training |
| Evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance |
| Concentrating on those aspects of the instant acquisition most critical to overall success. |
| Past performance is judged based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records |
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Complexity: More complex contracts submitted for past performance consideration will be viewed favorably. Complex contracts are those in excess of $1 Million that provide services for multiple option years and require formal documented performance assessments (i.e., CPARS).
| Recent: Performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. |
| Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Further, references for contracts with less than one year performance will not be considered. |
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
| Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as: |
| Courseware development and aircrew training as related to Factor 2, Mission Capability and the SOW |
| Especially those provided to Air Force installations and for multiple years of performance |
| Past/present performance of combined courseware development and aircrew training will be viewed more favorably |
| Experience with training contracts which utilize the Air Force’s model of Instructional Systems Development as outlined in AF Manual 36-2234 and AF Handbook 36-2235 will also be viewed favorably |
PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The following relevancy definitions apply:
| Very Relevant | Past/present performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. | |
| Relevant | Past/present performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort and/or complexities this solicitation requires. | |
| Somewhat | ||
| Relevant | Past/present performance efforts involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. | |
| Not Relevant | Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE
ASSESSMENT RATINGS
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
| PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS | |
| 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 reasonably assigned.
MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
| Mission Capability Technical Rating |
| Reflects the degree to which the mission capability factor or sub-factor exceeds, meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirement |
| Focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal |
| Evaluators must ensure that the narrative assessment focuses on the offeror’s proposal as it relates to the evaluation criteria |
| Four sub-factors: Listed in descending order of importance |
| Ratings are assessed at the sub-factor level; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned |
MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
| SUB-FACTOR 1: MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS |
| Examines the proposed manning levels and personnel mix for all workload identified |
| All positions must be fully supported through the contractor’s workload analysis. |
| Workload analysis will be evaluated on the methodology and level of detail of how manning levels were determined, to include all direct, non-direct and ancillary workload hours |
| Ensures the offeror is employing personnel with qualifications commensurate with requirements of the SOW (to include the site manager). |
MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
| SUB-FACTOR 2: TRAINING MANAGEMENT AND APPROACH |
| Examines the soundness/flexibility of the offerors’ Training Workload Plan to include short and long range planning and scheduling procedures |
| Management approaches, methods, innovations and policies for managing the training program including methods for mitigating scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations |
| Also duties and responsibilities of the site manager including management of personnel, interface with USAF including formal and informal lines of communication |
| Descriptions of prime and sub-contractor responsibilities including an organization chart |
| The Contractor’s proposed TMS/LMS to include a detailed description of the use, benefits, application and transferability |
MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
| SUB-FACTOR 3: COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH , INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISDMP) AND QUALITY PROGRAM PLAN |
| Evaluate the offerors’ understanding and application of the Air Force’s current ISD model |
| Offeror’s ISD Management Plan (to include a Courseware Development Schedule (CDS). |
| Methods and processes used in the application of and tracking courseware development milestones to include validating courseware effectiveness |
| The Contractors’ Quality Program Plan (QPP) |
MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL
EVALUATION
| SUB-FACTOR 4: ALL OTHER PLANS AND CONTRACTOR FURNISHED EQUIPMENT |
| Evaluate offerors’ Transition Plan (Phase-In and Out Plan) |
| Instructor Training and Certification Plan |
| A list of all proposed contractor furnished equipment to include all desktop and courseware development computers, support equipment, and modernization/upgrade plans (if any). |
MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL AFFARS RATING SYSTEM
Exceptional – Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.
Acceptable - Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green but may have one or more strengths.
Marginal - There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable.
Unacceptable - Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.
MISSION CAPABILITY RISK
| Mission Capability Risk Rating: |
| Assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the mission capability factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. |
Assessment of risk is applied at the Mission Capability sub-factor level; an overall factor-level rating is not assigned
Note, if a combination of significant weaknesses leads to unacceptably high proposal risk, this is a deficiency in the proposal
MISSION CAPABILITY RISK
AFFARS RATING SYSTEM
SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
| MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS | |
| Rating | Definition |
| Low | Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. |
| Moderate | Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. |
| High | Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties. |
| Unacceptable | The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost or severely degraded performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable. |
PRICE EVALUATION
| The objective of the cost/price analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable |
| Normally adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness |
| Reasonableness |
| Must determine if prices are unreasonably high or low in relation to the IGCE, the offeror’s technical approach, other offerors’ proposed prices and any other method necessary |
| All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than cost or price |
| Affordability |
| When trade-offs are considered, the cost factor definition must also consider affordability. When defining affordability, budget information may be shared; therefore, based on its IGCE, the Government has budgeted $16 Million (basic & option CLINS) for this acquisition. |
QUALITY ASSURANCE
QAPs to be appointed in writing prior to contract award
Program Manager/Chief QAP Mr. Ray Churchill, ACC TRSS/ACQ
MAJCOM QAPs – One from each participating MAJCOM (usually from the A3T/F staffs)
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
QUESTION # 1:
When the F-22s move from Holloman to Tyndall (App 1 Para 1.2 & 1.6) will the T-38s at Holloman be stood down or will there still be a T-38 CRM requirement at Holloman?
ANSWER:
At this time, there has been no information released that the T-38’s will be leaving Holloman. After award, the Government will negotiate modifications to the contract with the winning contractor concerning all force structure changes.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
QUESTION # 2:
Appendix 3 Para 4 chart page 34 – are the F35s required Daily Training Objectives and Quarterly Training included and is the intent that all of the DTQ/QTO will be new not revised or reviewed each year?
All training listed in the chart after Para 4 in Appendix 3 should be applicable to all aircraft listed in the SOW. Those aircraft are listed in both Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. The Case Studies and Quarterly training listed in the table have both a new and revised annual requirement. The Daily Training Objectives have already been created and only need to be updated as required.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
QUESTION # 3:
SOW Para 4.11.13 Interactive Courseware (ICW) is currently being developed at CBT level 2. Does ACC expect Level 2 CBT to be standard for ICW (case studies)?
NO, Para 4.11.13 only states the definition of USAF Interactive Courseware at the Level 2. For this requirement, the Government does not require “student interaction” for our case studies (per definition in para 4.11.13). We encourage contractors to use live video or computer generated animation in their creation of case studies for CRM training.
CLOSING REMARKS
QUESTIONS?
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .