T-38AMP_Pre-Proposal_Brief_9_Dec_2015--updated.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

T-38 Aircraft Maintenance Program Pre-Proposal Conference

9 Dec 2015

Welcome

Mr. Stephen M. Brannen ACC T-38 Program Manager

Acquisition Management & Integration Center

Overview

• Team Introductions

• Rules of Engagement

• Acquisition Milestones

• Changes since Industry Day

• T-38 AMP Program Scope, Maintenance Concept, PWS, provided Equipment and Services

• Government-Provided Services

• T-38 AMP Program Risks

• Considerations

Project Team Project Lead LaGail Crews-Lowe, AMIC/DRXA

Program Manager Stephen Brannen, AMIC/PMAM

Contracting Officer Tom Brannen, AMIC/PKCA

Contract Specialist Danielle May, AMIC/PKCA

Quality Assurance Manager Andy Lipko, AMIC/DRQA

Functional Expertise

MSgt Aaron Cox, AMIC/DRQA MSgt Hector Rodriguez, AMIC/PMAM MSgt Phillip Pittman, AMIC/DRQ MSgt Robert Clanin, AMIC/DRQA Errol Brown, AMIC/PLGX

Legal Advisor Beatrice Foster, ACC/JAQ

ACC Base Monitor Christopher Williams, AFICA/KC

ACC Director of Small Business vacant

AFPEO/CM Action Officers William Caffaro , AFPEO/CM

Rules of Engagement

• Questions

• Questions welcome during the briefing or…

• Write questions on the sheet provided and return to Ms. Lowe

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

• Proprietary Information

• Clearly identify any questions/information you consider proprietary

• Q&A Session

• All non-proprietary questions will be answered during the Q&A session as time allows

• Verbal answers are “Unofficial”

• Can submit written questions before departing or send via email to ACCAMIC.T38.Recompete@us.af.mil mailto:ACCAMIC.T38.Recompete@us.af.mil

Acquisition Milestones (tentative)

Milestones Date Post Draft Performance Work Statement & Appendices 30 Apr 15

Industry Day / One-on-Ones 12-14 May 15 Release Draft Solicitation Aug 15 Site Visit 26 Aug 15 Final Solicitation Issued / Pre-Proposal Conference 25 Nov 15 / 9 Dec 15 Proposals Due (~60 days allotted for preparation) 4 Feb 16 Source Selection (6 months allotted) Feb - Jul 16 Contract Award Aug 16 Transition (45 days allotted) 15 Aug – 30 Sep 16 Performance Start for some locations 1 Oct 16

Changes Since Industry Day

• Option for Operating Location at Nellis AFB, NV removed

• Option for increased CRF workload related to Nellis OL removed

• Contract term: one base year and eight options (9 yrs)

• Assigned aircraft at Langley and Tyndall adjusted

• Flying hour adjustment (1,000 hour increase)

• CAF SUP 1 dated Jul 2012 is baseline publication

• New AFI 21-101 published; PWS will be modified after award and publication of CAF SUP

T-38 AMP Mission

Provide intermediate and organizational aircraft maintenance services for the Air Combat Command (ACC), Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) and 96 Test Group (Air Force Material Command (AFMC)) T-38 aircraft

T-38 AMP Supporting Role

• Supplemental aircraft to support each wing’s pilot training program

• Maintain airmanship and proficiency

• Resource to evaluate pilot proficiency

• Adversary Air (ADAIR) for F-22s

• CONUS Deployments to support F-22s

• Off-station training requirements

• Dramatic savings in cost per flying hour

Customers

• ACC Air and Space Operations (A3T / A3Y)

• AFGSC Air and Space Operations (A3T)

• 1st Fighter Wing (FW)

• 9th Reconnaissance Wing (RW)

• 49th FW

• 325th FW

• 509th Bomb Wing

• 96th Test Group

• NASA

• US Army Air Operations Directorate (White Sands)

• German Air Force

• 192 ANG

• 44 AFRC FG

Scope of Work

• Aircraft maintenance services for

• ACC - 45 T-38A/AT-38B

• AFGSC - 14 T-38A

• AFMC - 4 T-38C

• Flying Commitment ~ 17,200 hrs / 15,000 sorties yr.

• Engines – J85M 118 installed; plus 22 spares

• J85S 8 installed plus 2 spares

• Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) – Total 490 Powered/Non-Powered (Holloman AFB)

• Two active aircraft modifications: dual radios and bomb rack to add electronic attack pod carrying capability 12

• Transient Mx at Holloman and Whiteman AFBs

• Weekend Flying support for Associate units at Langley and Tyndall. Support paid on cost-reimbursable basis

• Provide limited aircraft maintenance support for:

• 96th Test Group (HAFB) T-38C aircraft (4)

• NASA (El Paso, TX)

• German Air Force (HAFB)

• US Army Air Operations (White Sands Missile Range)

• Options

1. Establish capability for Functional Check Flight and Ferry Pilot capability

2. Extend the contract 6-months

Flying Program Beale Langley Tyndall Whiteman 586

FLTS

Assigned Aircraft 11 17 17 14 4 Flying Hours 3000 4800 4800 4100 400

ASD 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1

Sortie UTE Rate* 18.9 19.6 19.6 22.1 Max 1st Launch 6 10 10 6 4 Typical Turns (Mix)

4 x 4 8 x 8 8 x 8 x 6

10 x 8 x 6

8 x 8 8 x 8 x 6

10 x 8 x 6

6 x 6 6 x 6 x 6

• Sortie UTE rates are approximate

• 200 flying hours will be assigned to Holloman

• Associate Unit Weekend Flying Hours included within Langley and Tyndall total flying hours

Maintenance Concept

• One Centralized Repair Facility supporting 4 Operating Locations (OLs)

• Holloman CRF – Director of Mx (MXG CC Equivalent)

• Provides Intermediate-level maintenance

• All 450/900/1800 hour aircraft inspections

• Full T-38 inspection and repair capability

• Supports operating locations and aircraft broken off-station

• Option #1 includes FCF/Ferry pilot capability

• Four Operating Locations (OLs) – Site Manager

• Inspect, launch, recover, minor repairs, deploy

• Beale - (11) mission: companion trainer

• Langley - (17) mission: ADAIR

• Tyndall – (17) mission: ADAIR

• Whiteman – (14) mission: companion trainer

All OLs provided limited host-base aircraft maintenance support

Maintenance Concept CRF Mx Requirements:

• Aircraft Phase Inspection

• Avionics, Electronics/Environmental, Egress

• Fuels, Hydraulics, Corrosion, Non-Destructive Inspections

• Structural Repair, Machine, Welding, Wheel and Tire

• AGE, Propulsion, Aircraft Repair and Reclamation

• Functional Check Flights

• No plans to relocate

CRF occupies 14 facilities at Holloman AFB

PWS Overview

• PWS requires adherence to traditional directives;

performance-based where allowable

• Contractor determines internal management philosophy, organization/structures and many procedures

• Director of Maintenance (DOM) has most Mx Group Commanders (MXG/CC) duties

• Site Managers represent DOM to wing customers and responsible for OL performance

• Supply

• Manage logistics to include Material Management, Demand Processing, MICAP Processing, Equipment/Property Management, Bench Stock, SPRAM assets, TNB, Cannibalizations, material handling and storage

• At each OL perform Combat Oriented Supply Organization

(COSO) functions meeting the objectives of ACCI 23-251, Chapter 2. Ensure each OL has a qualified supply person with experience to perform all required duties.

• Information technology

• Utilize Government approved Integrated Maintenance Data

Systems (IMDS)

• Windows based

• Section A: Description of Services

• 1.0 Management Philosophy and Scope

• 2.0 Program Management

• 3.0 Operations and Maintenance

• 3.1 Aircraft and Equipment Readiness

• 3.2 Operating Location Management (Beale, Langley, Tyndall, Whiteman)

• 3.3 Centralized Repair Facility Support (Holloman)

• 3.4 Transient Maintenance (Holloman & Whiteman Only)

• 3.5 Maintenance Recovery Team Support

• 3.8 Support of Holloman Tenants

• Section A: Description of Services (cont.)

• 4.0 Mission Support

• 4.1 Computer Systems Support

• 4.2 Communications

• 4.3 Security

• 4.4 Logistics Management

• 4.5 Vehicles

• 4.6 Facility Management

• Section B: Service Summary

• 1.0 Service Summary Narrative

• 1.1 Purpose

• 1.2 Components

• 1.3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

• 2.0 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement

• 2.1 Quality Assurance

• 2.2 Risk Assessment

Aircraft Availability: ≥ 65% Fleet Average

OL Minimum AA: ≥ 60% Beale

≥ 65% Langley

≥ 65% Tyndall

≥ 65% Whiteman

≥ 50% 586 FLTS

Aircraft Reliability: ≥ 85% Code 1

Total Abort Rate: ≤ 5%

Repeat/Recur: ≤ 5%

Mx Scheduling Effectiveness: ≥ 95%

Mx Cancellations: Major non-conformance on first go launches

Average Fleet Time: ≥ 205 hours and ≤ 260 Hours Acceptable

< 205 Hours Major Non-Conformance

> 260 Hours Minor Non-Conformance

Configuration Management:

• Egress Life Sustaining Items: 100% accurate; zero overdue

• Time Change Items: 100% accurate; zero overdue

• Time Compliance Technical Orders: 100% complied prior to mandated completion period

• Engines: Zero Holes Acceptable

• ≥ 1 Aircraft Hole Major Non-Conformance

< 4 Spare J85M Minor Non-Conformance

0 Spare J85S Minor Non-Conformance

• Section C: Government Furnished Property and Services

• 1.1 Government Furnished Property

• 1.2 Government Furnished Facilities

• 1.3 Government Furnished Services

• 2.1 Government Provided Aircraft Maintenance Support

• 2.1.1 Aerospace Ground Equipment

• 2.1.2 Aircrew Flight Equipment

• 2.1.3 Crash Recovery

• 2.1.4 Egress

• 2.1.5 Electric and Environmental

• 2.1.6 Fuels Repair Facility

• 2.1 Government Provided Aircraft Maintenance Support (Cont)

• 2.1.7 Maintenance Operations Flight Plans and Scheduling

• 2.1.8 Maintenance Operations Center

• 2.1.9 Non-Destructive Inspection

• 2.1.10 Welding

• 2.1.11 Wheel and Tire

• 2.1.12 Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment

• 2.2 Supply Support

• Section D General Information

Government-Provided Vehicles

• Whiteman Transient Maintenance

• MB-4 (or equivalent) tow vehicle

• One Bobtail

• Deicing vehicle (sign out)

• Air-Stair Truck (sign out)

• All other required vehicles for all locations are contractor-provided

Appendices

A: Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

B: Contract Data Requirements Lists

C: Publications and Forms

D: Government Furnished Equipment

E: Government Furnished Facilities

F: Performance Incentive/Award Fee Plan

G: Quality Management System

H: Flight Operations Plan

I: Contractor Plans

Appendices (cont.)

J: Proposal Incorporations

K: Workload Data

L: Contractor Certifications and Qualifications

M: Key Personnel Qualifications

N: Support Agreements

O: Security Information

• Mandatory publications listed in Appendices B & C

• Significant portions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 21-101 CAF Sup I mandatory

• Mandatory compliance with all Technical Orders

• Extended work hour requirements located in Appendix K

• Bid these as overtime requirements

T-38 AMP Risks

• Offeror’s approach to manage CRF workflow

• Aircraft inspection fleet time management (TDI)

• Quality Management System – AS9100/AS9110

• FCF/Ferry pilot support / new requirement

• Maintaining aircraft availability to meet the mission

• Trained and Qualified Workforce

• Transition

CRF Workload Management If the contractor mismanages the workload flow of the Holloman CRF, then fleet health and aircraft availability will be severely impacted resulting in mission degradation/failure.

Critical Processes:

- Aircraft Inspection management and execution

- Engine and fuels workload

- Maintenance Recovery Teams assistance to repair aircraft broken off-station, or beyond the repair capability of an OL

Control Adequately outline the requirement within the PWS, and provide accurate Appendix K Workload Data. Utilize sections L and M of the contract RFP to solicit best approach. Evaluate IAW established Section M criteria. After award CORs will audit the processes and execution.

Quality Management System.

If the contractor does not develop and implement an effective QMS, then ineffective contract management, poor performance, and degraded mission success rates will result, thereby increasing government surveillance, manpower requirements and costs.

Control.

Contract RFP requires documented AS9100/ AS9110 certification/registration. RFP also requires an effective approach for continuous pro-active, preventative-based monitoring, measurement, and analysis program in compliance with AS9100 or AS9110 using quantifiable metrics with focus on conformance to the Appendix G of the PWS. This approach will be evaluated during source selection.

After award CORs will audit to ensure compliance.

Risk Event Risk Strategy

FCF/Ferry Flight Plan If the contractor does not develop and sustain an effective and safe flight operations plan for Functional Check Flight and ferry flights with a consistent focus on safety and established procedures, then program effectiveness will be impacted with significant potential for flight incidents or mishaps.

Control Adequately outline the requirement within the PWS and sections L and M of the contract solicitation.

Evaluate IAW established criteria. After award CORs will audit the FCF and ferry flight control processes and execution.

Inability to Meet Aircraft Availability Rates If the contractor cannot consistently provide safe, reliable aircraft to meet availability requirements, then the supported unit missions will be significantly degraded.

Control Adequately outline the requirement within the PWS, develop and utilize effective service summary metrics. Through sections L and M of the contract solicitation solicit specific integrated processes and procedures to maintain required aircraft availability. Evaluate IAW established Section M criteria. After award CORs will audit adherence to technical orders and safety requirements.

Trained/Qualified Workforce.

If the contractor fails to provide trained/qualified personnel, adequate staffing levels and the proper functional skill mix, then contract performance thresholds and requirements may not be met, resulting in negative impact to mission success.

Control.

Contractor required to provide an acceptable human resources plan to attract, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel.

The plan includes work force manning levels by functional level and skill mix. The approach will be evaluated during source selection.

Contract Transition.

If the contractor fails to execute effective and efficient transition milestones, then an interruption of O&M services may occur resulting in a negative impact to mission success.

Control.

The Contractor will provide key milestones, process flow, and organizational chart to illustrate how transition/phase in period will be managed.

The approach will be evaluated during source selection.

Considerations

• The Government expects the contractor to adhere to mandated portions of AFI 21-101. Adherence to technical data is mandatory. This does not represent an “approach.”

• Statements that an offeror presents paraphrasing the PWS or applicable AF publications does not provide an “approach.”

• The source selection team will be looking for specifics, not vague generalizations.

• This acquisition is a trade off; NOT an LPTA

Preliminary Acquisition Strategy/Solicitation

Review

Mr. Thomas Brannen Contracting Officer

ACC AMIC/PKCA

Contracting Overview

• Key Contractual Aspects

• Source Selection Road Map

• Source Selection Methodology & Evaluation Process

• Bidders Library

• Points of Contact

Key Contractual Aspects

• Solicitation Number: FA4890-15-R-0007

• NAICS Code: 488190 - Other Support Activities for Air Transportation (SBA Size Standard is $32.5 million)

• Government Furnished Equipment (GFE):

• Appendix D PWS

• FAR Part 45

• Government Furnished Facilities (GFF):

• Appendix E PWS

• FAR Part 45

(continued)

• Anticipate non-commercial acquisition (FAR Part 15)

• If Full & Open competition, Subcontracting plans required for Large Businesses IAW FAR Part 19 – Small Business Programs

• Single Award,Fixed Price w/ Cost-Reimbursable Line Items

• Performance Incentive/Award Fee

• Period of Performance

• Contract: 1 base year plus 8 option years

• Transition: 15 Aug 16 - 30 Sep 16 (45 days)

• Base Year: 1 Oct 16 – 30 Sep 17

• Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure:

• Transition (FP)

• Operations at Various Locations (FP)

• Supplies (CR)

• Travel (CR)

• Performance Incentive/Award Fee

• Options*

*Optional CLIN for Ferry Pilot capability

(continued) CLINs Description Type

0001 - X001

ACC T-38 AMP Program Management for Organizational and Intermediate Maintenance in support of T-38 operations at Holloman, Langley, Tyndall, Beale, and Whiteman AFBs in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraph 2.0.

FP

0002 - X002 Organizational Maintenance for ACC T-38 support at Langley, Tyndall, Beale, and Whiteman AFBs in accordance with PWS, Section A Paragraph 3.2.

FP

0003 - X003

Organizational Maintenance Associate Unit Weekend Flying Support. Cost reimbursement for services required to support associate unit weekend flying in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraph 3.2.11.

FP

0004 - X004

Intermediate maintenance services provided by the Holloman T-38 CRF in support of ACC T-38s assigned to Langley, Tyndall, Beale, and Whiteman AFBs in accordance with PWS Section A, Paragraph 3.3.

FP

0005 - X005 Aircraft Maintenance Services for 96 TG/586 FTS T-38C aircraft at Holloman AFB in accordance with PWS, Section A Paragraph 3.2.

FP

0006 - X006 Transient Maintenance Services in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraph 3.9. FP

0007 - X007

Tenant Support Services for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Contract Field Team (CFT), Army Air Directorate at White Sands Missile Range, and German Air Force (GAF) in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5.

FP

0008 - X008 Full strip of ACC T-38s aircraft assigned to Langley, Tyndall, Beale, Whiteman, and Holloman AFBs in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraph 3.3.13.4.

CR

0009 - X009

Cost reimbursable travel for government directed and approved travel for conferences, meetings, aircraft off-station-recoveries, and training in support of ACC T-38 aircraft assigned to Langley, Tyndall, Beale, and Whiteman AFBs in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraph 2.4.8. CR

0010 - X010 Intermediate maintenance services provided by the Holloman T-38 CRF in support of ACC T-38s assigned to Beale AFB in accordance with PWS Section A, Paragraph 3.3. FP

0011 - X011 Cost reimbursable travel for Deployment Support Services for Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) T-38s assigned to Holloman AFB in accordance with PWS, Section A Paragraph 3.2.10. CR

0012 - X012

Supplies and GFE repairs in support of ACC T-38 aircraft assigned to Holloman, Langley, Tyndall, Beale, and Whiteman AFBs.

Purchases shall be approved in accordance with PWS, Section A, Paragraph 4.4.3. CR

0013 - X013 Performance Incentive/Award Fee Period 1 FP 0014 - X014 Performance Incentive/Award Fee Period 2 FP 0015 - X015 Wage and Health Adjustments FP 0016 - X016 Functional Check Flight and Aircraft Ferry Support CR 0017 - X017 Transition Period FP

• Conduct Price Analysis -- normally established by Adequate Price Competition (APC) ~ FAR preferred technique Adequate Price Competition (APC) is a price based on Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently;

Submission of priced offers that satisfy gov’t expressed requirement;

Award made to offeror whose proposal represents best value; and No finding that price of successful offeror is unreasonable

• Determine if prices are balanced Exists when price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated

(despite acceptable total evaluated price)

Mathematically unbalanced – offer is based on nominal prices for some work and enhanced prices for other work

• Assess financial executability (budget)

Price Evaluation Process

Start

END

Source Selection Process Roadmap

Source Selection Methodology

• Tradeoff Source Selection Process IAW DoD Source

Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011

• Evaluation Factors & Methodology

• Factor 1 – Technical Capability

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Factor 3 – Price

• Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance.

• Technical Capability and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price; however,

• Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than Price, the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

• Factor 1: Technical Capability

• 3 Sub-factors: Program Management, Operations and

Maintenance and Transition

• Program Management and Operations & Maintenance are of equal importance and the most important sub-factors. Transition is the least important

• Technical evaluation criteria evaluated at the sub-factor level

Technical Capability

• Program Management

• Management & Integration

• Human Resources

• Quality Management

• Operations and Maintenance

• Centralized Repair Facility (CRF) Management

• Aircraft Availability Management

• Contractor’s Flight Operations Plan

• Transition

• Transition Plan

• Each Aspect will be evaluated for Strengths, Weaknesses and

Deficiencies. These findings will determine the final overall rating for each sub-factor.

Technical Subfactors

• Evaluate the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the PWS requirements

• Technical Capability Ratings:

Technical Evaluation Process

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

• Assessment of risk identifies proposal weakness(es), considering potential for disruption of schedule, increased price and Government oversight, decreased performance, or likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

• Technical Risk Ratings:

Source Selection Methodology Technical Evaluation Process, cont.

Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased price 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 price or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased price or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Evaluation Methodology

• Recency: Contract performance within the last 3 years from when the solicitation is issued

• Relevancy: Past/present performance is assigned a relevancy rating based on like/similar work (Definitions on next chart)

Past Performance

Past Performance Relevancy

Rating Definition Very Relevant Past or present performance effort: Organizational and intermediate aircraft maintenance and Functional Check Flights (FCF) services on AF legacy, fighter/trainer aircraft maintained IAW AFI 21-101, utilizing a proven quality management system IAW AS9100 or AS9110, with a total contract value greater than $90M on a multiple year, fixed price contract. Demonstrated experience working with unionized workforce in past efforts.

Relevant Past or present performance effort: Organizational and intermediate aircraft maintenance and Functional Check Flights (FCF) services with military fixed wing aircraft maintained IAW technical directives with a proven quality management system IAW AS9100 or AS9110 with contract value greater than $65M on a multiple year cost or fixed price contract. Demonstrated experience working with unionized workforce in past efforts.

Somewhat Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Organizational, intermediate or depot level aircraft maintenance services contract with military aircraft with contract value of at least $30M on a multiple year cost or fixed price contract.

Not Relevant Past or present performance effort did not involve any of the complexity or magnitude of effort required.

Past Performance Rating Process

Obtain Past Performance Information on Each Offeror and Determine Recency

Assess Relevancy for Each Recent Contract

Review Performance Quality for Each Contract

Review Offeror Relevancy and Performance Ratings

Assign Offeror’s Past Performance Factor Rating (Performance Confidence Assessment Rating)

• Performance Confidence Assessment Process

• Based on entire record, Offerors are assigned a Performance

Confidence Assessment

• Rating determines the quality and usefulness of an offeror’s past performance information

Past Performance Confidence Assessment

PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS

E EXCEPTIONAL – The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

VG

VERY GOOD- The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY – The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective action taken by the Contractor appear to be or was satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

US

UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NA NOT RATED - Unable to provide a score or does not apply to this contract.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment, cont.

• Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings:

Source Selection Methodology Past Performance Confidence Assessment, cont.

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

• Factor 3: Price

• Proposal should demonstrate price as Fair, Reasonable and

Balanced

• Adequate price competition – comparison of the offeror’s proposed prices

• Other than Cost and Pricing Data will be required

• Required Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses)

• Basis of Award

• Award to offeror based on an integrated best value assessment

• Intend award without discussions, but discussions will occur if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government

Price

• Conduct Price Analysis – normally established by Adequate Price Competition (APC): FAR-preferred technique

• Adequate Price Competition (APC) is a price based on Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently;

Submit priced offers that satisfy Government expressed requirement;

Award made to offeror whose proposals represents best value; and No finding that price of successful offeror is unreasonable

• Determine if prices are balanced

• Unbalanced pricing exists when price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated (despite acceptable total evaluated price)

• Mathematically unbalanced – offer is based on nominal prices for some work and enhanced prices for other work

• Assess financial executability (budget)

Price Evaluation Process

Evaluation Process AWOD / Competitive Range

• Based on Initial Evaluation Activities, CO must decide to either:

• Recommend SSA Award Without Discussions (AWOD), OR

• Establish Competitive Range and enter into Discussions

• AWOD is the desired approach (submit best proposal with original submission)

• Offerors notified if entering Discussions and/or if eliminated from the competitive range

• If eliminated, can request pre- or post-award debriefing

Evaluation Process Discussions & Final Proposal Revisions

• Conducting Discussions

• Release ratings

• Release Evaluation Notices (EN) Receive and evaluate response to ENs from offeror(s)

May need to follow-up with multiple rounds of ENs

• Government will make a determination when to close discussions based on evaluation of responses Eliminate offeror(s) from competitive range

• After close of discussions, CO will issue a request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) to make the award recommendation

• Located on FedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov)

• Accessibility: Please contact us at ACCAMIC.T38.RECOMPETE@us.af.mil

Bidders Library http://www.fbo.gov/ mailto:ACCAMIC.T38.RECOMPETE@us.af.mil

Points of Contact

• ACC AMIC/PKCA

• Mr. Thomas Brannen, Contracting Officer

• Ms. Danielle May, Contract Specialist ACCAMIC.T38.Recompete@us.af.mil

• Internet Links:

• www.FBO.gov (Reference No. FA4890-15-R-0007)

• http://farsite.hill.af.mil (Federal Acquisition Regulation) mailto:ACCAMIC.T38.Recompete@us.af.mil http://www.fbo.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Discussion Panel

Closing Remarks

TURN IN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND SURVEYS