PTR_Industry_Day_-_20_Sep_16.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Primary Training Ranges

(PTR)

Industry Day

20 September 2016

Welcome

J.J. Foster Contract Specialist

ACC AMIC/PKCB

Agenda

• 20 Sep 2016 – Creech Center, 2nd Floor Conference Room

• 0830 – 1000

• Open Forum Briefing

• Q&A session

• 1030 – 1600

• One-on-Ones begin as scheduled

• 21 Sep 2016 – 130 Andrews St (Bldg 703) Langley AFB

• 0830 – 1200

• One-on-Ones begin as scheduled

Topics of Discussion

• Rules of Engagement

• Purpose

• Program & Requirements Overview

• Acquisition Overview

Rules of Engagement

• Questions

• No questions during the briefing

• 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 non-proprietary 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 One-on-Ones are preliminary and are subject to final acquisition strategy and solicitation approval

• All communications from potential offerors shall be sent to ACCAMIC.PKC.PTRRecompete2016@us.af.mil , sharon.potter@us.af.mil and john.foster.23@us.af.mil

• After the final solicitation is released / posted, communications are limited to the Contracting Officer

Project Members

Multi-Functional Team Program Manager Mr. Cecil Dean, HQ ACC/A3AR Contracting Officer Ms. Sharon Potter, AMIC/PKCB Contract Specialist Mr. J.J. Foster, AMIC/PKCB

Purpose

• To help communicate our requirement

• To help receive higher quality proposals

• Encourage candid communication

• Partnering to provide effective competition

Notional Project Milestones

Milestones Date Synopsize (Post Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Appendices/Small Business Capabilities Request)

29 Jul 2016

Industry Day / One-on-Ones 20 - 21 Sep 2016 Release Draft Solicitation Jan 2017 Final Solicitation Issued mid - Feb 2017 Pre-Proposal Conference / Site Visits late - Feb 2017 Past Performance Proposals Due 24 Mar 2017 Technical Proposals Due 31 Mar 2017 Contract Award Aug 2017 Transition (45 days allotted) 15 Nov – 31 Dec 2017 Performance Start NLT 1 Jan 18

PTR Program & Requirements Overview

Mr. Cecil Dean

ACC/A3AR

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• PTR Mission

• Customers

• Requirement

• O&M Support Structure

• Hours of Operation

• Provide unsurpassed operations & maintenance of ACC Primary Training Ranges; critical training resources that provide the world's best combat air forces with the ability to deliver rapid, decisive and sustainable airpower anytime and anywhere

MISSION

CUSTOMERS

• Primary:

• ACC Units

• AETC Units (Including FMS)

• Secondary Users:

• MAJCOMS

• Air National Guard/Air Guard Reserve

• Sister Services (USA,USN,USMC)

• Other DoD Agencies

• Other Federal Agencies

• Foreign Military

REQUIREMENT

• Contractor to provide personnel, vehicles, equipment, tools, materials and training to perform the operations, maintenance and support for the PTRs

• Personnel: i.e. electronic technicians, program manager, site managers, heavy equipment operators, and/or other skills the offerors propose to perform the service

• Vehicles/Equipment: i.e. graders, front end loaders, beach combers, trucks and/or other equipment the offerors propose

• Tools/Materials: specialized (i.e. for threat emitters and scoring systems) and standard tools the offerors will use to perform the service

• Training/Supervision: gaining/maintaining proficiency as electronic techs, equipment operators, and/or other skilled positions along with providing the adequate supervision of all encompassing areas of the PTRs to perform the service

REQUIREMENT

• Notional : Contractor to provide personnel, vehicles, equipment, tools, materials and training to perform Range Residue Removal (R3) services for the PTR Bombing and Gunnery ranges

Dare County Range, NC

Poinsett ECR, SC

Belle Fourche EWS, SD

Mountain Home Ranges, ID

Grand Bay Range, GA

Avon Park, FLHolloman Ranges, NM

ECR (1)

BOMB RANGE (5)

TOTAL: 9

Snyder EWS, TX

PTR CONTRACT O&M SUPPORT

STRUCTURE

Milky EWS, Guam (Under Consideration)

HOURS OF OPERATIONS

1. Does not include startup, shutdown, and maintenance action times.

2. Maintenance may be performed during hours of operation on a non-interference basis.

3. The number of operational hours/week are used during five consecutive work days; federal holidays that occur Mon– Thurs are considered as one of five consecutive days, hours contributed to a Mon–Thurs holiday are equal to hours of longest workday/wk; hours contributed to a Fri holiday should be consistent w/ historical Fri operating hours; weekend hours only used to support Ops Rqmts coordinated through ACC PM.

PRIMARY TRAINING RANGE

Hours of Operation

(IAW Flying Schedule) Notes 1,2,3 Avon Park 80 per week and 7 Large Force Exercises (see para 3.1.11)

Belle Fourche EWS 60 per week

Dare County 66 per week 30 per week MTE operations

Grand Bay B&G 77 per week

Holloman B&G 100 per week Range Operations Center 69 per week Range Control Officer operations

Mt Home B&G Ranges 60 per week at Saylor Creek & 132 annual weekend hours (22 days) 30 per week at Juniper Butte

Poinsett B&G 55 per week Poinsett EC 63 per week Snyder EWS 60 per week

Milky EWS (Guam) 30 per week (notional)

ADDITIONAL HOURS OF

OPERATIONS

1. Request hours will include routine startup, and shutdown procedures, but shall not include time for maintenance (emergency or routine).

PRIMARY TRAINING RANGE

Additional Hours of Operation (IAW Flying Schedule) Notes 1

Avon Park 50 Full Crew per year 150 RCO Only per year

Belle Fourche EWS 150 per year

Dare County 100 per year B&G operations 100 per year MTE operations

Grand Bay B&G 200 per year

Holloman B&G 100 per year Range Operations Center 50 per year Full Crew (no RCO) 100 per year Full Crew with RCO

Mt Home B&G Ranges 200 per year Poinsett B&G 150 per year Poinsett EC 150 per year Snyder EWS 100 per year

Milky EWS (Guam) 100 per year (notional)

Acquisition Overview

Sharon Potter Contracting Officer

ACC AMIC/PKCB

J.J. Foster Contract Specialist

ACC AMIC/PKCB

• Key Contractual Aspects

• Period of Performance

• Commerciality/Small Business Considerations

• Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit

• Solicitation (RFP)

• Source Selection Method

• Evaluation Process & Criteria Overview

• Security Clearance

• Bidders Library

Acquisition Overview

Key Contractual Aspects

• Solicitation Number: FA4890-17-R-0001

• Anticipated Contract Type:

• Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with Cost Reimbursable (CR) Line Items

• Draft Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure:

• Transition (FFP)

• Program Management (FFP)

• Operations at Various Locations: See Map on Slide 16 (FFP)

• Travel and Supplies (CR)

• Government Directed Overtime (CR)

• Collective Bargaining Agreements

• Current Contract has 7 Different CBAs

• Government Furnished Property/Equipment

• FAR Part 45

• DFARS Part 211 - Item Unique Identification (IUID) Registry

Anticipated Period of Performance

• Contract Award 14 Aug 17

• Transition 15 Nov 17 – 31 Dec 17

• Base Year 1 Jan 18 – 31 Dec 18

• Six One-Year Options 1 Jan 19 – 31 Dec 19

1 Jan 20 – 31 Dec 20 1 Jan 21 – 31 Dec 21 1 Jan 22 – 31 Dec 22 1 Jan 23 – 31 Dec 23 1 Jan 24 – 31 Dec 24

• Anticipate non-commercial acquisition

• FAR Part 15 applicable

• Small Business Set Aside Determination not yet established

• Small Business Set-Aside Questionnaire posted to FedBizOpps on 29 Jul 16

• Government is currently evaluating Industry’s responses

• Anticipated NAICS Code: 561210 – Facilities Support Services ($38.5M threshold)

Commerciality/Small Business Considerations

• Site Visit tentatively scheduled for Feb 2017 timeframe

• Locations:

• Poinsett EC, SC and

• Dare County Range, NC

• More information will be posted to FedBizOpps

Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit

Solicitation (RFP)

• Final solicitation tentatively scheduled to be posted to FedBizOpps in Feb 2017 timeframe

• Source Selection:

• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) using DoD

Source Selection and AFFARS MP 5315.3 Procedures

• Three Factors

• Technical

• Two Subfactors

• Program Management,

• Transition

• Past Performance

• Price/Cost

• Industry review and feedback encouraged

Source Selection Method

• FAR Part 2.101- Best Value

• The expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement

• FAR 15.101-2 - LPTA

• Appropriate when best value is expected from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with lowest evaluated price

• Solicitation shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

• Proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability but not ranked using non-cost/price factors

• Tradeoffs are not permitted

Specifics of LPTA

• Instructions to Offerors (Section L) – Instructions for submitting specific information required to evaluate against evaluation criteria

• Evaluation Factors (Section M) – Evaluation methodology and evaluation criteria of the solicitation

• Specify all requirements of acceptability

• No tradeoffs are permitted even if a proposal exceeds the minimum requirements

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

• Evaluation factors and subfactors shall be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated

• The evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors

• Subfactors shall be evaluated separately

***These factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance

Technical Evaluation

• Some of the aspects affecting an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements may include technical approach, key personnel and qualifications, facilities, etc.

• Rated at Subfactor level

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Evaluation Methodology Technical Evaluation Criteria

• Subfactor A - Program Management

• Aspect I - Management and Integration. Offeror’s proposed approach shall provide an effective organizational structure to successfully accomplish program requirements. Aspect is met when offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates:

• Proposed approach will result in successful program management execution and demonstrates complete technical understanding of requirement

• Proposed manning levels, skill mix, and labor categories are technically sufficient to successfully meet SOW requirements (includes manning matrix)

• Proposed procedures are adequate to attract, hire, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel

• Proposed key personnel and approach to maintain certifications and credentials are adequate to successfully execute SOW requirements

• Subfactor A - Program Management (cont)

• Aspect II - Quality Control. Offeror’s proposed approach provides quality controls to successfully accomplish program requirements. Aspect is met when offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

• Proposed integrated quality approach will result in effective planning, operation, and control of processes

• Proposed approach demonstrates top management commitment & involvement with continuous process improvement of quality program

• Proposed preventive-based monitoring, measurement and analysis, and metrics will ensure conformance to SOW and offerors’ Quality program, correction and prevention of recurring discrepancies, and continuous improvement of processes/performance

• Proposed procedures for testing and accepting threat and scoring systems assigned to a range, and approach for inspecting threat and scoring systems, as well as mission scoring and reporting are adequate to meet SOW requirements

• Subfactor A - Program Management (cont)

• Aspect III - Contractor Equipment. Offeror’s proposed approach provides sufficient vehicles to support program requirements.

Aspect is met when offeror’s proposal demonstrates proposed contractor-owned heavy equipment/vehicles are technically sufficient to successfully meet SOW requirements

• Subfactor B - Transition. Offeror’s proposed approach provides an executable transition plan to successfully accomplish program requirements. Subfactor is met when offeror’s proposal demonstrates

• Schedule is logical and will allow for timely transition by performance start; proposed approach will provide continuity of mission support and contract performance required to assume tasks and responsibilities for all components of the program at performance start: efficiently phase- in resources, and hire trained/qualified personnel meeting necessary security clearances

• Subfactor B (cont)

• Proposed approach will provide continuity of mission support and contract performance required to assume tasks and responsibilities for all components of program at performance start: efficiently phase- in resources, and hire trained/qualified personnel meeting necessary security clearances

• Hiring process, schedule and contingency plans are adequate to replace personnel during the transition period without disruption in service

• Approach to move property is adequate to meet SOW requirements at performance start

Technical Evaluation Rating Process

• Determine whether or not proposed approach meets technical requirements

• Review proposal against subfactor criteria in RFP to assess whether proposal

Meets Does Not Meet

• Document individual evaluation assessments Why proposal meets or does not meet

• Assign Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating to Subfactor Proposal must meet all subfactor (aspects) requirements to be rated

Acceptable

Any aspect rated Unacceptable will result in an overall Unacceptable rating at the sub-factor level

Extra credit is not given for proposal that exceeds the requirement

Evaluation Criteria

Past Performance Evaluation

• Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305

• Rated the Factor level

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below)

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Past Performance

• Offerors will be required to provide

• Maximum of 3 references for prime, teaming partner and/or joint vendor

• Maximum of 3 references for major or critical subcontractor(s)

• Assess recency, relevancy, and performance of offeror- provided references, as well as government-obtained information

• CPARs will be used to assess performance

• Questionnaires used for offerors without CPARs

Assess Recency of Each PPI Contract Obtained

Assess Relevancy for Each Recent Contract

Review Performance Quality for Each Recent And Relevant Contract

Assign offeror’s PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

• Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the three (3) years preceding the solicitation issuance date

• For each past performance citation that meets the recency definition, the relevancy of the work performed of each will be assessed as follows

RATING DEFINITION

Relevant

PPI meets one or more of the following criteria:

- Managed the operations of a DoD training range contract;

- Performed operations & maintenance on bombing and gunnery training / scoring systems;

- Performed operations and maintenance on electronic combat training systems;

- Managed & performed infrastructure maintenance on a DoD training range

Not Relevant PPI does not meet one or more of the above criteria

Price Evaluation

• 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 gov’t expressed requirement;

Award made to offeror whose proposals represents best value/LPTA;

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

Security Clearance

• The highest level of security clearance required for the PTR contract performance is Secret

• Security clearances will be required at the time of transition for contract performance at all ranges

• DD Form 254 will be included as part of the RFP

Bidders Library

• Bidders Library Access

• All required material located in Bidders Library located at

Snyder EWS, TX

• Details regarding access to Bidders Library will be published on FedBizOps

We Want to Hear From You…

• Suggestions on how to improve requirements or SOW

• Input for commerciality versus non-commerciality requirement

• Suggestions on how to define relevant past performance work

• Input regarding sufficient proposal preparation time

(i.e., 30 days, 45 days, etc.)

• Input regarding length of transition

• Input regarding workload data required that is not currently posted to FedBizOps

One-on-One Information

• Location

• 20 Sep 2016 – Creech Center, 2nd Floor Conference Room

• 21 Sep 2016 – 130 Andrews St (Bldg 703) Langley AFB

• The Government encourages Industry questions

• Verbal dialog between Government and Industry, both during today’s open forum & one-on-one appointments, is unofficial

• Official responses to questions requires Industry submittal of questions to the Government on the blue/yellow question sheets

• Government will post official responses to all Industry questions on FBO

• Proprietary information will not be published if clearly marked as such by Industry

Points of Contact

• ACC AMIC/PKCB

• All communications from potential offerors shall be sent to

• Organizational inbox E-mail:

• ACCAMIC.PKC.PTRRecompete2016@us.af.mil

• Contracting Officer: Ms. Sharon Potter

• E-mail: : sharon.potter@us.af.mil764-9380

• Contract Manager: Mr. J.J. Foster

• E-mail: john.foster.23@us.af.mil ort(7) 764-0657

• Internet Home Page Addresses

• www.fbo.gov (Reference No. FA4890-17-R-0001)

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

PLEASE TURN IN ALL WRITTEN QUESTIONS

BREAK

Q&A Session

Closing Remarks

PLEASE TURN IN ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS