Pre-RFP_Conference_-_CAF_CAS__slides.pdf

This Briefing is Classified:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

CAF Contracted Air Support (CAS) Pre-Request for Proposal (RFP)

Conference

ACC AMIC

7 June 2018

Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final RFP is released at any time.

Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

• Project Update

• Acquisition Schedule Update

• IDIQ vs. TO Distinction

• Explanation of the Source Selection Process

• Evaluation Methodology

• RFP Section L: General Proposal Preparation Instructions

• RFP Section M: General Evaluation Factors for Award

• General Requirements Discussion

• Volume 1 – Technical

• Volume 2 – Price

• Volume 3 – Small Business Subcontracting

• What We Need From You

Goal: Help Industry provide the Gov’t the best proposal possible to reduce overall source selection timeline

Topics of Discussion

• Merged requirements

• Contracted Close Air Support (CCAS) and Adversary Air (ADAIR)

• Categories of support established, increases flexibility of contract vehicle

• Appendix I, Aircraft Attributes performance requirements updated to include requirements for CCAS

• CAT A-C: Changes to “definitions”

• CAT D = Lower capability CCAS

• CAT E = Higher capability CCAS (essentially ADAIR CAT A w/ different avionics)

• CCAS OL laydown still in development; IDIQ unaffected

• Acquisition Plan in higher-level review for approval

• Started Business Clearance process to gain approval to release the solicitation for bid

Remember, FINAL RFP will provide specific requirements you have to bid on

Project Update

Milestone Date Business Clearance 5 Jul 18 Peer Review 16-18 Jul 18 RFP Release 27 Jul 18 Proposals Due 28 Aug 18 Initial Evaluation Briefing 8 Nov 18 Contract Clearance (Request FPR) 1 Mar 19 Peer Review (Request FPR) 18-20 Mar 19 Evaluations of FPR complete 10 Apr 19 Legal Review 23 Apr 19 Contract Clearance (Award) 6 Jun 19 SSA Brief 12 Jun 19 Peer Review (Award) 26-28 Jun 19 1279 Notification 3 Jul 19 IDIQ Contract Award 10 Jul 19

Acquisition Schedule Update

Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) vs.

Task Order (TO)

Understanding the IDIQ MAC

• MAC IDIQ Represents a Partnership between Gov’t and

Industry

• Gov’t needs industry to help balance “quality” versus “quantity”

• Industry needs Gov’t to help ensure work is available to reduce investor risk

• Gov’t has responsibility to ensure competition

• Gov’t has vested interest in keeping viable companies employed, but can’t “guarantee” work at IDIQ

• Work is defined via fixed FHP at the TO-level

• Final OL Laydown may ultimately need to be revised

• Some TO adjustments of technical requirements may also result post-

IDIQ award

• OL Laydown and Appendix I are starting point

Understanding IDIQ vs TO

• IDIQ = Gateway for follow-on competition

• Screening mechanism to reduce Gov’t risk

• Streamlines TO source selections

• “Macro” focused; viewed against best Category, assuming weaknesses are sufficiently addressed through discussions

• Replace all “OL workload” with Section L, Table L-1 in the proposal

• Appendix I still applies for technical solution required baseline; source selection team’s subjective best value consideration involves the proposed technical solution’s ability to create effects and their applicability to various OL requirements.

• TO = Actual Performance required

• IDIQ proposals inform TO proposals

• Insert Appendix I (FOPR) workload data

• Technical solution will be assessed against published effects matrix

(released via FOPR)

• Pricing adjustments based on workload specifics

Understanding IDIQ vs TO

• IDIQ will require some “work”

• Program management for CDRLs (See Appendix B)

• Invoiced by AADP (CDRL 2) to simplify as part of minimum award

• Work needed to establish services that are OL-agnostic and allow for better Contractor/USAF integration across the enterprise

• Security is a major issue

• USAF has never done this before, but is supportive and standing-by

• Problem – DD-254 and FCL requirements are not known upfront

• Requires direct Contractor-to-security agency engagement on:

Contractor technologies, security processes, workforce, maintenance practices, supported USAF programs

• CDRL 15 (Security Plan) is this starting point

• May drive contract mod and increased security requirements at TO-level at some point

• IDIQ TO #1 provides the mechanism to support SECRET FCL

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

Purpose of Source Selection

• To select the Offerors

• Whose proposal meets the requirements and provides the “best value”…greatest overall benefit to the Gov’t in relation of solicitation requirements…

• That are most likely to perform

• That are best able to handle problems that might occur during contract performance

• That provide the most realistic plan for contract performance

Bottom Line: Contract failure puts USAF operations at risk due to linkage to 11F production, CAF absorption, and readiness (RAP/RJP)

Source Selection Authority

Source Selection Advisory Council

Source Selection Evaluation Board

Technical Team Price Team Small Business Team

Advisors PCO

Advisors

Source Selection Team (SST)

SST Roles & Responsibilities

• Source Selection Authority (SSA)

• Make award decision

• Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)

• Act as advisors to SSA and Evaluation Board

• Conduct Comparative Analysis of Offerors

• Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chair

• Facilitates source selection and oversees SSEB members

• Documents and consolidates evaluation results into required deliverables

• Contracting Officer (CO)

• Works with SSEB Chair to ensure evaluation is consistent with RFP

• Controls exchanges with Offerors

• Serves as single point of contact for all Offeror inquiries

Award Without Discussions

• Legal Review

• Clearance Approval

• Debriefings

Final Evaluation Activities •Evaluate Final Proposal Revision (FPR) •Prepare SSEB Final Report •Prepare Comparative Analysis & Recommendation •Prepare Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) •Prepare & Conduct Decision Briefing •Select Source

Pre-Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Evaluation Activities

•Notifications •Provide Interim Ratings •Conduct Discussions •Prepare updated SSEB Initial Report •Prepare & Conduct Pre-FPR Briefing •Request FPR

Initial Evaluation Activities •Receive & Review Proposals •Conduct Evaluations •Consolidate & Rate Evaluations •Develop Evaluation Notices (ENs) •Prepare SSEB Initial Report •Prepare & Conduct Initial Evaluation Briefing (IEB)

Establish Competitive Range

Award & Debriefings •Notifications & Contract Award •Conduct Post-Award Debriefings

OR

SS Process Overview

Initial Evaluation Activities

• Based on initial evaluation results, the CO, with SSEB

Chairperson / SSAC input, will recommend at the Initial Evaluation Brief (IEB) to the SSA to either:

• Award Without Discussions (AWOD), OR

• Establish Competitive Range (CR) and enter into Discussions

• Competitive Range is comprised of the most highly rated proposals that meet all of the evaluation criteria

• Each proposal must be rated against all evaluation criteria

• May recommend elimination of one or more Offerors

• IAW RFP L-7.1, if the Offeror does NOT meet the prerequisite, the team will NOT evaluate their proposal

Interim Evaluation Activities

• Release initial ratings

• CO shall provide Offerors all of their own initial ratings and results of initial price analysis

• May use brief presented to the SSA

• Release Evaluation Notices (ENs)

• Conduct face-to-face meeting / telecom with each Offeror to ensure ENs are understood before Offeror responds

• If Oral discussions / presentations are conducted, instructions will be provided in EN Letters

• Receive and evaluate EN responses

• Multiple rounds may be required before making determination to close discussions

• Resolved all issues

• Recommending further Offeror elimination

• Have to be able to document meaningful discussions were conducted (i.e., multiple chances given to Offeror to respond and update)

Evaluation Notices

• Tool to conduct exchanges with Offerors for purposes of

Clarifications, Communications, or Discussions (see next chart)

• All exchanges you receive from the Gov’t will:

• Identify the type of exchange

• Clearly classify ENs that result from deficiencies

• Be specific to individual concerns; we will not:

• Write a single EN for multiple topics

• Cross subfactors

• Be prepared by SSEB for review by CO and Legal

*Clarifications and communications do NOT allow for proposal revisions ** ENs are used to document exchanges

Clarifications* As needed with Award Without

Discussions

(AWOD)

• Minor or clerical errors

Negotiations/ Discussions**

• Conducted w/Offerors in

CR

• Discuss deficiencies, weaknesses, etc.

• Discuss other issues of compliance with RFP requirements (i.e., Reps and Certs)

Communications* To determine

Competitive Range (CR) May be held

• If Inclusion or exclusion of

Offeror in CR is uncertain

• To enhance Government understanding of proposal

• To address ambiguities, perceived weaknesses, omissions, mistakes, etc.

Types of Exchanges

ENs and Proposal Updates

• EN responses can also substitute for actual Proposal

Change Pages when information affected will not specifically be part of contract, OR

• Request Offerors provide electronic Proposal Change Pages along with their EN responses for anything that will be incorporated into the contract

• During EN exchanges, continually update your proposals so evaluators always have up-to-date proposals

• Minimizes effort for both Offerors and Gov’t when addressing Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

• Ensures no surprises after Discussions close

Interim Evaluation Activities, cont.

• After Discussions close, SSEB conducts Pre-Final Proposal

Revision Brief (Pre-FPRB) with the SSA

• Further competitive range eliminations may occur

• CO request Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from Offerors in competitive range

• CO obtains legal review and contract clearance prior to briefing the

SSA

• Peer Review conducted after clearance is received

Final Evaluation Activities

• SSEB evaluates the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) submissions and conducts Source Selection Decision Brief (SSDB) with the SSA containing the award recommendation

• Team makes sure there are no proposal revisions that result in new deficiencies and weaknesses

• CO determines price reasonableness, balance, realism

• CO obtains legal review and contract clearance prior to briefing the

SSA

• Peer Review conducted after clearance received

• Award notification letter(s) issued to successful Offerors

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Evaluation Factors

• Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors:

1. Technical (Combined Technical Capability & Risk)

2. Price

3. Small Business Participation

• Order of importance:

• Technical is most important and is significantly more important than

Price

• Small Business Participation is less important than Price and will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”

• The greater the equality of Technical proposals, the more important

Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Gov’t

Evaluation Methodology Factor 1 – Technical

• Technical Subfactors

• Subfactor A: Human Resources

• Aspect I: Recruitment/Retention

• Aspect II: Pilot Training/Qualifications

• Aspect III: Pilot Currency

• Subfactor B: Aircraft Sustainment

• Aspect I: Logistics Plan

• Aspect II: Extended Support Structure

• Subfactor C: Aircraft Availability

• Subfactor D: Aircraft Enhancements

• Technical subfactors A and B are of equal importance;

technical subfactors C and D are equal in importance and are significantly more important than subfactors A and B

Combined Technical & Risk

• Proposals will be measured against Section M criteria at the

Subfactor and/or Aspect level, as applicable, and includes consideration of the following:

• Meets: Explanation of how the proposal meets the requirement

• Strength: Aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

• Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

• Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Technical / Risk Ratings

Table 2B. Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

DoD Source Selection Procedures

Technical Risk Descriptions

Terms Evaluation Write-up Descriptions

Strength Aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness Flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness Flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

In Tradeoff, Looking for This…

Factor 2 – Price

• Offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award

• Basis of determination is Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by Category

• Consists of the total proposed price for all firm fixed price basic contract period plus all option periods, for each CLIN

• Reasonableness determined by adequate price competition (2 or more independent proposals)

Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

• 5% Small Business sub-contracting goal – large businesses only

• Rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”

• No trade-off for this factor

Table 6. Small Business Rating Method Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Contract Considerations

• Determined Responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1

• Compliance with all terms and conditions of RFP

• Completeness of Representations & Certifications

• Not on Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)

• No issues identified in the Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

DEBRIEFINGS

Debriefings

• Gov’t will conduct with Offerors who make written requests

• Offeror can request competitive range elimination debriefing or award decision debriefing

• Explain rationale for Gov’t decision

• Elimination from competitive range

• Offeror was successful or unsuccessful

• Instill confidence that Offeror was treated fairly

• Assure Offeror that proposals were evaluated IAW RFP, laws, and regulations

• Identify proposal short-comings so Offeror can better prepare in future

• Both content and administrative issues

• Reduce misunderstandings and protests

• Provide opportunity for feedback

What Will Be Debriefed

• Pre-Award conducted IAW FAR 15.505

• At a minimum shall include

• Agency's evaluation of significant elements in the offeror's proposal

• Summary of rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition

• Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed

• Post Award conducted IAW FAR 15.506

• At a minimum shall include

• Government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal

• Overall evaluated price (including unit prices), and technical rating, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror

• Summary of the rationale for award

• Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures were followed

RFP SECTION L: GENERAL

PROPOSAL PREPARATION

INSTRUCTIONS

A Note on “Risk”

• “Risk” is referred to often in this document and it’s important to understand the context

• Contractor Risk Assessment

• Offeror-identified risk to proposed operations

• Risk Methodology is not dictated

• Should link to QMS post-award

• Gov’t Risk Assessment

• Used to drive the PWS and Source Selection requirements

• Discussed here for context/intent, not part of the actual proposal

• Enhances Offeror understanding of RFP

• Technical Risk Assessment

• Combined with Technical evaluation during source selection

• Translates to weaknesses / deficiencies in proposal that increase programmatic risk to the government

Proposal Format

• Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements to be eligible for award

• The Gov’t may incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to the solicitation (Appendix J)

• A complete proposal consists of three separate Volumes:

• Volume 1 – Technical

• Volume 2 – Price

• Volume 3 – Small Business Participation (applies only to Large

Businesses)

• Electronic copies for each Volume shall be submitted via AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE)

• Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

• Volume 1 – Technical

• Hard copies = Original +1

• Page limit = 65*

• Volume 2 – Price

• Hard copies = Original +1

• Page limit = None

• Volume 3 – Small Business Participation (applies only to Large Businesses)

• Hard copies = Original +1

• Page limit = None

* Note: Page limit applies to the total Technical Volume regardless of number of Categories proposed

• Offerors shall not cross-reference between Volumes

• Ensure each Volume is written on a stand-alone basis so evaluators have all information needed to evaluate properly

• If information is not found in the applicable Volume, it will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal

• Pages not included in page count:

• Acronym list

• Cross-reference Matrix

• Covers for Volumes

• Tables of Contents

• Indices

• Title Pages

• Section Dividers/Tables

• Marked “This Page Intentionally Left Blank”

• Engineering Feasibility Assessments

• Gov’t reserves the right to award without discussions

• Taking exception to any solicitation requirements may result in a non-responsive finding

• Offerors have 10 calendar days after final RFP release to submit questions/recommendations for clarification

• If you still find it necessary to take exception to any

RFP requirements:

• Clearly identify the Volume/Section

• Explain why you take exception

• Resulting benefit to the Gov’t

• May require an amendment to the RFP

• Absence of stated exception will be considered as no exception, and your proposal will be evaluated as submitted

Exceptions

• Solicitation is 100% UNCLASSIFIED

• DO NOT:

• Provide classified data on contractor-owned systems

• Make classified comparisons with USAF-owned MDS (e.g., “our system X is comparable to the F-16 system X”)

• Directly compare your proposed capabilities against USAF MDS (e.g., “we can radar detect an F-15C at XX NM; or, at XX NM our IRST can track F- 15C’s in Max but can’t detect it in Mil until XX NM”)

• DO:

• Correlate your proposed systems to Appx I requirements using established units of measure

• Support your proposed systems performance with open-source or

UNCLASSIFIED OEM data

• Follow-on TO evaluations will also be unclassified, but may include classified Offeror addendums to address any disconnects.

Classified data not needed at IDIQ

Proposal Classification

• DO:

• Speak directly to the solicitation requirements

• Make comparisons to OL locations where it affects your approach; provide multiple approaches if needed to support performance based on known/ expected OL differences

• Support each subfactor via matrix in L-7.4 (see Section L slides)

• Provide as much relevant technical data as possible

• Use graphics/pictures sparingly and only to support the proposal

• DO NOT:

• Waste space comparing your company to a competitor

• Present past performance data; or indicate what performance/requirements was acceptable to the Gov’t in past solicitations

• Provide OL site-specific approaches

• Identify/correlate proposal language directly to subfactors (i.e., don’t say “we meet Subfactor A by X, Y, and Z...”)

• Fill the proposal with “fluff” or high volumes of pictures

Proposal DOs and DON’Ts

RFP SECTION M: GENERAL

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR

AWARD

Basis for Contract Award

• Source Selection Type: Subjective Tradeoff within each

Category

• Contract Type: Multiple-Award IDIQ

• Estimated target of seven (7) IDIQ awards

• At least two awards per category of performance

• Anticipate at least three (3) awards going to Small Business

• Gov’t reserves the right to award more/fewer contracts if SSA determines in the best interest of the Gov’t

• NAICS Code: 611512 – Flight Training

• SB size standard of $27.5M

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

DISCUSSION

Understanding the PWS

• QMS linkage to FOPS/GOPS and DCMA

• QMS is your “entire program,” includes FOPs/GOPs and all things required by FAR and DCMA

• Integrated with internal risk assessment and ideally expands upon Contractor ID’d risk in proposal

• FOPS/GOPS (Section A, 3.3 and 3.4) are those DCMA items the Gov’t cares to directly control/regulate

• Pilot training, currency, proficiency, stan/eval, on-base Mx integration…etc.

• Other DCMA-pertinent items typically contained in DCMA, but less pertinent to COCO operations, may exist under the QMS but external to the FOPS/GOPS

• Off-base munitions control, flight supervision/management functions, IP/SEFE programs, weather categories (DCMA-driven)

• FAR-pertinent items common with any services contract also under the QMS

• Environmental Protection Plans/ESOH (FAR-driven) 46

• Section A – DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

• Para 1-2: Program Management, Regulatory Compliance, Oversight, O&M – What is being bought

• Para 3: FOPS, GOPS, QMS – How it should be run

• Think: “What the Gov’t is buying”

• Section B – SERVICE SUMMARY

• Service Summary, QASP, Measurements, QA and Risk (Gov’t)

• Think: “How you will be monitored/measured”

• Section C – GFP & GFS

• Common items in PWS, OL specifics in Appendix D&E

• On-base = limited (space only), Off-base – essentially N/A

• Think: “Be self-sufficient”

• Section D – CONTRACTOR INTEGRATION

• Security, Base Integration, FAR requirements

• Think: “Actions needed to integrate and support operations”

• Section E – GENERAL INFORMATION

• Phase-In/Out, TDY, Personnel requirements, Dos & Don’ts

• Think: “Setting up, maintaining, and tearing down operations”

• Section F – OL and TEMPORARY SUPPORT

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

• Think: “TO Specifics”

• For the IDIQ – Section L, Table L-1 is your “Section F”

• Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

• Stand-alone deliverables (documents) needed at GPO-level

• Some IDIQ, some at TO, reference Appendix B Matrix

• Some too large and reference back to the PWS (EPP, ESOH)

• There WILL be other deliverables as a result of task order integration, to be addressed during phase-in and not in CDRL format

• CDRL 15 – Security Plan

• Will be an iterative process with ACC/A8Z and others

• May drive increased security requirements (DD-254) post-IDIQ award

• Contract Mod will be issued as needed

• CDRL 13/14 – Technology Validation Plan/Report

• Contractor-managed, Gov’t-approved via third party

• Provides confidence in Offeror proposed technology upgrades

• May provide needed inputs into USAF system’s management needed to integrate Contractor threat replication

• Does not need to mirror a USAF testing plan, but should provide some similar degree of confidence

• Must be shareable throughout Gov’t agencies

• May be integrated with, and should support, when appropriate, the

Airworthiness Process

• Task Order 1 = IDIQ Performance

• Same as Master PWS for all OLs, with additional Section A language

• Make Ready 12 (ADAIR) or 8 (CCAS) aircraft for competition

• Program management needed for CDRL development/submission

• Appendix A, F, H, K, O – Reserved (Ignore)

• Appendix N – Contractor Evaluations (Blue 1 or JTAC Lead)

• Mission Effectiveness is culmination of everything

• No direct grading of front lines completion

• Relates directly to Gov’t logging RAP, Syllabus, or RJP counters

• Contains subjective elements due to integration with Gov’t

• Does not prevent CARs/Notices for sub-elements of performance

• CARs/Notices will depend largely on trend analysis of how much

Gov’t “flexing” is required to achieve mission success

• Forcing mechanism for Gov’t/Contractor “partnership”

• May require modification/updates after enterprise fields

• Appendix I

• Row 3 = What Gov’t is trying to affordably contract

• Required/Desired cut lines = price value estimation by venue/Cat

• Cape exchanges are “possible paths” to achieve similar effect, and

• Intended to preserve industry investments in current technologies

• Intended to reduce overall price increases for tech advances

• Are possible way to “get more” at same/similar price-points

• CCAS – less focus on tech development, more on performance

• Gov’t can’t determine true “minimum” technology thresholds, requires innovative solutions from industry

• “Best Meets” = Offerors that come closest to or exceed Row 3, OR provide additional desired capes to warrant reduction in required capes

• “Best Value” = Created when proposals are:

• Found at least Acceptable in all subfactors, AND affordable

• Appendix I (Cont)

• IOC = fly front lines at Offeror-proposed initial tech levels

• FOC = fly front lines at final contracted tech levels

• Performance start (IOC) is Offeror-proposed, within 12 months

• Milestones are Gov’t “targeted,” ultimately Offeror-proposed

• Timeliness vs IOC/FOC capabilities weighted by venue in FOPRs

• Passive/Active/Performance subjective information (not evaluated)

• Bottom Line = propose force packages that provide variety of required/desired capabilities at cost-effective price points

• Appendix J

• Will contain Offeror-proposed data that includes “best value” proposals against Appx I

• Appx I represents baseline, Appx J represents final solution contracted

• Appx J is binding at award, Appx I is not

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

Prerequisite

• Prerequisite – If the Offeror does not meet the prerequisite in M-3.2.1, the Gov’t will not further evaluate the proposal

• In order to be eligible for award, each Offeror must provide information on all aircraft being proposed, which includes the numbers, types, and the source of the aircraft

• For aircraft not currently in an Offeror’s possession, the following information must be provided:

• An approved (signed) purchase or lease agreement; with Interim or Final TPT from Dept of State or ATF approval; and

• An airworthiness certificate, or equivalent, from any US Federal agency or partner nation recognized by the USAF TAA indicating prior success in executing an airworthiness certification process

• Prerequisite responses will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis

• Proposals that do not pass prerequisite will be rendered

“Unacceptable” and will not be evaluated further

General Information

• Submit a single Technical Volume which includes all proposed aircraft Categories per the PWS and App I

• What to do:

• Clearly delineate aircraft Category types to identify whether you are proposing to the ADAIR or CCAS mission set, or both

• If utilizing a single aircraft type to fill both mission sets, reference as separate Categories

• Include sufficient detail to substantiate stated offer

• Avoid statements paraphrasing PWS or parts thereof

• Avoid using generic statements (i.e., “standard procedures will be employed”)

• Provide your risk rating for each risk area, w/ justification and mitigation approach

• Do not submit any pricing data in the Technical Volume

Volume 1 – Technical

• Technical Subfactors

• Subfactor A: Human Resources

• Aspect I: Recruitment/Retention

• Aspect II: Pilot Training/Qualifications

• Aspect III: Pilot Currency

• Subfactor B: Aircraft Sustainment

• Aspect I: Logistics Plan

• Aspect II: Extended Support Structure

• Subfactor C: Aircraft Availability

• Subfactor D: Aircraft Enhancements

• Technical subfactors A and B are of equal importance;

technical subfactors C and D are equal in importance and are significantly more important than subfactors A and B

Cross-Reference Matrix

• Submit a cross-reference matrix with your Technical

Volume, as shown below:

Factor Subfactor Aspect Reference* Section L Section M Proposal Paragraph

Technical A - Human Resources

I - Recruitment/ Retention

PWS Section A, para(s) 2.2.3, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.2.20, 3.3.3;

Section D, para(s) 1.0, 1.8;

Section E, para(s) 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6.1

L-7.10.1.1 M- 3.2.4.1.1

Technical A - Human Resources

II - Pilot Training/ Qualifications

PWS Section A, para(s) 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7

L-7.10.1.2 M- 3.2.4.1.2

Technical A - Human Resources III - Pilot Currency PWS Section A, para 3.3.5 L-7.10.1.3 M- 3.2.4.1.3

Engineering Assessment

• Submit an Engineering Feasibility Assessment for each proposed enhancement on each proposed aircraft

• Must be signed/certified by a lead program engineer employed by the intended prime or Subcontractor performing the aircraft enhancements

• Engineering feasibility assessments must adhere to Section L, Attachment 3

• Limited to one page per assessment

• You may submit as many assessments as required in order to validate your proposed enhancement plan

Requirements

• Submit your approach, by aircraft Category, to meet specific flying requirements identified Section L:

CAT MISSION Annual Sorties*

Typical Turn Pattern

Max Turn Pattern

SURGE

Turn Pattern ASD*

Annual

ON RANGE

Hours*

A ADAIR 1400 4 T 4 6 T 6 4 T 4 T 4 1.3 N/A

B ADAIR 2800 6 T 6 8 T 8 6 T 6 T 6 1.4 N/A

C ADAIR 3000 8 T 8 10 T 10 8 T 8 T 8 1.3 N/A

D CCAS 960 2 T 2 2 T 2 N/A N/A 1440

E CCAS 480 2 T 0 2 T 2 N/A N/A 720

Performance Start

• Base-year performance start = commencement of aviation operations at the full contracted turn-pattern per OL – Linked to IOC Condition in Appendix I

• Sortie timelines will be finalized at task order award at each OL

• Delayed Performance Start Date (DPSD) may be proposed

• Must reflect operations within 12 calendar months following IDIQ award

• Designed to accommodate aircraft importation and / or enhancements

Subfactors and Gov’t Risk

• RFP based on Gov’t risk analysis; addresses risk areas to the Gov’t

• Subfactor A – Human Resources

• Ability to adequately hire, train, and retain pilots safely

• Subfactor B – Aircraft Sustainment

• Ability of contract mx to sustain required ops tempos required

• Subfactor C – Aircraft Availability

• Ability of industry to sustain operations (required front lines) while concurrently acquiring additional airframes and airworthiness

• Subfactor D – Aircraft Enhancements

• Ability of industry to sustain operations (required front lines) while concurrently acquiring additional airframes and upgrading current/acquired systems avionics without a break in front-lines

• Subfactors B, C, and D are intrinsically linked

Understanding Subfactors

• Subfactor A – Human Resources. Provide your human resources approach that explains the processes that will be used to ensure sufficient and qualified personnel are staffed to meet requirements of the PWS. At a minimum include:

• Aspect I: Recruitment/Retention. Provide a comprehensive plan that describes your approach to recruit and retain qualified personnel.

• Show ability to hire given pilot shortage & competition with DoD and airlines

• Aspect II: Pilot Training/Qualifications. Provide a comprehensive plan that describes your airframe conversion training program to ensure pilot competency and safe operations.

• Show adequate “downstream” training, pre-performance

• Aspect III: Pilot Currency. Provide a comprehensive plan that describes your approach to maintain pilot currency, by aircraft.

• Show your approach, (i.e. heavy part time employment, x-train pilots, etc) will not create currency/proficiency issues

• Subfactor B – Aircraft Sustainment. Provide a comprehensive plan that describes your approach to effectively and efficiently source and acquire aircraft parts/components and accessories, support equipment, supplies, and services required to sustain aircraft configuration and availability, per the PWS.

• Aspect I: Logistics Plan. Provide a comprehensive plan that describes your approach to effectively and efficiently source and acquire aircraft parts/components and accessories, support equipment, supplies, and services required to sustain aircraft configuration and availability, per the PWS.

• Show reliance on foreign aircraft suppliers or western OEM producers and how those requirements are supportable and won’t impact timelines and sustainability

• Subfactor B – Aircraft Sustainment. Provide a comprehensive plan that describes your approach to effectively and efficiently source and acquire aircraft parts/components and accessories, support equipment, supplies, and services required to sustain aircraft configuration and availability, per the PWS.

• Aspect II: Extended Support Structure. Provide your comprehensive support structure (i.e., in-house capability, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), outsourcing, or some combination thereof) to ensure effective and efficient aircraft sustainment operations. Explain support structure functional relationships, roles, responsibilities, and processes that will effectively execute the PWS requirements.

• Show how reliance on Subcontractors and suppliers for aircraft technology development and aircraft sustainment, even when not controlled by the prime, won’t impact operations

• Subfactor C – Aircraft Availability

• Provide an approach to ensure sufficient aircraft availability to support required turn-patterns, with required Airworthiness Certification, and detail the aircraft capabilities to meet PWS requirements.

• Show an ability to meet front lines with IOC including AW; and how post-start upgrades will be integrated with AW

• Present aircraft force mixtures to meet flying hour requirements in the PWS and Appendix I.

• Show that the front-lines meet Table L-1 (IDIQ) FHP -- (Appendix I

FHP at Task Order Level)

• Subfactor C – Aircraft Availability (cont)

• Provide an approach that permits performance start on initial OLs using existing airframes after the prescribed transition period; or, provide an approach that permits performance start on initial OLs using airframes following an importation or enhancement period not to exceed 12 months from IDIQ award.

• Show that performance begins immediately at required front lines; or support how up to a 12 month delay is of Gov’t value for tech increases

• Integrate aircraft availability with proposed enhancement timelines presented under Subfactor D to prevent or reduce any break in contract performance.

• Show an ability to keep flying while upgrading to FOC without a reduction in front lines

• Subfactor D – Aircraft Enhancements

• Provide a comprehensive plan that details any planned aircraft avionics enhancements required to best meet targeted Category PWS requirements identified in Appendix I, or stipulate within your proposal if you do not plan to provide any aircraft avionics enhancements.

• Show the ability to provide technical upgrades to existing systems sufficient to increase overall capabilities desired in a timely manner (to meet Appendix I targeted milestone)

• Present aircraft enhancements to best meet or exceed PWS requirements in Appendix I.

• Show the ability to provide technical upgrades to existing systems sufficient to increase overall capabilities needed to create tactical effects (to meet Appendix I and later Effects Matrix)

• Subfactor D – Aircraft Enhancements (cont)

• At a minimum, include a description of the aircraft avionics enhancements, to include specific capabilities with sufficient details applicable for each avionics, such as but not limited to:

• ADAIR: Active detection range against RCS; Software types; Passive detection against single-engine or multi-engine platforms & power settings; Avionics integration; Active and passive track capabilities;

Fields of regard; Utilized waveforms; Power outputs; Modes of operations, such as track while scan, and dual target track; Electronic countermeasures techniques such as digital radio frequency memory, range gate pull off, and noise barrage, ECM and avionics integration and methods

• Provide sufficient technical data to support a best-value decision; think

“what technical questions would you ask if you saw a proposal?...if you can think of it, include it!” The more data provided reduces discussions needed and timeline involved!

• At a minimum, include a description of the aircraft avionics enhancements, to include specific capabilities with sufficient details applicable for each avionics, such as but not limited to:

• CCAS: Targeting pod spectrum; Modes and lasing/track capabilities;

Digital messaging type/capabilities; Video downlink encryption type and interoperability; Voice communication waveforms and jam resistance;

etc.

• Provide sufficient technical data to support a best-value decision; think

“what technical questions would you ask if you saw a proposal?...if you can think of it, include it!” The more data provided reduces discussions needed and timeline involved!

• Provide details of proposed aircraft avionics enhancements timelines such as, but not limited to: logistics (supplies) deliveries, prime or third party (e.g. – Subcontractor) installations; required testing; and aircraft avionics enhancement delivery to reach full operational capability that best meets targeted milestones indicated in Appendix I.

• Provide sufficient details that support that the technical solution is logistically viable to meet the proposed timeline

• Integrate this enhancement timeline with proposed performance start date (or mobilization period) presented under Subfactor C to prevent or reduce any break in contract performance.

• Provide sufficient details that support that the technical solution is logistically viable without interrupting front-lines at the OL

• Provide appropriate engineering feasibility assessments of enhancements to substantiate the proposal.

• Provide the engineering support by third parties to indicate sufficient pre-proposal technical reviews have occurred that it’s supportable by Subcontractors. These assessments will be utilized as a verification of your proposed enhancements

VOLUME 2 – PRICE

Understanding Pricing Worksheet

• Read the full instructions!

• Only fill-in the highlighted areas

• Only fill-in the CLINs proposed (leave rest blank)

• Pricing narrative – provide details of your pricing to support both the back-up data and the proposed price

• Pricing narrative and back-up data may be used to inform

“best-value” discussions on Appendix I approaches

• Pricing based on notional workload data in Table L-1, NOT actual OL workload as shown in Appendix I

• The IDIQ does not establish ceiling rates; however, pricing established at the IDIQ level will inform OL laydown and may be considered for price analysis/evaluation at TO-level

Understanding Pricing Worksheet

• Price only CLINS 0001-0005 (base period) and 1001-1005

(option periods)

• Single price for capability, regardless of # of types of aircraft

• Location-agnostic

• Categories

• ADAIR – Sorties (unit of need for the CAF)

• Contractor factor in attrition and planned/proposed aircraft

• Utilize contractor provided maintenance attrition factors

• CCAS – Range Hours (unit of need for the CAF)

• Contractor factor in attrition and planned/proposed aircraft

• Utilize contractor provided maintenance attrition factors

• Support pricing with CLIN Backup Data

• Pricing worksheet forces an averaged approach

• Explain differences in the pricing narrative

Price Evaluation Steps

• Coordinate with Technical team

• Ensure pricing represents a full understanding of the requirements

• Is price proposal consistent with proposed technical solution?

• Compare proposed prices received

• Does not include non-responsible Offerors

• For wide disparities in offers, consider comparability

• Similarity of products/technical approaches

• Geographical differences

• Terms and conditions

• May compare proposed prices to Gov’t Estimate

• Expect Adequate Price Competition

• What is basis of estimate and what assumptions were made?

• Analyze variances in total price and established market baselines

Price Evaluation

• A fair and reasonable price determination is an assessment by the Gov’t that an Offeror's proposed price can be considered “fair and reasonable” on the basis of applying one or more price analysis techniques

• Adequate price competition normally establishes a fair and reasonable price

• Comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis when contracting on a firm-fixed-price basis

• The Gov’t may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price

Price Evaluation

• Price reasonableness – is the price too high?

• Price must represent what a prudent buyer would pay in a competitive marketplace

• Reasonableness is normally determined by adequate competition

• Address during final SSA Brief and Final SSEB Report

• Price realism – is the price too low? Are proposed costs:

• Realistic for work to be performed?

• Reflective of a clear understanding of requirements?

• Consistent with unique methods of performance and materials described in Offeror’s proposal?

• Balanced – are any CLINs over or under stated?

Responsiveness / Responsibility Determination

• The Gov’t will:

• Determine if proposal conforms to Terms & Conditions and identify any exception(s) taken

• Ensure all required certifications are included

• Verify that proposal meets all technical requirements and identify any exception(s) taken

• Capture any Offeror assumptions

• Determine how to capture proposal aspects that exceed the requirement and incorporate in the contract

• Determine Responsibility of successful Offeror

• Past Performance will be considered IAW FAR 9.1

• Prepare official contracting evaluation record

VOLUME 3 – SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

(Applies to Large Businesses Only)

Small Business Subcontracting

• Provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that complies with

FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements

• Ensure a minimum of 5% SDB goal of the total annual awarded contract value, IAW DFARS 219.705-4(d)(i)

• Identify the percentage of intended business with each of the following small business socioeconomic categories: VOSB, SDVOSB, HUB-Zone Small Business, SDB, and WOSB

• Pursuant to AFFARS 5319.704, all small business subcontracting goals shall be expressed in terms of percent of contract value, in addition to percent of subcontracted amount

• Complete and submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Checklist (Section L, Attachment 2) with the plan

• Your Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into your IDIQ award

Small Business Subcontracting

• Provide evidence to the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

• Provide documentation from e-SRS to demonstrate the extent to which applicable goals were attained for small business participation under prior contracts that required subcontracting plans

• This part, addressing the extent of small business performance, shall be separate from the subcontracting plan submitted

• The small businesses reflected in the proposal shall be listed in the subcontracting plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9

SUMMARY

• Follow the RFP and answer it as a whole:

• If we ask for a tradeoff proposal, that’s what we are looking for (Section L) and must evaluate to (Section M)

• Tell us the value of your proposed approach

• Identify the risks associated with your approach and how you will mitigate them

• Pay attention to proposal volume instructions/plain language (i.e., page numbers, level of detail requested, etc.)

• Don’t leave out critical sections. If we asked for it, we have to evaluate it.

Answer all components of each subfactor

• Be sure your proposal is clearly organized and information correlates to

RFP

• Don’t need names/ranks/resumes of people, looking for qualifications

• Marketing or generic statements are non-value added; proposal space allotted should be used for specifics on your proposed approach

What We Need From You

• Don’t restate/paraphrase the PWS requirements/language vs.

providing approach specifics

• Degree of rewrite relates to degree of rewrite required (i.e., significant)

• Reflects lack of technical understanding & RFP non-compliance

• Usually results in elimination for competitive range…it happens to incumbents too

• Ensure narrative explanations match charts or graphics provided;

i.e., management approach & organizational chart

• Avoid including assumptions in your proposal submission

• Don’t expect to “get-well” through discussions; or post-award by add-ons, special projects, or submitting requests for equitable adjustments

• Propose a reasonable and realistic price to accomplish the requirement

• Submit your best proposal up-front – we intend to AWOD

What We Need From You

• The below fielding is all developmental and estimated based on constraints on the program known as of 1 Jun 2018. Actual fielding is subject to change at any time, including after the IDIQ is awarded

Projected ADAIR OL Fielding

• 10 USC 2401

• Requires Specific Authorization in NDAA FY 19 to enter a contract for

CAF CAS

• Working through internal AF channels

• Specific Language

“SEC._____. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR

CONTRACTED ADVERSARY AIR AND CONTRACTED CLOSE AIR

SUPPORT.

In accordance with section 2401 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretaries of the military departments are authorized to enter into long-term contracts for contracted Adversary Air and Contracted Close Air Support to provide for the training of military personnel. The notification and certification requirements of subsection 2401(b) of title 10, United States Code, do not apply to contracted Adversary Air and Contracted Close Air Support training services authorized under this section. This section shall be effective for Fiscal Year 2019 and each fiscal year thereafter.”

• Without Specific Language in NDAA FY 19

• Delay to Acquisition/Source Selection Process

Statutory Compliance

Questions?