Industry_Day_Briefing_480th_ISRW_TOS_Final_FBO.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

480 ISRW Technical Operations Support (TOS)

Industry Day

6 March 2018

Welcome

Zach Finley Acquisition Program Manager

480 ISRW

Agenda Topics of Discussion

Administration Program Overview

Ms. Shannon Satterfield Project Lead

ACC AMIC/DRX

Agenda

8:30 – 9:00am - Registration 9:00 – 9:30am - Welcome

- Agenda

- Acquisition Team Roles & Responsibilities

Ms. Shannon Satterfield

9:30 – 10:00am - 480 ISRW Program & Requirements* Mr. Donald Hudson 480 ISRW Technical Director

10:00 – 10:45am - DPOC Acquisition Overview & Contractual Aspects*

Ms. Karin Walls AMIC Contracting Officer

OPEN FORUM 6 Mar 18

INDIVIDUAL ONE-ON-ONE SESSIONS 6-9 Mar 18 20-minute sessions are available (by appointment only) beginning at

12:30pm on 6 Mar 18, at the following address:

Crowne Plaza Hampton-Marina

700 Settlers Landing Rd, Hampton, VA 23669 Peninsula Room A

*Questions may be asked throughout the briefing

Topics of Discussion

• Administration / Communication

• AMIC Overview

• Project Overview

• 480 ISRW TOS Overview

• Acquisition Strategy/Solicitation Overview

• Open Forum Questions

• One-on-One Sessions

Administration

• Crowne Plaza – Hampton Marina

• Restrooms

• Emergency Exits

• Smoking Areas

• Industry/Attendee Folders

• Agenda

• Briefing

• Official Industry Day Question Sheets (Open Forum & One-On-One)

• Government Questions for Industry Day

• Reference Documents

• Latest Draft PWS

• Latest Draft Sections L & M of the RFP

Communications with the Government

• Industry Day Questions:

• Submit open forum questions in writing on question forms

• Submit one-on-one questions in writing on question forms

(included in folders)

• Proprietary Information:

• Clearly identify to the Government any information you deem proprietary

• Government will consolidate all non-proprietary written questions received and post the answers to FedBizOpps

(FBO)

• Request all communications from potential offerors be sent to: accamic.480ISRW.TOS@us.af.mil

AMIC Overview

• Direct Reporting Unit under ACC’s Deputy Commander

• Provide cradle-to-grave integrated program and contract management for complex service acquisitions (>$100M), as well as specialized contracting in support of ACC

• Primary Mission Partners: ACC Directorates, ACC Tenants, ACC Wings, Host Nations, COCOMS, and MAJCOMs

• Manage 16 complex programs supporting various mission sets

• Contract portfolio exceeds $15B

AMIC Global Footprint

AMIC HQ

AMIC Personnel and/or Major Program Site AMIC Contract Performance Location

USNORTHCOM

USSOUTHCOM

USAFRICOM

USPACOM

USEUCOM

USCENTCOM

AMIC PROGRAMS/CONTRACTS IN 37 COUNTRIES

AMIC Integrated Culture

• Only SPO Type / Acquisition Center of Excellence organization in the Air Force

• Dedicated Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Quality

Assurance personnel

• Embedded Functional support (i.e., Comm/Electronics, Logistics, Civil Engineering, Finance, Legal, etc.)

• Report to single Director

• Utilize project management principles for complex service acquisitions. Project Lead assigned to facilitate team and employ project management discipline.

• Develop contracted programs and manage them with a mission-focused mindset (measure of our/your success)

AMIC Organizational Chart AMIC Director

(SES)

PK (NH -04)

Deputy Director, Contracting

PM (NH -04)

Deputy Director, Program Management

DD (O-6)

Deputy Director

Det 1 North Warning Sys

Ottawa, Canada

PMS

Mission Support

Division

PMT

CN&GT

Division

PMA

Aircraft MX

Division

PCE

Civil Engineer

Division

PMC

AFCENT Support

Division

PLG

Logistics Division

DRQ

Quality Assurance

Division

SEM

Sr Enlisted Manager

XO

Executive Officer

DRE

Executive Support

PKC

Contracting

Division

PKS

Contract Spt

Division

PKA

Contracting

Division

PKB

Contracting

Division

PKD

Contracting

Division

JWAC

Contracting

Division

DRR

Financial Mgt

Division

DRJ

Legal

Division

DRX

Plans & Programs

Division

Det 2

25 AF

Contracting Support

DSS

Director’s Support

Staff

16 - Officers 116 - Enlisted 253 - Civilian

31 - CMEs

FY17 Total AMIC Manpower Workforce - 424

Acquisition Oversight

• Acquisition falls under the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Combat and Mission Support (AFPEO/CM) portfolio

• AFPEO/CM delegated to HQ ACC; appointment will be at GO/SES-level:

• Source Selection Authority (SSA)

• Acquisition Approval Authority

• Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA/KC):

• Clearance Authority

Projected Milestones Milestones Date

Post Drafts: Performance Work Statement & Appendices 12 Jan 18

Industry Day and One-on-Ones 6-9 Mar 18

Acquisition Strategy Panel 16 Apr 18

Post Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) 30 May 18

Issue Final RFP 13 Aug 18

Pre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit 28-29 Aug 18

Receive Proposals (Past Performance, Technical, & Price/Cost) 21 Sep 18

Contract Source Selection (approximately 5 months) 24 Sep 18 – 10 Jan 19

Contract Award 15 Jan 19

Transition (90 days) 30 Jan – 30 Apr 19

Contract Start 1 May 19

Program Overview

Mr. Donald Hudson Technical Director

480 ISRW

Program Overview

• 480 ISRW Mission

• Current Contract

• New Contract - Scope of Work

• Performance Work Statement (PWS) Overview

• Key Functions

• Tiered and Non-Tiered Support

480 ISRW Mission

• Air Force leader in globally networked ISR operations

• Spans the full spectrum of ISR operations

• Operates Air Force Distributed Common Ground

System (AF DCGS)

• DCGS employs a global communications architecture that connects multiple intelligence platforms, DoD networks, and sensors

• AF DCGS produces actionable intelligence from data collected by a variety of sensors on the U-2, RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and other ISR platforms across multiple security levels up to

TS/SCI

Discover the Unknown

Current Contract

• Provides personnel to manage, administer, and maintain the operational weapon system architecture supporting

AF DCGS

• Competitively awarded (Best Value) CSRA Inc. in 2016 under full and open competition

• Hybrid Firm Fixed Price with Cost Reimbursable Labor & Travel CLINs

• Contract expires 30 Apr 19

New Contract - Scope of Work

• 480 ISRW Technical Operations Support (TOS)

• Support the development, integration, maintenance, administration, management, documentation, assessment, disposal and troubleshooting of 480 ISRW information technology assets from the network and enterprise level

• Potential growth areas

• Additional CONUS/OCONUS locations to support

• Transition from Asynchronous Transport Mode (ATM) technology to Optical Transport Network (OTN)

PWS Overview

• Network Monitoring

• Network Management

• Network Infrastructure Management

• Telecommunications Specialist

• Network Configuration Management

• System Administration

• Network Administration

• Database Administration

• Data Center Infrastructure Management

(DCIM)

• Web Integration Architecture and

Development Support

• Maintenance Control Center (MCC)

Support

• Computer Network Defense (CND)

• Information System Security Officer (ISSO)

• Information System Security Manager

(ISSM)

• AF DCGS COMSEC Manager

• IT Project Management

• C4ISR Engineer

• Mission Defense Team (MDT)

• Development Operations (DevOps)

• Configuration Management and

Engineering Support

• ISR Systems Management Integration

Support

• UNIX Systems Administration Support

• Client Systems Administration

• Network Infrastructure Management

• Technical Writer

• Open Architecture System Administration

• Open Architecture Database

Administration

• Open Architecture Infrastructure

Management

Key Functions

Ops Support Network Security Incident Reporting System Administration Enterprise Accounts Enterprise

Configuration System Upgrades

ACAS

Authentication/LDAP

DNS

NTP

DIB

Network Engineering Network Integrations IPT and Config Mgmt Data Transport ATM over SONET

IP

Upgrades

24/7/365 Network Availability Mission Data Mgmt Network Helpdesk Performance Mgmt Mission Coordination Network Monitoring Crypto Management

Enterprise Services

Enterprise Network

Management

Network Operations

Tiered Service Support Helpdesk Network Health Network Status Mission Mgmt

Incident tracking from initiation to resolution and touch maintenance

Crypto Mgmt/ Component Configuration

TI

ER

Advanced technical expertise and mission security

Network Architecture (routing and switching) ECH, WCH, site

Mission Data Flow Mgmt Network Analysis Security TI

ER

Specialized technical expertise and overall mission security

Subject Matter Experts for

CAN/WAN

Architecture and Security

Engineering Sys Administration DB Administration Security Oversight TI

ER

Long-range Planning and Engineering

“Grey Beard” SMEs Project Mgmt Architecture Design

TI

ER

Network Managers CND Analysts MDT Support Tech Team Leads ISSOs

Tiered approach enables flexibility to connect ISR sensor to mission analyst across a globally distributed enterprise

Network Monitors/ Security Managers Client Sys Admin MCC Support

Project Managers Engineering SMEs Integration Support

Engineers DB Admins Sys Admins ISSMs

Non-Tiered Support

DCIM-specific expertise

SME for holistic view of data center performance

Monitor/integrate plans, mgmt, and execution strategies for all DCIM Projects

D C

IM

Web-specific technical and administrative experience

Ensure availability and operation of websites and services

T1 and T2 tech support Creation/mgmt of web environment W eb D ev

Cloud-specific technical and administrative experience

Ensure availability and operation of cloud environment and its services

T1 and T2 tech support Creation/ tech mgmt of cloud environment D ev O ps

Technical Writing expertise

Ensure technical products meet standards

Create/validate/edit technical documentation Te ch

W rit er

Web Integration Architecture and

Development Support

Data Center Infrastructure

Manager

Technical Writer/Editor

Development Operations

These functions, though outside the tiered construct, are essential to executing technical operations for the DCGS mission

Acquisition Strategy / Solicitation Overview

Ms. Karin Walls Contracting Officer

HQ ACC AMIC/PKAA

Contracting Overview

• Key Contractual Aspects

• Contract Type/Period of Performance

• CLIN Structure

• Source Selection Methodology

• Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

• Source Selection Process

• Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) Posting

• Site Visit/Pre-Proposal Conference

• Points of Contact

• One-On-One Information

Key Contractual Aspects

• Solicitation Number: FA4890-18-R-5009

• North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: 541519 – Other Computer Related Services Except, Information Technology Value Added Resellers

• SBA Size Standard is $27.5 Million

• Source selection will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 16 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS) 5315.3

• Small Business Set Aside Determination not yet established

• Commerciality Determination: FAR Part 15

• Non-commercial

• If Full & Open competition, Small Business Subcontracting goals will be considered

• Subcontracting plans required for Large Businesses IAW FAR Part

19 – Small Business Programs

Key Contractual Aspects (cont.)

Contract Type

• Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)

• Period of Performance

• Contract: Eight years, 1 base year plus 7 option years and 6-month extension, if required

• Base Year: 1 May 19 – 30 Apr 20

• Option Year 1: 1 May 20 – 30 Apr 21

• Option Year 2: 1 May 21 – 30 Apr 22

• Option Year 3: 1 May 22 – 30 Apr 23

• Option Year 4: 1 May 23 – 30 Apr 24

• Option Year 5: 1 May 24 – 30 Apr 25

• Option Year 6: 1 May 25 – 30 Apr 26

• Option Year 7: 1 May 26 – 30 Apr 27

• 6-month Ext: 1 May 27 – 31 Oct 27

CLIN Structure

CLIN # TITLE

X001 Core Labor X002 Optional Labor X003 Travel X004 Other Direct Costs (ODC’s) X005 Surge X006 Material X007 Incentive Fee X008 Transition X009 Fixed Fee

Evaluation Factors

Initial Eval

Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debrief

Offeror Proposals

Award w/o Discussion

Initial Evaluation

Brief

Interim Evaluation

Competitive Range

Determination

Discussions ENs

Final Evaluation

Revise Ratings

Award

Source Selection Decision Briefing

Best Value Decision

Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Final Proposal Revision

Brief

Close Discussions

Receive Final Proposals

Evaluation Process

Evaluation Methodology

• Best Value Tradeoff IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 Mar 16 and AFFARS 5315.3

• Government may consider efficiency language based on the interest in this requirement

• Evaluating 3 Factors:

• Factor 1 – Technical Capability

• Subfactors– Shall receive combined technical/risk rating with the technical capability factor

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Maximum 3 years of performance within last 5 years of solicitation date) / relevant contracts

• Factor 3 – Price

• Fair and Reasonable

Technical Evaluation Volume 1

• Factor 1: Technical Capability

• Subfactor 1: Task Innovation (Scenario)

• Provide technical approach for integrating a representative platform to the existing AF DCGS operational WAN architecture. (15 slides w/notes limit)

• Identify challenges for developing a coalition architecture to support joint/combined PED, (i.e., FVEY) into the existing AF DCGS NOFORN architecture. (5 page limit Microsoft Word 12- point font)

• Subfactor 2: Management Plan

• Describe your ability to support each task within the PWS to include your knowledge, approach, and techniques utilized for operating two geographically separated Enterprise IT Services Help Desks concurrently 24 hours-a-day, seven (7) days-a-week (Limit: 30 pages total Microsoft Word 12-point font)

• Subfactor 3: Staffing Strategy

• Provide a training plan for skilled personnel. Describe your process for introducing new personnel to the project, to include training plans and ramp-up timelines. Also, include how you will ensure that the required training (i.e., DoD 8570, Air Force Information Assurance (IA)/Force Protection) will be accomplished and managed.

Evaluation Methodology (cont.)

Technical Assessment Finding Definitions

• Meets: Explanation of how the proposal meets the requirement

• Strength: An 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.

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

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful 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.

Technical/Risk Subfactor 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.

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 is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Technical Subfactor Risk Assessment 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 a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Past Performance Volume 2

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Recency

• Provide a list describing up to a maximum of three (3) examples of past performance performed within the last five (5) years (from the date of the solicitation) that are relevant to the PWS requirements

• Relevancy

• Enterprise Management of multiple networks ISR sensor data flows 60

FTE TS/SCI workforce

• Past Performance

• Offerors authorized to submit references on themselves, joint venture/teaming partners, and subcontractors (Total possible: a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) references)

• References (aka Past Performance Information (PPI)) are used to evaluate past performance

• Two components of evaluation

• Recency

• Demonstrated performance (6 months) during the last 3 years from date the solicitation was issued

Past Performance - Relevancy Rating Description

Very Relevant

Effectively managed a military aircrew training program as prime contractor supporting RPA aircraft involving essentially the same level of complexities as this solicitation, where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated.

Total contract value was in excess of $150M.

Performed aircrew training (academic, simulator and flying instruction) simultaneously at multiple locations.

Performed courseware development and maintenance utilizing Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model.

Relevant

Effectively managed a military aircrew training program as prime contractor supporting RPA aircraft involving essentially the same level of complexities as this solicitation, where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated.

Total contract value was in excess of $75M.

Performed aircrew training (academic, simulator and flying instruction) simultaneously at multiple locations.

Performed courseware development and maintenance utilizing Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model.

Somewhat Relevant

Effectively managed an aircrew training program as prime contractor or sub-contractor supporting military aircraft, where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated.

Total contract value was in excess of $40M.

Performed aircrew training services which included academic and simulator instruction. Performed courseware development utilizing an industry accepted quality control model.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Relevancy:

• A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance will be made (See definitions on next chart)

• For each recent and relevant contract evaluated, the

Government will evaluate the quality of the work performed

• Past Performance may be obtained through one or more of the following:

• Review recent Contract Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) related to the effort

• Review Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) information

• Conduct telephone interviews

• Offeror given opportunity to respond to any adverse ratings

• Assign Confidence rating based on integrated assessment of above areas

Past Performance – Confidence Ratings

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.

Neutral Confidence

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

• Cost/Price Volume 3

• Factor 3: Cost/Price

• The price of each offeror will be evaluated on the total, overall evaluated price, which consists of the total proposed price (FP and CR CLINS) of the transition period, base contract period, optional CLINs, and all optional contract periods (to include a six-month extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8)

• Conducting price analysis to determine

• Fair pricing

• A price must be in line with the fair market value of the contract deliverable

• Price must be realistic in terms of the offeror’s ability to satisfy the terms and conditions of the contract

• Reasonable pricing

• Price must represent to gov’t what a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to market prices

• Usually based on Adequate Price Competition (2 or more offerors)

Source Selection Process Overview

Award Without Discussions

• MIRT Review

• Legal Reviews

• Clearance Approval

• Debriefings

Final Evaluation Activities

• Evaluate FPR

• Prepare Final SSEB Report

• Prepare CAR

• Prepare SSDD

• Conduct SSDB

• Select Source

Pre-Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Evaluation Activities

• Provide notifications to offerors

• Provide Interim Ratings

• Conduct Discussions

• Prepare Interim SSEB Report

• Conduct Pre-FPR Briefing

• Request FPR

Initial Evaluation Activities

• Receive & Review Proposals

• Conduct Evaluations

• Consolidate & Rate Evaluations

• Develop ENs

• Prepare Initial SSEB Report

• Conduct IEB

Establish Competitive Range

Award & Debriefings

• Provide notifications to unsuccessful offerors

• Award contract

• Conduct Post-Award Debriefings

OR

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

• All offerors now technically acceptable, or

• 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

AWOD / Competitive Range

• The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will decide, based on Initial Evaluation Activities (per the Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) recommendation), to either:

• Award Without Discussions (AWOD), OR

• Establish Competitive Range (CR) and enter into Discussions

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

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

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

Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)

• Draft RFP tentatively scheduled to be posted to FBO in May 2018 timeframe

• Industry review and input is encouraged

• Government will post responses to questions to FBO without publicizing the originating source(s)

• Formal communications should be with contracting only – please do not contact the requirement owner

• The next Q&A period will be after draft RFP release

Pre-Proposal Conference / Site Visit

• Formal site visit after release of final RFP

• Date/Time: 28-29 Aug 18/TBD

• Location: Langley AFB, VA

• Information needed prior to site visit (at a minimum)

• Name of attendees (no more than 2 per offeror / joint venture / partnership)

• Company Name

• Job Title

• Photo Identification

• Cell number, business and/or personal (24/7)

• Email, business and/or personal (24/7)

Points of Contact / References

• ACC AMIC/PKA

• Ms. Karin Walls, Contracting Officer – (757) 225-7723

• Ms. LaTisha Ross, Contract Manager – (757) 764-9435

• Ms. Lovelyne Pascal, Contract Manager – (757) 225-7712

• Ms. Sheila Hill, Contract Manager – (757) 764-4050

Submit questions/comments: accamic.480ISRW.TOS@us.af.mil

• Internet Links:

• www.FBO.gov or www.FedBizOpps.gov

(Reference No. FA4890-18-R-5009)

• http://farsite.hill.af.mil (Federal Acquisition Regulation) mailto:accamic.480ISRW.TOS@us.af.mil http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

One-on-One Sessions

• Location: Crowne Plaza Hampton-Marina, Peninsula Room A, 700 Settlers Landing Rd, Hampton, VA 23669

• Dates: 6-9 Mar 18

• 20-minute sessions beginning at 12:30pm (by appointment only)

• Questions/recommendations from industry are encouraged

Break

TURN IN ALL WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Discussion Panel

Closing Remarks

TURN IN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND SURVEYS