GA_RITS_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Slides.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

Pre-Proposal Conference

Guardian Angel

Rescue Instructional and

Training Services

(GA RITS)

Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

ADMINISTRATIVE

• Sign-in

• Rest Rooms

• Emergency Exits

• Break room

• Lunch

• Misc

• TO FAMILIARIZE CONTRACTORS WITH THE

GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENT

• Clarify Requirements

• Answer Advance Questions

• Invite Additional Questions (in writing)

• Review Courseware

• Tour Facilities

• TO PROVIDE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF

THE EVALUATION PROCESS

PURPOSE

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

• PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• PROCUREMENT HISTORY

• WARFIGHTER MISSION

• PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

• FUNDING

• SOURCE SELECTION AND CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

• EVALUATION PROCESS

• SOLICITATION REVIEW

• QUALITY ASSURANCE

AGENDA Day 1

0900 – WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

0910 – PROGRAM REVIEW AND SOURCE SELECTION

1000 – BREAK

1020 – REVIEW ADVANCE QUESTIONS

1100 – LUNCH

1200 – TOUR 68 RQS FACILITIES

1300 – TOUR OTHER DM AFB FACILITIES

1500 – 68 RQS/ REVIEW COURSEWARE / SUBMIT

QUESTIONS

AGENDA Day 2

0700 – MEET AT CLUB IRONWOOD

0800 – MARANA REGIONAL AIRPORT

0830 – TOUR MARANA FACILITIES

1100 – DRIVE TO MT LEMMON, LUNCH ENROUTE

1330 – MEET AT WINDY POINT ON MT LEMMON (Mile marker 14 on Mt Lemmon Catalina Highway)

1400 – TOUR MT LEMMON TRAINING AREAS

1600 – REJOIN AT 68 RQS/ SUBMIT QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTIONS

LT COL MATTHEW MCGUINNESS – 68 RQS/CC COMMANDER

MR. STEVE SATAVA - ACC/TRSS PROGRAM MANAGER

TSGT MARLESE YELARDY– ACC AMIC/PKB CONTRACT MANAGER

CAPT SAMUEL AMEDIA – 68 RQS/DOF

MR DEREK DOCTER – 68 RQS/OPS SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT (SME)

MR TIMOTHY TWEETER – TRSS DET 3/GA SME

ATTENDEES

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

• Contracting office (ACC AMIC/PKB) is the POC for information.

• Any remarks, explanations, or answers to questions at this conference shall not qualify the terms of the solicitation.

• Terms of the solicitation and PWS remain unchanged unless the solicitation is formally amended in writing and issued by the contracting officer.

• All questions must be submitted in writing and will be posted on FEDBIZOPs (http://www.fbo.gov/).

SITE VISIT GROUND RULES

• Communication

– All questions should be directed to the briefers

– No recording devices, cameras or cell phones are permitted in the facilities

– You are not permitted to roam freely in the facilities

– Courseware materials must remain in conference room – No exceptions

• Tours

– You are not permitted to handle any Government equipment while on the tour

– You are required to stay with the group at all times

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• PROCUREMENT HISTORY

• WARFIGHTER MISSION

• PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

• FUNDING

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

• How was the requirement previously satisfied

• Individual RQS conducted 5- and 7-level upgrade locally

• Consolidated at DM AFB to standardize

• Executed Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Task

Order contracts for support

• New contract to Replace DLA Process

• Provide support personnel, equipment, aircraft, boats/vehicles and applicable instructors/instruction to successfully perform

Pararescue 5-level and 7-level upgrade services

IAW Career Field Education and Training Plan

(CFETP) and Task, Conditions, Standards (TCS)

WARFIGHTER MISSIONS

• Air Combat Command (ACC)

• Primary provider of Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) forces to the Joint Force Commander (JFC)

• Conduct Personnel Recovery across the full range of military operations and during all phases of joint, coalition, and combined operations

• Active Duty RQS at Moody, Nellis, Lakenheath, Kadena, Aviano?

• ANG, AFSOC

• 68th Rescue Squadron (68 RQS)

• Stood up 1 Jun 17 at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ

• GA formal training unit (FTU)

• Provides 5-level and 7-level upgrade courses in addition to seven other courses currently taught by the FTU

PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

• Exercise management and control for performance requirements contained in PWS

• Comply with work, services, operations, safety, security, environmental, and technical order requirements

• Provide all management, personnel, materials, supervision, and other items necessary to perform services

• Mission Support:

• Executes all required lodging, equipment, aircraft, support personnel, instructors (when applicable) and site scheduling for up to 24 5-Level students per class, executing a maximum of four (4) classes annually

• Executes full mission profile support and Rotary Wing aircraft for a maximum of three (3) 7-Level classes annually

PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

Approximate 170 Statute Miles

Sites/Locations (Current)

• Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ (within approx. 170 miles):

• Davis-Monthan Air Force Base

• Small Unit Tactics, Combat Marksmanship, Rotary Wing (RW) training

• Marana Regional Airport

• Medical Training, Fixed Wing (FW) Parachute Operations, Combat

Marksmanship

• Mt. Lemmon, AZ

• Technical Rescue Training (High Angle), SERE Training

• Lake Roosevelt, AZ

• FW Parachute Operations (water), Combat Dive Operations, RW training

(water)

• Lake Pleasant, AZ

• FW Parachute Operations (water), Combat Dive Operations, RW training

(water)

• California

• Naval Base Coronado

• RW Operations (7-Level)

Sites/Locations (Potential)

• Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ (within approx. 170 miles):

• Florence, AZ or Sierra Vista, AZ

• Combat Marksmanship

• Eloy, AZ

• FW Parachute Operations

• California

• Vandenberg Air Force Base

• RW Operations (7-Level)

Sites/Locations

68th RQS Davis Monthan AFB

(Shooting/SMUT)

Marana AFLD

(Medical/Jumps/Shooting)

Mount Lemmon

(SERE/High Angle)

Lake Pleasant

(Water Jumps/Rotary Wing/Dive)

Lake Roosevelt

(Water Jumps/Rotary Wing/Dive)

Florence (potential)

(Shooting)

U of A

(Pool Dives)

Phoenix

Tucson

Sierra Vista (potential)

(Shooting)

67 miles South

Eloy (potential)

(Jumps)

Naval Base Coronado, CA

(7-Level Water)

Vandenberg AFB, CA

(7-Level Water)

PWS Highlights

• 5-Level Course Contract Requirements

• General Requirements:

• Classes Annually: 3 (max of 4)

• Students Per Class: 8 – 24

• Length of Class (Calendar Days): 48 (min) – 90 (max)

• Specific Requirements:

• Pre-class deliverables (Provided prior to Phase start)

• Planning Meeting – 60 days

• Instructor Qualifications – 46 days Logistics Plan – 46 days

• Syllabus / Lesson Plans – 5 days

• Lodging (all phases)

PWS Highlights

• 5-Level Course Contract Requirements (Con’t)

• Instructional Phases:

• Medical Rescue/ Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC)

• Fixed Wing Parachute Insertion and Parachute Operations

• Combat Marksmanship

• Technical Rescue

• Logistical Support Only Phases:

• Mounted Operation

• Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE)

• Dive Recovery

• Rotary Wing

• Small Unit Tactics (SMUT)

PWS Highlights (5-level phases) (continued)

• 1. Medical Rescue/Tactical Combat Casualty Care

• Phase objectives: Advanced medical instruction in both the classroom and field environment.

• Contractor provides:

• Classroom facility

• Classroom instruction

• Field instruction

• Live Tissue Training (LTT)

• Student Handbook

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• Phase instructors (1:3 students)

• Medical Director

• Veterinarian and Assistant(s)

(continued)

• 2. Fixed Wing Insertion and Parachute Operations

• Phase objectives: Land and water parachute jump training using rear ramp exit equipped fixed-wing aircraft

• Contractor provides:

• Aircraft and aircrew for jump operations

• Boats and crew for water recovery

• Classroom/packing facility (Near Drop Zone) and wind tunnel facility

• Jump instruction and video recording

• Vehicles to transport jumpers and equipment

• Drying Tower / Facility

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• Lead Instructor and Phase instructors (1:3 students)

• Drop Zone Controller; Drop Zone Medic; White Cell Coordinator; Live

Role Players; Medical Instructors; Ground Party; Parachute Riggers

(1:3 jumpers)

(continued)

• 3. Maritime and Dive Recovery

• Phase objectives: Dive Operations (Support Only)

• Contractor provides:

• Boats and crew to support dive operations

• Dive training locations:

• Swimming pool with a minimum depth of 15 feet

• Freshwater lake with a minimum depth of 33 feet

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• Boat Driver (1:12 students)

(continued)

• 4. Combat Marksmanship

• Phase objectives: Provides combat marksmanship instruction, live fire training, malfunction drills with the

Glock 19, M4, flashbangs, smoke grenades, day/night shooting, etc.

• Contractor provides:

• Classroom and shooting range

• Weapons and ammo for contractor use

• Syllabus and lesson plans

• Gov’t weapons/ammunition storage facility

• Targets, target stands, steel targets, barricades

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• Phase instructors (1 per phase)

• Range Safety Officers (1:4 students)

(continued)

• 5. Small Unit Tactics (SMUT)

• Phase objectives: Provide logistical support

• Contractor provides:

• Silhouette targets/target stands

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• 2 white cell coordinators

• 3 live role players

• 3 medical instructors

(continued)

• 6. Technical Rescue

• Phase objectives: Technical rescue instruction to include rope rescue training and related situational medical exercises

• Contractor provides:

• Field instruction

• Indoor climbing gym (weather back-up)

• Lesson plans

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• Instructors (1:6 students)

• 2 white cell coordinators

• 2 live role players

• 2 medical instructors

(continued)

• 7. Rotary Wing Operations (Static)

• Contractor provides lodging

• 8. Rotary Wing Operations (Airborne)

• Phase objectives: Land and water rotary wing insertion and extraction

• Contractor provides:

• Helicopters (AMC Commercial Aircraft Review Board (CARB), FAR

Part 135, 133d) and aircrew

• Boats for water operations

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• Air operations support personnel

• Boat crew

(continued)

• 9. Survival, Evasion, Resist, Escape (SERE)

• Phase objectives: Provides logistical support

• Contractor provides:

• Site surveys/scheduling training location(s)

• Contractor-provided personnel:

• None

• 10. Mounted Operations

• Phase objectives: Provides lodging

• Course Feedback Review

• Contractor and Government information exchange on how to improve the course

• Occurs within 14 days of class completion

PWS Highlights, cont.

• 7-Level Course Contract Requirements

• General Requirements:

• Classes Annually: 2 (max of 3)

• Students Per Class: 6-12

• Length of Phases (Calendar Days): 10 (min) – 19 (max)

• Specific Requirements (contractor only supports FMPs):

• Land Full Mission Profiles (Tucson, AZ or within 150 miles):

• Tactical Scenario Coordinator, White Cell Coordinators, Live Role

Players, Medical Instructors, and Air Bosses

• Water Full Mission Profiles (California):

• Helicopters and aircrew

• Tactical Scenario Coordinator

Performance Objectives

Table 2 – Services Summary

Performance Objective PWS Paragraph Performance Threshold

(1) Contractor maintains qualified workforce Paragraph 1.15;

1.18; 1.19 and

Appendix C

a. Performance is acceptable when the contractor maintains sufficient qualified personnel to meet mission requirements during the surveillance period

b. A defect occurs whenever a training Phase must be rescheduled due to non-availability of qualified contractor instructor or other required support personnel.

(2) Instructs students on TCS of each required CFETP line item(s) and as outlined by the Government-approved Lesson Plan

Paragraph 1.18 a. Performance is acceptable when all students meet the TCS CFETP line item requirements as certified by 68th RQS instructors

b. Contractor Instructor(s) complete Phase training with no more than one (1) defect per Phase, and

c. No repeat defects.

(3) Contractor provides suitable and reliable aircraft for required Phases

Paragraph 1.17 and 3.7.1.

a. Performance is acceptable when aircraft availability permits accomplishment of 80% of scheduled training events per Phase

b. Aircraft meets PWS specifications and allows for 100% execution of training

Phase requirements

(4) Contractor-provided logistics support meets requirements

Paragraph 1.15;

1.18; 1.19, and

3.7.5.; 3.7.8.

a. Performance is acceptable when lodging are available for the entire duration of the training and meets 100% of PWS requirements

b. Parachute drying and packing facilities meet PWS requirements throughout the duration of the required Training Phases

c. Contractor-provided transportation (vehicles and boats) allows for 100% execution of training Phase requirements

d. Contractor-provided medical training models meet 100% of PWS Training

Phase requirements

(5) Contractor provides accurate and timely plans and deliverables

Paragraph 1.15;

1.18 and 1.19.

a. Performance is acceptable when all deliverables required by the PWS are delivered on time

b. Deliverables are accurate as determined by the Government and all discrepancies are resolved prior to Training Phase start

CONTRACT SCHEDULE

• Projected IDIQ Contract Award: 17 May 19

• IDIQ Contract Ordering Period (5 yrs): 1 Jun 19

– 31 May 24

• Task Order #1

• Phase-In: 1 Jun 19 – 31 Aug 19

• Task Order #2

• Full performance 1 Sep 19 – 31 Aug 20

Program Risks

• Evolving government requirements – New CFETP

• Drying Tower Adequacy

• Trained and Qualified Work Force

• Aircraft (FW & RW)

• Do Not Meet DOD/FAA & CARB standards

• Availability during scheduled jump/Alternate Insertion/Extraction

(AIE) / Full Mission Profile (FMP) ops

• Contract Deliverables

• Medical Phase - Approved LTT Providers

• Schedule, Logistics/Training Plans accuracy & timeliness

* Not all inclusive

• ACC/A3J current POM input for FY19

• Annual by FY

• Out-year funding projected at Government Cost

Estimate

Availability of Funding

TSgt MARLESE YELARDY, ACC AMIC/PKB

SOURCE SELECTION AND

CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

Evaluation

Factors

Initial

Eval

Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debrief

EVALUATION PROCESS

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

ENs

Final

Proposal

Revision

Brief

Close

Discussions

Receive Final

Proposals

• Best Value: Subjective Tradeoff IAW FAR 15, DoD

Source Selection Procedures and AFFARS 15.3

• Factor 1 – Technical

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Factor 3 – Price

• Factors listed in order of importance

EVALUATION PROCESS

• Technical Evaluation Methodology

• Combined technical and risk rating

• Past Performance Evaluation Methodology

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

• Determine Relevancy

• Evaluate offeror’s present and past relevant work to determine confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform

• Price/Cost Evaluation Methodology

• Evaluate price for Reasonableness/Realism (price analysis)

• Adequate price competition – comparison of the proposed prices (price analysis)

• Expectation of price to pay for proposed effort, understanding of the work, ability to perform the contract

• Basis of Award

• Award to offeror based on the integrated best value assessment

• Reserve the right to award a contract to a higher priced offeror if the lower priced offeror(s) has a lower performance confidence assessment

• Intend to award without discussions

• For award without discussions, selected offerors must have a

“Technically Acceptable” technical proposal, and have a

“Satisfactory” or higher confidence rating.

• Each Technical Volume will be evaluated under the following subfactors:

• Subfactor A – Program Management

• Aspect I: Management and Integration

• Aspect II: Human Resources

• Aspect III: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• Subfactor B – Instruction

• Aspect I: Training Phase Delivery

• Aspect II: Student Handbook

• Subfactor C – Logistics

• Subfactor D – Transition

• Technical Subfactor Weighting

• Technical subfactor A is significantly more important than B, C, and

D; B and C are of equal importance; subfactor D is least important

TRADE-OFF TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR

RATINGS

(Methodology 1 – Combined Technical & Risk)

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

DoD Source Selection Procedures

• Factor 2 – Past Performance

SOURCE SELECTION

PROCEDURES

Obtain Past Performance Information on Each Offeror and Determine Recency

Assess Relevancy for Each Recent Contract

Review Performance Quality for Each Contract

Review Offeror Relevancy and

Performance Ratings

Assign Offeror’s PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Confidence Rating

PAST PERFORMANCE

RELEVANCY

Rating Definition Very Relevant • Effectively managed a U.S. Air Force Pararescue or DoD Special Operations training program as a prime contractor

• Instructed 40 students or more per performance year

• Managed and executed Instruction and Instructional Support (Medical Training, Combat Marksmanship, Fixed Wing Parachute Operations, and Rotary Wing

Operations)

• Provided Logistics Support (Medical (i.e., LTT), Lodging facilities, and

Transportation)

• Provided Fixed Wing Parachute Operations and Rotary Wing Operations under

FAR Part 135, 133D, or CARB, as applicable

• Performed work at multiple geographic locations, simultaneously

Relevant • Effectively managed DoD Special Operations Forces, Fire Rescue or similar training program as prime contractor

• Instructed 25-39 students per performance year

• Executed Instruction and Instructional Support (Medical Training, Fixed Wing

Parachute Operations, or Rotary Wing Operations)

• Provided Logistics Support (Medical (i.e., LTT), Lodging facilities, and

Transportation)

• Provided Fixed Wing Parachute Operations or Rotary Wing Operations

• Performed work at multiple geographic locations, concurrently

Somewhat Relevant • Effectively managed a DoD Special Operations or Fire Rescue training program as prime contractor or sub-contractor; where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated

• Instructed less than 25 students per performance year

• Provided Logistics Support

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

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENT

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

• Factor 3 – Price/Cost Evaluation Methodology

• Conduct Price Analysis – normally established by

Adequate Price Competition (APC)

• 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; 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

• Realism – exceptionally low

SOURCE SELECTION

PROCEDURES

• Authority

– FAR Part 15.3: Negotiated Contracts

– AFFARS 5315.3: Mandatory Procedures, dated 6 Apr 2015

– DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016

• Notice to Offerors

– Sufficient number of Proposals/Competition is expected

– Government intends to make award without discussion but reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary.

Therefore, you are cautioned to submit your best proposal upfront.

SOLICITATION REVIEW

• Best Value: Subjective Tradeoff IAW FAR 15, DoD

Source Selection Procedures and AFFARS 15.3

• Full and Open Competition

• Large business will have Small Business subcontracting requirement of 30%

• NAICS: 611512 SB / Size Standard is $27.5M

• IDIQ

• 5-year base ordering period

• Combination of Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursable (CR)

Line Items

• Cost Reimbursable CLINS

– Lodging

– Contractor Travel

– Equipment Transfer

• Solicitation & PWS CO authority

• Questions during this conference must be in writing

• RFP issued NLT 26 Oct 18

• Past Performance due 14 Nov 18

• Technical and Price Proposals due NLT 26 Nov

• Conference questions and answers will be posted on FEDBIZOPs (http://www.fbo.gov/)

CONTRACT CLIN STRUCTURE

CLIN # TITLE Description

X001 5-Level Course FP per student

X002 7-Level Course FP per phase (Land)

X003 7-Level Course FP per phase (Maritime)

X004 Surge Class 5-Level FP

X005 Surge Class 7-Level FP (Land)

X006 Surge Class 7-Level FP (Maritime)

X007 Lodging CR (NTE for eval)

X008 Contractor Travel CR (NTE for eval)

X009 Equipment Transfer CR (NTE for eval)

X010 Phase In FFP (3 months)(one time)

• SF 33

• Ensure all blocks are filled in as necessary

• SECTION B - Schedule of Supplies and Services

• Ensure all pricing is included

• Include travel, lodging and equipment transfer (NTE provided amounts)

• SECTION I – Contract Clauses

• Ensure you READ all clauses

• Ensure all required information is filled on applicable clauses

• SECTION J – List of Attachments

• Ensure you READ all attachments

• SECTION L – Instructions to Offerors

• SECTION M- Evaluation Factors

QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Program Management Office (PMO) Structure

• CO, CM & Quality Assurance Program Coordinator (QAPC) - AMIC

• Chief Contracting Officer Representative (COR)/PM – ACC TRSS/ACQ

• Local COR – 68 RQS and TRSS Det 3

• Government Flight Representative (GFR) and Government Ground

Representative (GGR) – 563d Rescue Group

• Quality Assurance Approach

• QAPC will provide policy and support to CORs

• CORs surveil performance IAW Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and Quality Control Plan

• GFR/GGR surveil & approve contractor flight & ground ops IAW

DCMA INSTR 8210.01C

QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Conduct Program Management Reviews (PMRs) with

Prime Contractor

• Held quarterly during first year of performance

• More often if required

• May include teaming partners

• Emphasis on overall performance, process improvement, sharing of info, and cost control

• Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

• Inspection Methods

• Initial Performance Assessment

• 100% Inspection

• Periodic Audits

• Customer Feedback

• Frequency

• Monthly COR Reports

BREAK

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

The following are unofficial responses to questions received prior to the conference. The answers provided on the following pages DO NOT constitute "official written responses". Answers are only considered official responses when provided in writing by a CO, CM or via fbo.gov.

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

# Subject Document Title Section Page Question

1 Past PerformanceDraft RITS RFP L.7.2 8/33

Section L states "Past performance will be evaluated by examining a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 611512, Flight Training."

Q - Is it the Government's intent that only past performance references with a NAICS of 611512 will meet the above stated relevancy requirements?

RESPONSE: No, Relevancy for past performance will be determined in accordance with Section M, Table 4, page 28/29 of 33. The NAICS code of the referenced contract is not considered in the determination of relevancy.

2 Past PerformanceDraft RITS RFP

L.7.3

M.C.1.a

8/33

28/33

L.7.3 Past Performance Recency. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than 12 months of performance will not be considered.

M.C.1.a. Recency for this solicitation is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Further, references for contracts with less than one (1) year performance will not be considered.

Q - The 1 year performance requirement eliminates the use of recent and relevant episodic exercise support where the period of performance for individual exercises contracted is less than one year. Would the Government consider removing the 12 months / 1 year performance requirement to ensure the most relevant past performance is evaluated?

RESPONSE: No, the Governemnt will not remove the one (1) year performance minimum. Short term episodic exercise support contracts would not provide the necessary data for the Government to make a proper confidence assessment of the offeror's ability to perform on a contract with the magnitude and complexity of this solicitation.

3 Past PerformanceDraft RITS RFP L.7.2 8/33

7.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References. Offerors may provide information for a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) references; three (3) of the references provided should be on the offeror (prime), if available. The remaining three (3) references may be provided for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to successful performance of the requirement.

Q - Can the Government please clarify "if available", will an offeror be considered non-compliant if the prime has less than 3 past performance references? Is there a 3 reference maximum out of the total six references for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners?

RESPONSE: The use of "may", "should", and "if available" in this section allows the Government to assess less than three (3) references for a prime offeror if necessary. For example, to permit/encourage contractors with no PPI (absolutely none, as in they are less than 1 year old or have only worked on efforts that do not require CPARS) to submit offers. If an offeror has multiple sub-contractors critical to performance, the Government may assess more than three (3) references for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners.

4 Past PerformanceDraft RITS RFP L.7.2 8/33

7.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References. If the PPI reference is an overarching Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Blanket Purchase

Agreement (BPA), the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ level and not performance on each individual underlying task/delivery order. If offerors would like assessment of an individual task/call/delivery/purchase order, the offeror shall submit that as a separate PPI reference. PPI Reference inputs will be treated as source selection information IAW FAR Part 2.101 and 3.104.

Q - Is it the Government's intent that offerors may choose whether to submit IDIQs for evaluation of past performance at either the IDIQ level or individual task order level? Is this statement prohibitive of submitting at both levels (evaluation of overall IDIQ & Task Orders independently)?

RESPONSE: Yes, offerors may choose whether to submit IDIQs for evaluation of past performance at either the IDIQ level or individual task order level.

Offerors should consider how well the reference meets the recency and relevancy criteria in Section M, Factor 2, page 28/33 in determining how to categorize the past performance. References must meet both recency and relevancy criteria to be considered as part of the overall Performance Confidence

Assessment. References that are not recent and relevant will not be considered.Uno ffic ial R es po ns es

ADVANCE QUESTIONS (cont)

6 Draft RITS RFP

Section L, Technical

Subfactors, Subfactor A –

Quality Management is mentioned in the PWS para 1.6.1. Management Plan. It states the contractor shall develop a Management Plan that integrates the contractor’s Quality Management System (QMS), but it does not discuss the details of the QMS.) Will the Government add the requirement to the PWS based on the QASP?

RESPONSE: The QMS is the contractor's own processes and procedures to perform internal Quality Control. The details of the QMS to be included in the

Management Plan are in PWS Appendix B, CDRL B001. Your QMS should cover all of the services listed in the Services Summary, PWS Section 2. The

QASP is the Government's plan to surveill the contractor.

9 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 para 1.18.2.1 pg 9 Are there pre-identified and currently used field locales for training? Are these locations satisfactory?

RESPONSE: Yes, there are locations that are currently being used for training. They are described in the Industry Day briefing posted on FBO on 28 Jun 18;

and are included in the Pre-proposal Conference briefing which will be posted on FBO after the conference as well.

12 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 para 1.18.2.2.1 pg 9 Patients are “Government furnished”, can Government more clearly define what this means?

RESPONSE: The Government will provide personnel and/or manikins for use during the mass casualty medical exercises. The contractor is not required to supply the patients used in the exercise.

32 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 para 1.6.2 pg 3 Training and Certification Plan requirements – Is there a specified format the Government requires?

RESPONSE: Per CDRL B002 the Plan will be in an electronic format compatible with Microsoft Office. Specific Plan contents may be in contractor format.

34 No ref Request the MFR Approved LTT Vendor listings; could not access/open on FedBizOps (FBO) listing or from the draft PWS.

RESPONSE: The USAF memorandum for record on approved LTT vendors will be posted as an individual document on FBO.

35 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 para 1.18.2.1 Can Government provide a copy (digital or hard copy) of CFETP Section 7 or location to receive a copy of the document, Emergency Medical Operations?

RESPONSE: The CFETP, in its entirety, is posted on FBO, see 15 May 18 posted documents. PWS dated 12 Oct 18 has been revised to indicate CFETP reference is "Atch 1, Section 7"

47 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 para 1.18.3.4.1

Will the Government please specify an exact number of boats and boat drivers required? “At least one” leaves it open to interpretation and varies the cost significantly. Specifying an exact number for evaluation purposes is preferable.

RESPONSE: The PWS specifies the minimum requirements for support. Per RFP Section L, para 6.1, the offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of the RFP.

59 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 Appendix B

Appendix B requires submission of several plans with the proposal. We read the requirement as placing the plans within Volume I, Technical. Would the

Government accept the plans included as appendices to the volume, for easier removal in the future for inclusion in the contract?

RESPONSE: Per RFP Section L, para 6.1, the offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of the RFP. The offeror is responsible to determine if the organization of their proposal will facilitate the evaluation and is in a form consistent with the Technical Criteria set forth in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. However, if used, these appendices must be included in the page count.

Uno ffic ial R es po

ADVANCE QUESTIONS (cont)

RFP L-7.2, RFP L-7.5.G

Paragraph 7.2 “Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References” levies a maximum of six (6) PP references for relevant efforts [three (3) maximum for the Prime, and up to three (3) total for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JV partners “critical to the success” of the effort].

Paragraph 7.5 “PPI Contents” G omits the “critical to success” requirement, broadening the requirement to all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JV partners), and does not define a limit to the number of references if the Offeror and partner(s) have/had a relationship on other relevant contracts. This paragraph also states if this proposal is the first effort where the offeror and partner(s) have worked together, the offeror and each partner (again, not each

“critical to success” partner) must submit no more than three (3) PP references.

Would the Government please clarify: does Paragraph 7.2 prevail, where all partner references must only be for “critical to success” partners? And is the total number of past performance references limited to six (6), regardless of whether or not the offeror and proposed partners have worked together previously?

RESPONSE: The use of "may", "should", and "if available" in this section allows the Government to assess less than three (3) references for a prime offeror if necessary. For example, to permit/encourage contractors with no PPI (absolutely none, as in they are less than 1 year old or have only worked on efforts that do not require CPARS) to submit offers. If an offeror has multiple sub-contractors critical to performance, the Government may assess more than three (3) references for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners

70 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 1.15.1.3 5 Should contractors assume that 7-level classes would have eight (8) to twenty-four (24) students like 5-level classes?

RESPONSE: No, 7-level classes will be 6 - 12 students as described in the Industry Day brief posted to FBO on 28 Jun 18 and the Pre-proposal Conference brief. The number of 7-level students does not affect the suport the contractor is required to provide.

72 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 1.18.3.4

If 3 to 5 students are required to complete jumps daily, will 1 qualified parachute rigger fulfill the minimum of 1 qualified rigger per 3 jumpers if 5 students are set to jump on one day?

RESPONSE: No. PWS para 1.18.3.4. states "The Contractor shall provide a minimum of one (1) qualified parachute rigger per three (3) jumpers." To meet this requirement for 5 jumpers, 2 riggers are required.

73 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 3.7.1.1.2 As done in requirement 3.7.1.2.2.a, can the government explicitly list the positons and quantities per position required to meet aircrew personnel requirement.

RESPONSE: No. The fixed wing aircrew requirement will be determined by the FAA minimum crew requirements for the specific aircraft proposed by the offeror. The helicopter crews will be as described in the PWS even if the FAA requirement for that particular aircarft is a smaller crew.

74 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 1.6.2 Can the government define the acronym TSME?

RESPONSE: "TSME" has been replace with "local COR" in PWS dated 12 Oct 18

Draft RFP: Section L and M;

Subfactor B: Instruction Can the government explicitly state which aspects of 7-level courses are contractors required to address for evaluation purposes?

RESPONSE: The requirements for 7-level course support are specified in PWS para 1.19. There is no requirement for contractor instruction in the 7-level support, therefore Subfactor B, Instruction, is not applicable.

76 DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 3.5.7.1

“The Contractor shall provide gym access suitable for at least 24 students throughout the duration of the class.”

o Question: Can the government clarify whether gym access is required for an entire 5-level training course or one specific phase/course (i.e. 5 days for

Survival, Evasion, Resist, Escape phase)?

RESPONSE: Gym access is required for all phases in the 5-level course. See PWS Appendix A definition of class : "A class is defined as a complete iteration of all training phases for a set number of students." And also the definition of course: "A course is defined as all the past, current, and future classes. Courses are divided into “5-level” and “7-level” specific training."

Uno ffic ial R es po

AGENDA Day 1

0900 – WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

0910 – PROGRAM REVIEW AND SOURCE SELECTION

1000 – BREAK

1020 – REVIEW ADVANCE QUESTIONS

1100 – LUNCH

1200 – TOUR 68 RQS FACILITIES

1300 – TOUR OTHER DM AFB FACILITIES

1500 – 68 RQS/ REVIEW COURSEWARE / SUBMIT

QUESTIONS

68 RQS Location

AGENDA Day 2

0800 – MEET AT 68 RQS

0810 – REVIEW CURRENT COURSEWARE EXAMPLES

0900 – MARANA REGIONAL AIRPORT

1000 – TOUR MARANA FACILITIES

1100 – DRIVE TO MT LEMMON, LUNCH ENROUTE

1330 – MEET AT WINDY POINT ON MT LEMMON (Mile marker 14 on Mt Lemmon Catalina Highway)

1400 – TOUR MT LEMMON TRAINING AREAS

1600 – REJOIN AT 68 RQS/ SUBMIT QUESTIONS