552_ACW_E-3_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Slides_19_Sept_19.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

Pre-Proposal Conference

552 ACW E-3

Contract Aircrew Training and Courseware Development

Tinker AFB OK

25 Sept 2019

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

• TO FAMILIARIZE CONTRACTORS WITH THE

GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENT

• Clarify Requirements

• Address Advance Questions

• Invite Additional Questions (in writing)

• Review Courseware

• Tour Facilities

PURPOSE

AGENDA

0900 – Welcome and Introductions 0910 – Program Review and Evaluation Criteria 1000 – Review Advance Questions 1030 – Break 1100 – View Courseware 1200 – Lunch 1330 – Tour E-3 Classrooms and Training Devices 1500 – Wrap Up / Submit Additional Questions

552 TRG Welcome

Col Stephen V. Carocci

552 TRG Commander

WELCOME

• Administrative Issues

• Refreshments

• Restrooms

• Smoking

• Emergency Evacuation

INTRODUCTIONS

• Mr. Doug Barnard– ACC/TRSS Program Manager

• Tara Holloway– ACC AMIC/PKB Contracting Officer

• Ms. Cha McLaughlin – ACC AMIC/PKB Contract Manager

• Mr. Bob Wind– ACC/TRSS Program Manager

• Lt Col Matthew Wemyss – 552 TRSS/CC

• Lt Col Ryan Isokane – ACC TRSS Det 6/CC

• Mr. Mike Gaines – 552 OSS/OSQ

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

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

• Questions during this conference should be directed to the briefers and must be submitted in writing for a formal response.

• Terms of the solicitation and/or PWS will remain unchanged unless formally amended in writing and issued by the Contracting Officer.

• Conference slides and all Qs&As will be posted on FEDBIZOPs (http://www.fbo.gov/)

• Government is not liable for expenses incurred by offerors prior to contract award.

http://www.fbo.gov/

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• Procurement History

• Warfighter Mission

• Procurement / Description

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 9SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Overview

• Procurement History

• Key PWS Requirements

• Performance Locations

• Funding Requirements

• Risk Assessment

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

E-3 Tinker AFB, OK

CRC Tinker AFB, OK

• Customer

– 552 ACW E-3 B/C/G (Tinker AFB)

– 752 OSS Control Reporting Center (Tinker AFB)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

• Current Contract: FA4890-15-C-0010

• Title: E-3 Mission Crew Training Contract

• Incumbent: Sonoran, LLC Small Business

• Awarded: 1 July 2014 (2-month base with 4 Option Years) Contract Start - 1 Nov 2014

• Contract Expires: 31 Jan 2020

• 6 Mos. Extension – 31 Jul 2020

• Awarded Cost: $25.6M

11SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

• Requirement: Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision and services necessary to perform:

– Contract Aircrew Training

– Courseware Development

– General Tasks

KEY PWS REQUIREMENTS

13SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

• Contract Aircrew Training (CAT)

• Academic Classroom Instruction

• Instrument Refresher Course (IRC)

• Training Device Instruction

• Mission Qualification Training

• Flight Engineer and Mission Crew Flight Instruction

• Courseware Development

• Develop New Courseware

• Review and Revise existing Courseware

• Respond to Out-of-Cycle changes and Urgent Action

Directives

• Use AF Instructional Systems Development (ISD)

Model

KEY PWS REQUIREMENTS

14SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

• Other Tasks

• Scheduling

• Registrar

• General Tasks – Admin Support

• Exercise Director Support

• Radar Mission Support

• Mission Simulator Training Package Development

• 752 OSS CRC Exercise Director Support

• 752 OSS CRC Radar Mission Support

• 752 OSS CRC Mission Simulator Training Package

Development

Ms. Cha McLaughlin Contract Manager

ACC AMIC/PKB

chaweewan.mclaughlin.2@us.af.mil

(757) 764-5706

SOURCE SELECTION AND

CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

mailto:chaweewan.mclaughlin.2@us.af.mil

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DATA

• Authority

– FAR Part 12: Acquisition of Commercial Contracts

– FAR Part 15.3: Negotiated Contracts

– AFFARS MP 5315.3: Source Selection as revised 25 May 2018

– 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 that the initial proposal should contain your best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

PROCUREMENT DATA

• Follow-on Acquisition: 100% Set-aside for Small Business

• NAICS Code: 611512

– Size Standard: $30.0M

• Contract Type

– Commercial (FAR Part 12)

– Non-Personal Services

– Firm-Fixed Price with FFP NTE Line Items for Travel

– Data Deliverables – NSP

• Performance Period

– Phase – In: 1 May 20 – 30 Jun 20

– Base Year: 1 Jul 20 – 30 Apr 21

– Option Year One: 1 May 21 – 30 Apr 22

– Option Year Two: 1 May 22 – 30 Apr 23

– Option Year Three: 1 May 23 – 30 Apr 24

– Option Year Four: 1 May 24 – 30 Apr 25

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 18SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

KEY MILESTONES

EVENT TARGET AND/OR

ACTUAL DATE

Post Draft RFP/ Issuance of synopsis 30 Aug 19 Receive Business Clearance 19 Sep 19 Issue Final RFP 27 Sep 19 Pre-Proposal Conference 25 Sep 19 Receive Proposals 28 Oct 19 Contract Award 1 Apr 20 Transition (60 Days) 1 May – 30 Jun 20 Contract Start 1 Jul 20 Contract Completion Date 30 Apr 25

SOLICITATION REVIEW

• SF 1449

– Ensure all blocks are filled in as necessary and signed

– Complete block 26 Total Award Amount with your total proposal amount

• Section 2 – Continuation of SF 1449

– Fill in all required information

• Section 3 – Schedule of Supplies and Services

– Complete all pricing data

– The Total Price should be divisible by 12

– Include all FFP-NTE amounts in your Total Price

• Section 4 – Contract Clauses and Provisions

– Complete as applicable

• SECTION 5 – List of Attachments

• SECTION 6 – Instruction to Offerors / Addendum to 52.212-1

• SECTION 7 – Evaluation Criteria

SPECIAL CLAUSES/CONSIDERATIONS

• Collective Bargaining Agreements (1)

– E-3 at Tinker AFB, OK

– Effective Date: 2 Nov 2018 – 2 Apr 2022

• International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO District Lodge 171 And Its Local Lodge 850

** Ensure pricing is IAW the correct CBA

• CBAs and WDs were provided as attachments to the Solicitation

• Past Performance evaluation is waived

Acquisition Overview

• Basis of Award

– This is a competitive best value source selection utilizing the Technical Capability Tradeoff source selection procedures

– May result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror

– Award to one contractor whose offer is the most advantageous to the

Government, price and other factors considered

– Price is not the most significant factor in the selection of an offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government

– Intend to award without discussions; therefore, final determination as to best value may be solely based on the initial proposal as submitted;

however, government reserves the right to open discussion if in the best interest of the government

BASIS FOR AWARD

• Technical Capability Trade-Off Procedures

• Eligibility for Award: Offerors must meet all the requirements of the

Prerequisites

• 2 Factors:

• Factor 1 – Combined Technical Capability and Risk

• Factor 2 – Price

• Hierarchy of importance:

• Technical Capability/Risk is most important

• Price is less important

* The greater the equality of technical proposals, the more important price becomes in the best value selection decision

EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

• Proposal Prerequisite Requirements (Volume I):

• Assesses the contractor proposal to ensure compliance with the PWS requirements

• Basis: Acceptable or Unacceptable

• Four Requirements must be met:

• Transition Plan

• Instructor Training and Certification Plan

• Quality Program Control

• Contractor Furnished Equipment

• Proposals will be “Unacceptable” for Non Compliance

EVALUATION CRITERIA

• Factor I: Technical Capability/Risk (Volume II):

• Government will evaluate the following using a Partial

Trade Off procedure

• Three (3) Aspects:

• Aspect I: Manning Workload Analysis

• Aspect II: Training Workload Management Plan

• Aspect III: Organizational Structure and Roles, Responsibilities and Communications

• Rated in accordance with Table 3, Combined

Technical/Risk Rating Method, DoD Procedures

EVALUATION FACTORS

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 25

FACTOR 1:

Aspect I: Manning Workload Analysis

• Proposal demonstrates a detailed CAT manning workload analysis derived from PWS workload tables that clearly explains all proposed CAT manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used), for CAT instruction and management.

• Proposal demonstrates a detailed CWD manning workload analysis derived from PWS (ref Appendix D) for all courseware requirements that clearly explains all proposed CWD manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees.

• Proposal demonstrates a detailed support manning workload and a clear understanding of all proposed support position manpower requirements that clearly explains all proposed support manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees.

SSET EVALUATION

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 26

Aspect II: Training Workload Management Plan

• Proposal Training Workload Management Plan clearly demonstrates methods, procedures, efficiencies and policies which ensure all required work is accomplished IAW the PWS.

• Proposal provides detailed individual position manning table resulting from workload analysis of each CAT/CWD and support manning position

• Proposal provides overall manning table resulting from manning workload analysis

• Proposal demonstrates effective processes for daily and long range scheduling

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 27

Aspect III: Organizational Structure

• Proposal demonstrates an effective organizational structure detailing contractor's line(s) of authority to include subcontractors and/or teaming partners and provide an organizational chart depicting each participant’s role.

• Proposal demonstrates a cohesive functional relationships and effective roles and responsibilities that will ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the government representatives to effectively execute the PWS requirements.

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 28

FACTOR 1: Technical ratings will be assessed at the Aspect level IAW Table 3 Combined Technical/Risk Rating of the DoD Source Selection Procedures;

an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

EVALUATION FACTORS

COLOR

RATING

ADJECTIVAL

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 Un-awardable.

FACTOR 2: PRICE (Volume III)

• Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price

• Evaluated on the total, overall evaluated price (TOEP), which consists of the total proposed price for all Fixed Price CLINS and NTE Travel CLINS, Optional CLIN(s) and all Option periods (includes the six-month extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8)

• Price will be evaluated to determine if offerors have a clear understanding of the requirements and if the proposed price is consistent with their technical approach

• Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned

EVALUATION FACTORS

• Price

– Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP)

– The Government has provided pre-established Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for the Fixed Price Travel CLINs. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offerors proposal and will be evaluated as part of the total overall evaluated price.

– Proposed pricing will be evaluated to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal (reasonableness and completeness)

– This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer is determined affordable and represents the best value to the Government

Other Price Considerations

• Price Competition will be the primary method to establish price reasonableness

• Supporting Price Backup Data for Prime/ Subcontractors/Partners

– Requested to verify price is balanced and to ensure price is consistent with offeror’s Technical Proposal

– Data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed CLIN prices

– Supporting data shall be provided in a table format, to include, at a minimum, a breakdown (by CLIN) of labor (labor category, number of positions and productive hours and rates used), breakout of Other Direct Costs (ODC), Direct and Indirect Rates, and Subcontract costs

– May be submitted in a format selected by the offeror

– Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals

QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Quality assurance/inspection/acceptance for the Government will be conducted by the appointed Contracting Officer Rep (COR)

• Appointed Government/Subject Matter Experts (G/SMEs) at each site

– Training SMEs: TRSS DET 6, FTU Squadron

– Courseware SMEs: TRSS DET 6

• COR appointment(s) will be provided to the awardee in writing

• Program Manager / COR

– ACC TRSS: Mr. Doug Barnard

Please submit written questions to the following POCs:

Ms. Tara Holloway– Contracting Officer tara.holloway@us.af.mil

Ms. Cha McLaughlin– Contract Manager chaweewan.mclaughlin.2@us.af.mil mailto:tara.holloway@us.af.mil mailto:chaweewan.mclaughlin.2@us.af.mil

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

• Questions and Answers will be posted on the FBO

• Thank You For Attending