22R0013 ATA-ATD Pre-Proposal Conference Slides (Posted 22 June 22).pdf

Rules of Engagement

• Information for Pre-Proposal Conference was posted to SAM.gov on 1 June 22 for all interested parties to attend

• Max 2 individuals per potential offeror

• Must pre-register by emailing CO & CM by 7 June at 1200 EST to receive Team meeting link

• Unregistered attendees will not be allowed into the Team meeting

• Advanced questions must be submitted via email to CO & CM by 6 June by 1700 EST to be considered to be answered during this session

• CO: Ms. Christin Lockhart, christin.lockhart@us.af.mil

• CM: Capt Anita Naylor, anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

• Team meeting is scheduled for 8 June 2022 from 1100 – 1300 EST

• Individuals in attendance are to keep their microphones muted and cameras off to limit bandwidth use

• Team meeting will be started 20 minutes prior to allow time for technical difficulties while joining

• For help addressing any issues day of, please contact Capt Anita Naylor, anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

• Agenda Items: Welcome & Introductions, Rules of Engagement, Purpose of Meeting, Program and Requirements Overview, Acquisition / Evaluation Overview, Discussion Items, Virtual Tour of Facilities, and Wrap Up / How-To Submit Questions

• Live Virtual Tour conducted by Detachment 9 Commander

• All questions will be required to be asked via the Chat function in Teams or emailed to the CO & CM

• No answers will be given during the tour

• The pre-proposal conference will be recorded, and the recording, the chat transcript, and answers to all questions asked will be posted to SAM.gov afterwards

• It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify that their questions are received by the Government 1 mailto:christin.lockhart@us.af.mil mailto:anita.Naylor.3@us.af.mil mailto:anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Pre-Proposal Conference Aircrew Training Device/Aircrew Training

Aid Services at Detachment 9 Request for Proposal

FA4890-22-R-0013

James “Wes” McAnelly, ACC TRSS/ACQ Capt Anita Naylor, ACC AMIC/PKB

08 June 2022

Agenda

• Welcome & Introductions

• Rules of Engagement

• Purpose of Meeting

• Program and Requirements Overview

• Acquisition / Evaluation Overview

• Discussion Items

• Virtual Tour of Facilities

• Wrap Up / Submit Questions

Welcome & Introductions

• Mr. Wes McAnelly – HQ ACC TRSS Program Manager

• Ms. Christin Lockhart – HQ ACC AMIC Contracting Officer

• Capt Anita Naylor – HQ ACC AMIC Contract Manger

• Lt Col Jason “G-Sky” Glanovsky – Det 9/CC

• Attendees

Rules of Engagement

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

• christin.lockhart@us.af.mil – Contracting Officer

• anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil – Contract Specialist/Manager

• All questions must be submitted in writing to both POCs listed above

• Remarks and explanations provided today shall not change the terms or conditions of the RFP unless formally amended in writing

• Government is not liable for any expense incurred by offerors prior to contract award mailto:Christin.lockhart@us.af.mil mailto:Anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

Purpose of Pre-Proposal Conference

• Provide offerors a program overview

• Provide clear understanding of PWS requirements

• Provide clear understanding of evaluation process

• Tour facilities (virtually)

• Invite additional questions from industry

Mr. James “Wes” McAnelly Program Manager

ACC TRSS

james.mcanelly.1@us.af.mil

(757) 225-2205

Program Overview

Hypoxia Familiarization Trainer

SA-8 Turret Range Targets mailto:john.mcanelly.1@us.af.mil

• Current Contract: FA4890-17-C-0004

• Title: Aircrew Training Device (ATD) / Aircrew Training Aid (ATA) Services

• Incumbent: System Dynamics International (SDI)

• Awarded: 1 Aug 2017 (Commercial Award/Base with 4 Option Years)

• Awarded Cost: $6.4M Firm Fixed Price w/CR Line Items

8SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Procurement History

Key PWS Requirements

Requirement: Provide professional training services and products performed at Detachment 9 (Det 9), Air Combat Command (ACC) Training

Support Squadron (TRSS), Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona. Det 9

ACC TRSS provides training services and products to ACC and other

United States Air Force (USAF) Major Commands and Department of

Defense (DoD) agencies. This support includes maintenance of products no longer under manufacturer’s warranty and those not covered by

Contractor Logistics Support. These services and products include, but are not limited to, Aircrew Training Device (ATD)/Aircrew Training Aid

(ATA) design, development, and maintenance. Major Weapons System modification, with Government provided engineering support and direction, may also be requested.

Key PWS Requirements

Development

• One-of-a-kind products, prototypes, and proof of concepts

• Design, fabrication, delivery and installation

Maintenance

• On-call life cycle maintenance services and support

• Includes repairs, upgrading/updating hardware and software, reconfigurations, modifications, relocations and reinstallations

Consulting Services

• Provides professional consulting services for customers

• Tailors services to satisfy specific customer requirements

• Coordinates delivery schedule, installation & maintenance

Customer and Location

Customer: Detachment 9 (Luke AFB)

Det 9 Luke AFB, Arizona

Single Contract, Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort with Cost Reimbursable CLINs for Travel and Supplies

Contract Parameters

Period of Performance

Phase-In (FY22) 1 Sep 22– 31 Oct 22

Base Year (FY22-23) 1 Nov 22 – 31 Oct 23

Opt Year 1 (FY23-24) 1 Nov 23 – 31 Oct 24

Opt Year 2 (FY24-25) 1 Nov 24 – 31 Oct 25

Opt Year 3 (FY25-26) 1 Nov 25 – 31 Oct 26

Opt Year 4 (FY26-27) 1 Nov 26 – 31 Oct 27

Program Risks

• Transition

• Seamless continuation of mission support; NO BREAK

• Strike Contingency Plan

• Possible workforce unionization; human relations crucial

• Funding

• Budget Cuts

• Escalating Labor Costs

Acquisition Overview

Capt Anita Naylor – Contract Manager

ACC AMIC/PKB

anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil mailto:anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

• FAR Part 15

• This is not a commercial item acquisition

• Solicited through SAM.gov, NAICS 541990

• Proposal packages are due by 6 July 2022, 5:00 p.m. EST

• Submit packages via email to anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil and Cc christin.lockhart@us.af.mil and/or in accordance with the solicitation, specifically Section L Paragraph 4.1, via DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/

• Questions/Clarifications regarding this solicitation

• Please submit via email by 17 June 2022. Questions received after 17 June 2022 may not be considered timely. Questions will not be answered over the phone or submitted by any other means.

mailto:anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil mailto:christin.lockhart@us.af.mil https://safe.apps.mil/

• Full and Open Competition

• Base plus four with one-year option periods

• Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort with Cost Line Items

• Core Services

• Optional FTEs

• The Cost Reimbursement Line Items represent those expenses to be reimbursed based on actual costs

• Travel and Supplies

• These line items are not profit bearing, nor do they allow for additional markup (e.g., G&A, handling, OH, etc.)

• Notice to Offerors: Sufficient number of proposals/competition is expected

• Solicitation, Section M, Section 1: Discussions with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals

• Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions

• Offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposals up front

• Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions as part of the solicitation process to facilitate the government’s evaluation process

• Subsequent Final Proposal Revisions will not be requested after the discussions are closed. Therefore, any price changes an offeror considers appropriate/necessary must be submitted during the discussion process (if conducted)

• The government may conduct discussions with one, some, none or all offerors at its discretion 17

• Basis of Award: Performance – Price Tradeoff between price and past performance, following an evaluation of technical acceptability

• Permits recognition of past performance / minimizes risk of awarding to a contractor who will not perform at acceptable levels

• This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority determines that the past performance superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference

Notional Milestones

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED TARGET DATE

Issue Solicitation 31 May 22 Pre-Proposal Conference & Virtual Site Visit 08 Jun 22

Proposal Due Date 06 Jul 22 Initial Evaluation Commences 14 Jul 22 Initial Evaluation Complete 21 Jul 22 Contract Clearance 29 Jul 22 Decision Brief 16 Aug 22 Congressional Notification 27 Aug 22 Award Notice 31 Aug 22 Transition (60 Days) 1 Sep – 31 Oct 22 Contract Start 1 Nov 22

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 20

• Volume 1 – Factor 1: Technical

• Volume 2 – Factor 2: Past Performance

• Volume 3 – Factor 3: Price

• Factor Importance

• Past performance is significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute to the award decision

• The greater the equality of proposals for past performance, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the government

• The technical factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable and is not part of the trade-off determination

Proposal Volumes

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

The Technical Volume contains 7 sections:

• Section 1: DD254

• Section 2: Subcontracting Plan

• Section 3: Table of Contents

• Section 4: Glossary

• Section 5: Executive Summary

• Section 6: Technical Factor Cross Reference Matrix

• Section 7: Technical Capability Section

Step 1: Technical Evaluation

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

• The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement.

The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined below. Deficiencies and weaknesses will be used to assess technical ratings.

• All subfactors must receive a rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. All aspects must be rated acceptable in order for the Subfactor to be rated acceptable.

Step 1: Technical Evaluation

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, thus meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation.

SUBFACTOR A: MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND WORKLOAD

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 1: Manning Requirements. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

(a) Proposal provided and explained the offeror’s proposed organization structure detailing line(s) of authority, to include subcontractors and teaming partners, if required to effectively execute the PWS requirements to meet PWS paragraphs 1.3. and 1.4.

(b) Proposal provided an explanation of the functional relationships and roles and responsibilities that will ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the Government to effectively execute the PWS para 1.5. and 1.6.

requirements.

SUBFACTOR A: MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND WORKLOAD

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 2: Workload Analysis. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

(a) Proposal provided an explanation of key personnel positions (i.e., program management, office personnel, on-site management personnel, etc.) and an explanation of how the contractor will meet PWS paragraphs 4.1. and 4.2.

(b) Proposal provided a detailed manning workload analysis/methodology that depicts the proposed labor categories, skill level, and number of personnel for both full and part time positions.

(IAW PWS Appendix 1, para A1.1. through A1.1.5.).

SUBFACTOR B: CONTROLAND TRANSITION PLANS

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 1: Quality Control Plan. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly identifies and explains their processes and understanding of the following:

(a)Provides an effective inspection system used to cover all services listed in the Service Summary (refer to PWS Section 2). Clearly explains the specifics as to the areas to be inspected on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, frequency of inspections, and the title and organizational placement of the inspectors. IAW PWS para 4.7.1.1., 4.7.1.4., 4.7.1.5. and Section 2 of the Service Summary.

(b)Clearly explains the records documenting inspections, corrective or preventive measures taken and methods used for identifying and preventing defects. Clearly details processes for continuous improvement, methods to address negative trends, and how the records of inspections shall be kept and made available to the Government throughout the contract performance period IAW PWS para 4.7.1.2., 4.7.1.3., and 4.7.1.6.

SUBFACTOR B: CONTROLAND TRANSITION PLANS

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 2: Transition Plan. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates clear processes for all of the following:

(a) Provides an effective and comprehensive plan to detail how the contractor shall meet Phase-In/Phase-Out requirements including discussions of workload estimates, priority allocations of personnel and resources, scheduled completion dates of key events (i.e. milestone charts), and plans for mitigating risk factors IAW PWS para 4.10.

Subfactor C: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate one (1) aspect:

Aspect 1: Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Under this aspect, the Government will evaluate two (2) items:

Item 1) Provides a plan that’s compliant with FAR 52.219-8 and -9.

Item 2) Provides a plan that meets the requirement to subcontract 20% of the total dollars of the effort.

• Offerors who receive acceptable ratings in Factor 1 will be evaluated for Factor 2 – Past Performance

• Evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance

• Max of (3) performance references – use FACTS sheet provided in

Section L

Step 2: Past Performance Evaluation

• Recency for this acquisition is defined as: Contract performance (minimum of twelve 12 months) within the last five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than twelve

(12) months of performance will not be considered. Each performance reference will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent”.

• Relevancy, as it pertains to performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming and the PWS/solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the offeror’s past performance is an indicator of future performance. Note: The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance or relevance. In evaluating relevancy, the government will assign each performance reference one relevancy rating.

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 30

Relevancy Ratings

Table A-2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant

Present/Past Performance efforts for any DoD component that provide essentially the same program management of a large multi-platform and technically complex Aircrew training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services (ATA/ATD) service and development contract, both CONUS and OCONUS. Additionally, present/past performance efforts must provide essentially the same support and coordination of inputs from multiple organizations and/or agencies as described within the PWS and the scope of work.

Relevant

Present/Past Performance efforts for any Federal, State or local agency that provide similar program management of multi-platform and Aircrew training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services (ATA/ATD) service and development contract. Additionally, present/past performance efforts provide similar support and coordination of inputs from multiple organizations and/or agencies as described within the PWS and the scope of work.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/Past Performance efforts for any entity that provide some Aircrew training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services (ATA/ATD) and/or provide some support and coordination of inputs from multiple organizations and/or agencies as described within the PWS and the scope of work.

Not Relevant

Present/Past Performance effort that involved little or no Aircrew training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services (ATA/ATD) service and development and/or provided little or no support and coordination of inputs from multiple organizations and/or agencies as described within the PWS and the scope of work.

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 31

• Performance Quality: A measure of how well the offeror performed on current/prior contract references (demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule).

• A separate quality assessment rating is not required

• The past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance

• Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance, or for whom information is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the past performance factor.

• In regards to the best value award decision a Satisfactory performance confidence rating is significantly more important than a Neutral confidence rating.

Past performance will be assigned one integrated performance confidence rating at the factor level.

Step 2: Past Performance Evaluation

Past Performance Confidence Ratings Rating Definition

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

Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will be able to 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.

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 33

Step 3: Price Evaluation

• Technically Unacceptable proposals or proposals with a Limited or No Confidence past performance rating will not be evaluated for price

• Price will be evaluated using FAR 15.404-1 techniques to ensure government receives fair, reasonable, balanced price

• The total evaluated price (TEP) will consist of all CLINs (phase-in, base year, option years and fifty percent (50%) of the last option year price to cover the Option to Extend Services clause, 52.217-8)

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE 34

Step 3: Price Evaluation

• Reasonableness: Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique.

Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

• Unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

Discussion Items

• Advanced Questions and Answers

• 60 Day Requirement for Fulfilling Positions

• Proposals are to be submitted via DoD SAFE https://safe.apps.mil/

• CO: Ms. Christin Lockhart, christin.lockhart@us.af.mil

• CM: Capt Anita Naylor, anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:christin.lockhart@us.af.mil mailto:anita.Naylor.3@us.af.mil

Virtual Facility Walkthrough

Wrap-Up

• Please submit written questions via email or via the chat function to the following POCs:

Ms. Christin Lockhart: christin.lockhart@us.af.mil

Capt Anita Naylor: anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

Thank You For Attending!

mailto:christin.lockhart@us.af.mil mailto:anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil