22R0013 ATA-ATD Pre-Proposal Conference Slides (Posted 22 June 22).pptx
PPTX presentation 6 MB Posted
- Attached to
- AIRCREW TRAINING DEVICE/AIRCREW TRAINING AID SERVICES AT DETACHMENT 9 ACC TRSS LUKE AFB, AZ
- Solicitation number
- FA489022R0013
About this file
This document provides details of a pre-proposal conference for an Aircrew Training Device/Aircrew Training Aid services contract opportunity with the United States Air Force. The conference slides outline requirements for the support of ATD/ATA services at Detachment 9 ACC TRSS located at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. The incumbent contractor is System Dynamics International, with the current contract awarded in 2017 for a cost of $6.4 million. The new solicitation is seeking proposals due by July 6th, 2022 with an anticipated award date of August 31st, 2022. Evaluation will be based on technical acceptability, past performance using references from the last five years, and price. The services required include design, development, maintenance, consulting and on-call life cycle support for training devices and aids.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
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
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
This Briefing is:
UNCLASSIFIED
Headquarters Air Combat Command
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
1100 – 1115 1115 – 1120 1120 – 1125 1125 – 1145 1145 – 1215 1215 – 1225 1225 – 1245 1245 – 1300
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
Anyone else we need to invite on the government side?
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
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
Attachment 2
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
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
SOURCE 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
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.
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
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 |
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:
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.
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:
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.
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: CONTROL AND 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:
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.
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: CONTROL AND 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.
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. |
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.
| 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. |
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)
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
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!
image2.png image3.jpg image4.jpg image5.png image6.png image7.jpg image8.jpg image9.jpg image10.jpg image11.jpg image12.jpg image13.jpg image14.jpg image15.jpg image16.jpg image17.jpg image18.jpg image19.jpg image20.jpg image21.jpg image22.jpg image23.jpg image24.jpg image25.jpg image26.jpg image27.jpg image28.jpg image29.jpg image30.jpg image31.jpg image32.jpg image33.jpg image34.jpg image35.jpg image36.jpg image37.jpg image38.jpg image39.jpg image40.jpg image41.jpg image42.jpg image43.jpg image44.jpg image45.jpg image46.jpg image47.jpg image48.jpg image49.jpg image50.jpg image51.jpg image52.jpg image53.jpg image54.jpg image55.jpg image56.jpg image57.jpg image58.jpg image59.jpg image60.jpg image61.jpg image62.jpg image63.jpg image64.jpg image65.png image66.jpg image67.jpg image68.jpg image69.jpg image70.jpg image71.jpg image72.jpg image73.jpg image74.jpg image75.jpg image76.jpg image77.jpg image78.jpg image79.jpg image80.jpg image81.jpeg image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .