PTR Industry Day Slides - SAM Posting.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Primary Training Ranges (PTR) Operations, Maintenance, and Support

(OM&S)

Industry Day

HQ ACC/A3A

HQ ACC AMIC/PKB

Overview

• Introduction to PTR

• PTR 101

• Customers and Locations

• SOW Requirements

• Major Areas of the SOW

• Special Interest Areas

• Changing Factors from Previous Contract

• Future Look

• Acquisition Strategy / Solicitation

• Discussion/Questions

• PTR has critical primary roles in delivering an effective live OTI environment

• Operate & Maintain systems needed to provide training and feedback

• Integrate operations with other training activities for a consolidated training picture

• Provide system data to support live execution of the training sortie

• Provide realistic target sets for aircraft sensors and weapons employment

• PTR has supporting roles to enable an effective live OTI environment

• Routine, persistent, interface with warfighters for scheduling, support, and feedback

• Program and quality management to ensure reliable and repeatable delivery of PTR capabilities

• Feedback to Program Offices on equipment issues to aid technical/engineering activities for system improvements

PTR 101

Primary Training Ranges (PTR) A Critical Component of Live OTI

• Operational Training Infrastructure - The framework, services, and resources used to accomplish USAF OT

• Live OTI includes ranges, sites, ops centers, etc.

• Range Threat Systems / Air Combat Training Systems

• Airspace, ranges, and off-range lands

• Scoring, feedback, and targets

• Pods, instrumentation, weapon/system interface devices

• Networks, communications, cybersecurity

• Supporting workforce (O&M, Eng, PM, QA, etc.)

PTR is a distinct set of capabilities and a major data set integrated into OTI from an Enterprise viewpoint

• Operational Training - Mission essential task training in support of operational force readiness.

GPS Accuracy

Integrated Operations

Ground-Based Weapon ScoringPod Ground Station

Link Ground Stations

JNTC / DMO

Network

Global Information Grid (GIG) Integrated Live Ops

Threat Systems

Changing Factors Regionalization

• OTI assets grouped regionally to meet increasing training requirements with limited assets

Changing Factors Technology Turnover

• Multiple new systems projected 3-8 years out

• Advanced Radar Threat System (ARTS) - 3 versions

• Low Cost Threat Emitters

• Live Mission Operations Center (LMOC) - 3 versions

• Live Mission Operations Network (LMON)

Dare County Range, NC

Poinsett EWR, SC

Belle Fourche EWS, SDMountain Home Ranges, ID

Grand Bay Range, GA

Avon Park, FL

Holloman Ranges, NM

EWR (1)

BOMB RANGE (5)

TOTAL: 9

Snyder EWS, TX

PTR CONTRACT LOCATIONS

Bulldog MOA, GA

CUSTOMERS

• Primary:

• ACC Units

• AETC Units

• AFGSC Units

• Secondary Users:

• Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve

• Sister Services (USA,USN,USMC)

• Other DoD Agencies

• Other Federal Agencies

• Foreign Military

Customers and Locations

ACC Locations Host Base Avon Park Range, FL Moody AFB (23 WG) Grand Bay Range, GA Moody AFB (23 WG) Dare County Bombing & Gunnery Range, NC Seymour-Johnson AFB (4 FW) Poinsett Electronic Warfare Ranges, SC Shaw AFB (20 FW)

- Bulldog MOA, GA (Ft. Gordon) Mountain Home Ranges, ID Mountain Home AFB (366 FW)

- Saylor Creek Bombing & Gunnery Range, ID

- Juniper Butte Bombing & Gunnery Range, ID

- No Drop Target Complexes, ID (ND-1/ND-4/ND-5/ND-7/ND-9)

AETC Locations Host Base Holloman B&G Ranges, NM Holloman AFB (49 WG)

- Oscura Range, NM

- Red Rio Range, NM

- Centennial Range, NM

AFGCS Locations Host Base Belle Fourche Electronic Warfare Site, WY Ellsworth AFB (28 BW) Snyder Electronic Warfare Site, TX Dyess AFB (7 BW)

Different funding sources with one unified set of requirements

• General Information

• General Tasks – B&G, EWS, and EWR

• Specific Tasks - B&G

• Specific Tasks – Electronic Warfare (EW)

• Government Furnished Property and Services

• Publications and Forms

• Definitions and Acronyms

• Airfield Operations

• Technical Exhibits

• Technical Exhibit 1A – Services Summary Bombing & Gunnery Ranges

• Technical Exhibit 1B – Services Summary All EWR/EWS

• Technical Exhibit 2 – Workload Estimates

• Technical Exhibit 3 – Maps (located in operating location’s Addendum to AFMAN13-212V1)

• Technical Exhibit 4 – Government Furnished Vehicles/Heavy/Agricultural Equipment

• Technical Exhibit 5 – Government Furnished Property and Equipment

Major Areas of the SOW

Hours of Operations

1 Does not include startup, shutdown, and maintenance action times.

2 Maintenance may be performed during hours of operation on a non-interference basis.

3 Dare County EW operations are to be incorporated into B&G operations.

4 The number of operational hours per week are to be used during five consecutive work days. Federal holidays that occur Monday – Thursday are to be considered as one of the five consecutive days. The numbers of hours contributed to a Monday – Thursday holiday are to be equal to the number of hours of the longest workday per week. The number of hours contributed to a Friday holiday should be consistent with historical Friday operating hours. Weekend hours will only be used to support Operational Requirements coordinated through the ACC Program Manager.

5 SOW Para 1.3 – “During the hours of operation, the range will be fully manned with qualified personnel to support operations whether or not sorties are scheduled.”

Hours of Operation (IAW Flying Schedule) Notes 1,2,3,4,5PRIMARY TRAINING RANGE

80 per week and 4 Large Force Exercises (see para 3.1.11) Avon Park 60 per weekBelle Fourche EWS 66 per week

Dare County 30 per week MTE operations 77 per week Grand Bay B&G

100 per week Range Operations Center Holloman B&G

69 per week Range Control Officer operations

60 per week at Saylor Creek Mt Home B&G Ranges

30 per week at Juniper Butte 63 per week Poinsett B&G 63 per week Poinsett EC 60 per weekSnyder EWS

Additional Hours of Operations

1. Per SOW Para 1.4, request hours will include routine startup and shutdown procedures but shall not include time for maintenance (emergency or routine).

Additional Hours of Operation (IAW Flying Schedule) Notes 1 PRIMARY TRAINING RANGE

100 Full Crew per year Avon Park

150 RCO Only per year 150 per yearBelle Fourche EWS 100 per year B&G operations

Dare County 100 per year MTE operations 200 per year Grand Bay B&G

100 per year Range Operations Center Holloman B&G 50 per year Full Crew (no RCO)

100 per year Full Crew with RCO

200 per yearMt Home B&G Ranges

200 per yearPoinsett B&G

200 per yearPoinsett EC

200 per yearSnyder EWS

• C-1 General Information (list of deliverables in Table 1-4)

• Program Management (1.7)

• Key Contractor Personnel (1.9)

• Security (1.10)

• Safety (1.13)

• Government Property Administration and Control (1.14)

• Invoices (1.22)

• C-2 General Tasks – B&G, EWS, and EWR

• Real Property (Grounds) Maintenance (2.1)

• Real Property (Facility) Maintenance and Repair (2.2)

• Real Property (Roads) Maintenance and Repair (2.3)

• Water Systems (2.5)

• Smokey Sam and Pyrotechnical Threat Devices (2.7)

• Maintenance of Vehicles and Heavy/Agricultural Equipment (2.8)

• Administration (2.10)

• C-3 Specific Tasks – B&G

• Operations (3.1)

• Range Communications (3.1.3)

• Scoring Systems Operation (3.1.4)

• Range Control Officer (3.1.5)

• Portable Threat Operations (3.1.9)

• Pop-up and Moving Targets (3.1.10)

• Maintenance (3.2)

• Target Maintenance And Construction (3.2.1)

• JAWSS Scoring System Maintenance (3.2.2)

• Scheduling (3.3)

• Logistics (3.4)

• Contractor Provided Fire Services (3.6)

• C-4 Specific Tasks – EW

• Operations (4.1)

• Maintenance (4.2)

• Maintenance Control (4.2.1)

• Maintenance Effort (4.2.2)

• Configuration Control (4.2.5)

• Programmed Depot Maintenance (4.2.6)

• Logistics (4.3)

• Materiel Contract Management (4.3.2)

• Quality Control (4.4)

• Security (COMPUSEC & COMSEC) (4.5)

• C-5 Government-Furnished Property and Services

• Government-Furnished Facilities (5.1)

• Government-Furnished Equipment (5.2)

• Government-Furnished Materials (5.3)

• Government-Furnished Utilities (5.5)

• Communications Services (5.6)

• Fire Protection/Fire Suppression (5.8)

• C-6 Applicable Pubs and Forms

• Technical Exhibits

• Technical Exhibit 1A – Services Summary Bombing & Gunnery Ranges

• Technical Exhibit 1B – Services Summary All EWR/EWS

• Technical Exhibit 2 – Workload Estimates

• Technical Exhibit 3 – Maps

• Technical Exhibit 4 – Government Furnished Vehicles/Heavy/Agricultural Equip

• Technical Exhibit 5 – Government Furnished Property and Equipment

• Vehicles/Heavy Equipment

• Due to changes in the FAR Government provided items are being phased out

• Govt has provided an estimated end life for current equipment in Tech Exhibit 4

• Contractor required to provide vehicles/heavy equipment needed for range maintenance and operations, if government equipment reaches end of life the contractor will still be responsible for meeting SOW requirements

• Mountain Home and Holloman Ranges need significant amounts of vehicles/heavy equipment to meet SOW requirements

• Vehicles previously provided for remote site threat emitter maintenance have been removed from contract due to age and reliability

• Contractor equipment plan in Technical Proposal is key

• Maintenance

• Government had provided a data base for Equipment Status reporting that is obsolete.

Contractor will provide data via required Management Information System

• Communications Tower Maintenance – Language is under final review for placement in RFP SOW, will include certified tower climbing

• Range Personnel

• The incumbent workforce has a significant number of personnel reaching retirement age

• SOW Para 1.3 – “During the hours of operation, the range will be fully manned with qualified personnel to support operations whether or not sorties are scheduled.”

Special Interest Items

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Acquisition Strategy / Solicitation Overview

J.J. Foster Contract Specialist

ACC AMIC/PKB

Capt Ryan Tagatac Contracting Officer

ACC AMIC/PKB

Overview

• Key Contractual Aspects

• Projected Milestones

• Commerciality/Small Business Considerations

• Evaluation Process

• Evaluation Methodology - Overview

• Evaluation Methodology - Factor 1 - Technical

• Evaluation Methodology - Factor 2 - Past Performance

• Evaluation Methodology - Factor 3 - Price

• Security Clearance

• Bidder’s Library

• Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)

• Site Visit

• Communications with the Government

• Discussion/Questions

Key Contractual Aspects

• Solicitation Number: FA489025R0006

• Was “FA489023R0075”

• Cross reference will be provided on SAM.gov

• Anticipated Contract Type:

• Single Award Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with Cost Reimbursable (CR)

Line Items

• Draft Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure:

• Transition (FFP)

• Program Management (FFP)

• Operations at each Location (FFP)

• Travel / Supplies / Government Directed Overtime (CR)

• Collective Bargaining Agreements at all locations except Mt Home

• Government Furnished Property/Equipment

• FAR Part 45

• DFARS Part 211 - Item Unique Identification (IUID) Registry

Projected Milestones

DateMilestones

1 Mar 2025Solicitation Issued

TBDPre-Proposal Conference/Site Visit (Shaw AFB, SC)

15 May 2025Proposals Due (~45 days allotted for preparation)

Sep 2025Source Selection (~4 months allotted)

Oct 2025Contract Award

1 Dec 2025Transition

Performance Start

1 Jan 2026 – 31 Dec 2026- Base Period

1 Jan 2027 – 31 Dec 2030- Four (4) 1-Year Options

Commerciality/Small Business Considerations

• Anticipate Non-commercial Acquisition

• Anticipate Requirement Set Aside 100% for Small Business

• Sources sought Questionnaire posted to 15 May 2024

• Government is currently evaluating Industry’s responses

• Anticipated NAICS Code:

• 561210 – Facility Support Services

• SBA Size Standard - $47M

Evaluation Factors

Initial Eval

Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debrief

Offeror Proposals

Award w/o Discussion

Initial Evaluation

Brief to

SSA

Interim Evaluation

Competitive Range

Determination

Discussions

ENs

Final Evaluation

Revise Ratings

Award

Source Selection Decision Briefing

Best Value Decision

ENs

Final Proposal Revision

Brief to SSA

Close Discussions

Receive Final Proposals

Evaluation Process

Evaluation Methodology

• Best Value Tradeoff IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures dated Aug

2022 and DAFFARS 5315.3

• Secret Facility Clearance required at proposal submission

• Technical Factor is more important than Price Factor

• Acceptable Past Performance Factor

• Evaluating 3 Factors:

• Factor 1 - Technical - Rated at Subfactor level using combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

• Subfactor A: Program Management with 3 Aspects

• Subfactor B: Transition

• Factor 2 - Past Performance - Rated at Factor level (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• Recent and Relevant Performance within 8 years from RFP

• Maximum of 3 contracts for prime contractor and maximum of

3 contracts for proposed major sub-contractors/teaming partners

• Factor 3 – Price: Reasonable, Balanced, Affordable

• Order of Importance: Technical is more important than Past Performance and Price; Past Performance is equal to Price

• Facility Security Clearance

• Facility clearance required for the PTR contract performance is Secret

• Offerors must possess a facility security clearance at the level of Secret at time of initial proposal submission

• Ensure teaming partners or subcontractors also have appropriate clearances at time of proposal submission

Technical/Risk Subfactor Ratings

DescriptionRating Color

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

OutstandingBlue

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GoodPurple

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

AcceptableGreen

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

MarginalYellow

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

UnacceptableRed

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method per paragraph 3.1.2.2 DOD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 Aug 2022

Technical/Risk Subfactor Ratings

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating per paragraph 3.1.2.2 DOD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 Aug 2022

DescriptionAdjectival Rating Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Low

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Unacceptable

• Subfactor A: Program Management

• Aspect I: Manning

• Aspect II: Quality Control

• Aspect III: Contractor Equipment

• Subfactor B: Transition

• Subfactors and subfactor aspects are of equal importance

Factor 1 - Technical Capability

Evaluation Subfactors Technical Evaluation Criteria

• Subfactor A: Program Management

• Aspect I: Manning. Proposed approach shall provide successful program management execution and demonstrate complete technical understanding of the requirement

• a. Demonstrate proposed manning levels, skill mix, and labor categories are technically sufficient to successfully meet the SOW

• b. Demonstrate proposed key personnel and approach to maintain certifications and credentials are adequate to successfully execute the program

Technical Evaluation Criteria (cont.)

• Subfactor A: Program Management (cont.)

• Aspect II: Quality Control. Proposed integrated quality approach provides for effective planning, operation, and control of processes and thoroughly substantiates all the following:

• Demonstrates top management commitment/involvement with continuous process improvement of the quality program

• Demonstrates preventive-based monitoring, measurement and analysis, and metrics to ensure conformance to the SOW and the offerors’ Quality program, correction and prevention of recurring discrepancies, and continuous improvement of processes/performance

• Demonstrates procedures for testing and accepting the threat and scoring systems assigned to a range, and approach for inspecting the threat and scoring systems, as well as mission scoring and reporting are adequate to meet SOW requirements

• Subfactor A: Program Management (cont.)

• Aspect III: Contractor Equipment. Proposed approach provides an understanding of performance locations, operating environment and thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

• Demonstrates proposed contractor-owned heavy equipment/vehicles are technically sufficient to successfully meet SOW requirements

• Demonstrates an understanding that current GFE has a limited lifespan and addresses processes for replacement as contractor furnished equipment

• (Sec L - Current GFP equipment is not all inclusive to perform SOW rqmts

• Subfactor B: Transition

• Offeror’s approach shall provide an effective plan for transitioning resources and personnel during Phase-In at the start of the contract and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

• Demonstrates effective phases-in resources required to assume mission responsibilities at contract start

• Demonstrates effective phases-in of trained, qualified personnel required to assume mission responsibilities at contract start

• Identifies actions to prevent interruption of services

Factor 2 - Past Performance

• Acceptable/Unacceptable Rated at the Factor Level

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

• Submit references considered relevant in demonstrating ability to perform the PTR Operations, Maintenance, and Support Services

• Maximum of 3 references for prime offeror

• Additional 1 reference for each proposed critical subcontractor, teaming partner or joint venture partner

• Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter

• Organizational Change History

Factor 2 - Past Performance (cont.)

• Components of evaluation

• Recency:

• Demonstrated performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last 8 years from the solicitation issue date

• Relevancy:

• Reference is rated using the following:

• Relevant: present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

• Not relevant: present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

• Quality of Performance:

• Review recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of information

• Past Performance Questionnaires submitted for references (PPIs) without documented CPAR

• Offeror given opportunity to respond to any adverse ratings

Past Performance

Assess Recency of Each PPI Contract Obtained

Assess Relevancy for Each Recent Contract

Review Quality of Performance of Each Recent and Relevant Contract

Assign offeror’s PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Past Performance Ratings

DescriptionAdjectival Rating

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable

Note: In the case of an 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, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 [a][2][iv]). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method per DOD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C paragraph C.2.1.2.

dated 20 Aug 2022

• Price evaluated on total overall price of total consisting of total proposed extended prices for all FP and CR CLINS for transition, base period, optional contract periods to include a six-month extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8 using FAR 15.404-1 price analysis techniques

• Conduct Price Analysis for reasonableness

• Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

• Normally established thru Adequate Price Competition (APC):

• Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy government’s expressed requirement

• There is no finding that the price of the otherwise successful offeror is unreasonable

• Determine if prices are balanced

• IAW FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques

Factor 3 - Price

Evaluation Factors

Initial Eval

Ratings

Initial Evaluation

Debrief

Offeror Proposals

Award w/o Discussion

Initial Evaluation

Brief to

SSA

Interim Evaluation

Competitive Range

Determination

Discussions

ENs

Final Evaluation

Revise Ratings

Award

Source Selection Decision Briefing

Best Value Decision

ENs

Final Proposal Revision

Brief to SSA

Close Discussions

Receive Final Proposals

AWOD / Competitive Range

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

• Award Without Discussions (AWOD), OR

• Establish Competitive Range (CR) and enter into Discussions

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

• CO will notify offerors if:

• AWOD

• Entering Discussions

• Eliminated from CR

• Offeror can request pre- or post-award debriefing

Discussions & Final Proposal Revisions

• Conducting Discussions

• Release ratings

• Release Evaluation Notices (EN)

• Receive and evaluate offeror(s) responses to ENs

• May require multiple rounds of ENs

• CO makes determination when to close Discussions

• CO may recommend further reduction of CR

• CO will notify offerors when:

• Closing Discussions

• Requesting Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)

• Eliminated from CR

• Offeror can request pre-/post-award debriefing

Security Clearance

• DD Form 254 will be included as part of Technical proposal

• Facility clearance required for the PTR contract performance is Secret

• Offerors must possess a facility security clearance at the level of Secret at time of initial proposal submission

• Ensure teaming partners or subcontractors also have appropriate clearances at time of proposal submission

Bidder’s Library

• Bidder’s Library Access

• All required material located in Bidders Library located at

Snyder EWS, TX

• Regulations, manuals, drawings, Technical Orders, or other publications referenced in the solicitation will not be issued with the solicitation

• All documents referenced in the SOW are available online or in the Bidder’s Library

• Any additional details regarding access to the Bidder’s Library (e.g. gaining base access) will be published on SAM.gov

Site Visit

• Date: TBD

• Location(s): Shaw AFB SC

• Notice and registration information will be posted to SAM.gov

We Want to Hear From You…

• Suggestions on how to improve SOW

• Suggestions on technical capability evaluation criteria

• Suggestions on how to define relevant past performance work

• Input regarding length of transition

• Input regarding workload data required

Communications with the Government

• All questions or comments regarding this recompete must be submitted in writing to:

accamic.ptr.recompeteorgbox@us.af.mil

• All items briefed today and discussed at the One-on-Ones are preliminary and are subject to final acquisition strategy approval

• Questions/recommendations from Industry are encouraged

• Verbal dialog between government and industry, both during today’s open forum & one-on-one appointments, is unofficial

• The government will post official responses to all written questions on SAM.gov - originating source(s) will not be published

• Clearly marked proprietary information will not be published

Points of Contact

• ACC AMIC/PKB

• Capt Ryan Tagatac, Contracting Officer, ryan_mark.tagatac.3@us.af.mil

• Mr. J.J. Foster, Contracting Specialist, john.foster.23@us.af.mil

• Internet Links:

• https://sam.gov/

(Reference “Primary Training Ranges” in the Contract Opportunities Domain)

• https://www.acquisition.gov/ (Federal Acquisition Regulation)

Discussion/Questions