Industry_Day_20160203_(3).ppt
PPT presentation 3 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Installation of Equipment
- Solicitation number
- FA8102-16-R-0002
About this file
Pre-Solicitation Conference Presentation Slides
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
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
AFLCMC… Providing the Warfighter’s Edge
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
TEAM TINKER
Antenna Program Support Pre-Solicitation Conference Col Michael Harm
AFLCMC/HBD
3 Feb 2016
Agenda 9:00 – 9:15 Welcome and Opening Remark 9:15 – 10:00 APS Mission and Requirements 10:00 – 11:00 Source Selection Procedures 11:00 – 11:10
BREAK
11:10 – 11:45 Questions/Remarks 11:45 – 12:00 Closing
APS Mission and Requirements Neil Seunath - Program Manager Ernest (Mony) Goodman - Engineer
Key Personnel
Mission and Users
Requirements Antenna Program Challenges Closing Remarks
Topics Covered
Kristen Carter – Contracting Officer
Richard Weber – Contracting Specialist
Neil Seunath – Program Manager
Mony Goodman – Engineer
Key Personnel
Contracting Officer, only one with authority to bind the
Government
Information stated orally today will not alter the terms and conditions of the solicitation
Will provide answers to questions up to posting date of solicitation to FedBizOpps
Questions and answers will be incorporated into the final solicitation and posted to FedBizOpps
Guidelines
High Frequency Global Communication System
| The HFGCS Program Office provides and supports a strategic high power, high frequency, near-global communications network for the US Air Force and joint warfighter |
| Scope Command is the radio management and control subsystem of the HFGCS through the integration of COTS equipment and partial COTS software |
| The antenna subsystem is the weapon system interface between Scope Command radios and the atmosphere, responsible for either shaping and directing radio waves for transmitting (TX) or receiving (RX) |
HFGCS Mission
YOKOTA
ASCENSION
GUAM
DIEGO GARCIA
HAWAII
6000 MILES
LAJES
CROUGHTON
ANDREWS
WEST COAST
GRAND FORKS
ELMENDORF
SIGONELLA
OFFUTT
PUERTO RICO
Station Notional Radius Note that time of day, time of year, sun spot activity, and thickness of ionosphere significantly impact actual coverage by each station
System Map (Functional) JB-Andrews Offutt AFB Wes t Coast Hawaii Diego Garcia Yokota , JP Guam Puerto Rico Ascension Lajes, AZ Croughton Sigonella, IT Andrews Network Control Station
(ANCS)
Grand Forks Network Control Station
(GFNCS)
Remote Consoles Interfaces Interfaces USAF Owned/Operated USN Owned/Operated West Coast Elmendorf
| NIPRNet |
| SIPRNet |
| Audio Ckts |
| DSN |
| NIPRNet |
| SIPRNet |
| Audio Ckts |
| DSN |
| Whidbey, Island, WA |
| NAS Sigonella |
| Kaneohe Bay, HI |
| Kadena AB, JP |
| PAX River, MD |
| Vandenberg AFB |
| Cape Canaveral |
High Power HF Communications
Receiver Site: 2-30 mhz Transmitter Site: 4 kw DISA Network (GIG) Control Site
Intersite Communication via Microwave or Cable
Typical Station Nodes
| Provide global voice & data connectivity for: |
| COCOMs |
| MAJCOMs |
| Mystic Star (WHCA, etc.) |
| Navy (P-3 Ops, WTAC, SUBFOR, etc.) |
| Coast Guard |
| DISA |
| Homeland Security, DOS, FEMA, Allies,& other Non-DOD Users |
| SITFAA (Spanish Information and Telecommunications System of the American Air Forces) |
Users
| Program Management support | |
| Systems Engineering and Test and Evaluation | support |
| Antenna system(s) assessments and site surveys | |
| Installation, repair, removal and disposition of antenna systems | |
| Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance | |
| Grounding, bonding, shielding and lightning protection system evaluation, installation and modification | |
| Electrical power system evaluation | |
| Restore the work site(s) to the pre-installation condition to the maximum extent possible | |
| Removal and disposal of all construction debris and waste |
Contractor Service Requirements
| Over 30 different types of antennas |
| Standard configuration challenges |
| Corrosion control is a significant concern |
| Rotatable Log Periodic (RLP) is complex and a maintenance challenge for field personnel |
Antenna Challenges Severe Corrosion
Broken Radiator
| Transporting material and tools at remote locations |
| Remote locations may require sharing heavy equipment |
with multiple agencies
| Common materials, parts and tools not readily available |
| Coordinating oceanic material shipments |
| Transporting personnel at remote locations |
| Work team composition must be identified, trained and submitted for approval 30 DAYS prior to planned departure |
| Employee movement may be difficult to/from remote locations |
Logistical Challenges
| Environmental considerations at multiple locations (ie, endangered species, contamination, archeology specimens, erosion, corrosion & unexploded ordnance) |
| Permission from multiple environmental agencies in order to allow excavation required at some sites |
| Asbestos present at some sites |
| Antenna installations and maintenance are scheduled around weather conditions at various locations |
Environmental Challenges
Dual Mode Spira-Cone
Rotatable Log Periodic
Receive Loop Rosette
Contact Information Contracting Officer: Kristen Carter, kristen.carter@us.af.mil, 405-622-7267
Contracting Specialist: Richard Weber, richard.weber.11@us.af.mil, 405-622-7272
Source Selection Procedures Van Garmon
| SOURCE SELECTION |
| What Is It |
| Best Value |
| Main Members |
| Exchanges with Offerors |
| EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS |
| Technical |
| Past Performance |
| Price |
AWARD DECISION
CONCLUSION
Topics
Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.
The Government reserves the right to….
Trade-off possibilities
| Past Performance |
| Price |
Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable
TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES
| Source Selection Authority (SSA) |
| Makes the award decision |
| Approves entering and closing discussion |
| Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) |
| Directs the evaluation of proposals |
| Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors |
| Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) |
| Evaluate Proposals |
| Assign ratings |
| Present evaluation results to the SSA |
Source Selection Team Main Members
Source Selection Evaluation SSEB does not compare proposals against each other SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria
Offeror A OfferorB
C
A Offeror B
C
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Source Selection Decision
A OfferorB Offeror C SSA does compare proposals against each other SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations Technical acceptability for each offeror Past Performance ratings and total evaluated price for each offeror Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP
FACTORS FOR
AWARD
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Factor rating definitions Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria
INSTRUCTIONS
TO
OFFERORS
INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL
CONTENT AND FORMAT
Describe technical approach Provide past performance information Provide pricing data Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc
ADDENDUM
TO FAR
52-212-1
ADDENDUM
TO FAR
52.212-2 Request for Proposal
FACTOR 1
TECHNICAL
FACTOR 2
PAST PERFORMANCE
FACTOR 3
PRICE
Subfactors Evaluation Factors 2 Logistics 3 Installation / Repairs 4 Installation Scenario 1 Management
For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.
For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).
Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors
| Factor 1 Technical |
| Acceptable |
| Unacceptable |
| Factor 2 Past Performance |
| Satisfactory Confidence |
| Limited Confidence |
| No Confidence |
| Unknown Confident |
| Factor 3 Price |
| Reasonable, Realism, Balance |
Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process
The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals.
Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror.
Technical will be evaluated IAW para 2.2
Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.3
Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.4
For the award decision, the SSA will assess the and past performance ratings, and price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.
Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP
| Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs) |
| Three types of ENs |
| Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated |
| Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range |
| Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range |
| Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range |
| Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal. |
Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection
FACTOR 1
TECHNICAL
Technical Rating Definitions Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government Requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level
| Rating | Definition |
| Acceptable | Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. |
| Unacceptable | Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. |
Technical Evaluation
| Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor |
| 1- Management – 3 bullets |
| 2- Logistics – 1 bullet |
| 3- Installation / Repairs – 3 bullets |
| 4- Installation Scenario – 1 bullet |
In order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor.
Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor.
An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor.
Technical Evaluation
MANAGEMENT
LOGISTICS
INSTALLATION/
REPAIR
Deficiency
TECHNICAL FACTOR
RATED AS
ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE
Deficiency
INSTALLATION
SCENARIO
Deficiency
Technical Additional Notes
| To be Acceptable, the technical approach must… |
| Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements. |
| Provide convincing rationale of how the approach will meet requirements. |
| Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding PWS paragraphs) are met. |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach. |
| The technical approach does not have to address all PWS requirements. |
| The technical approach must specifically address all criteria in Addendums to FAR 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors) and |
52.212-2 (Evaluation Factors for Award)
FACTOR 2
PAST PERFORMANCE
Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.
Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.
Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.
Emphasis is on demonstrated performance
Confidence Definitions DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.
| Rating | Definition | |
| 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. | |
| 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. | |
| Unknown | ||
| Confidence (Neutral) | 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. |
Recency
| Recency, as stated in the RFP |
| The effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP |
If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance
For example, if a contract was completed within the recency timeframe, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract, which may have occurred seven years ago.
Relevancy Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and Price for this requirement
| Relevancy considerations |
| Similar service |
| Breadth and depth of skills |
| Similar… |
| Scope |
| Magnitude |
| Complexity |
| Contract Type |
Past Performance Evaluation
PAST PERFORMANCE
RELEVANCY
Reflects how similar the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work
GREEN -- SATISFACTORY
YELLOW -- MARGINAL
RED -- UNSATISFACTORY
CONFIDENCE RATING
RECENCY
RELEVANT
SOMEWHAT RELEVANT
NOT RELEVANT
UNKNOWN
Past Performance Evaluation
| Technical | Price | ||||||||||
| Program Title | PPQ / | ||||||||||
| CPARs | SF 1 | ||||||||||
| MX | SF 2 | ||||||||||
| LG | SF3 | ||||||||||
| I/R | SF4 | ||||||||||
| IS | Contract Type | AMT | REL | PF | |||||||
| BETA, INC (Prime) | |||||||||||
| 1 | ABC AFB | ||||||||||
| FAAAA-12-C-0004 | 2 / 3 | R | S | SR | S | SR | S | Not | |||
| evaluated | FFP / IDIQ | $133M | R | S | |||||||
| 2 | XYZ Corp | ||||||||||
| ZZZZ-13-0500 | 2 / 0 | R | S | SR | M | SR | M | T&M / FFP | $200M | SR | M |
| 3 | VFY AFB | ||||||||||
| FAAAB-13-C-0005 | 1 / 1 | R | S | SR | S | SR | S | FFP / T&M | $300M | R | S |
| ZETA CORP (Subcontractor) | |||||||||||
| 4 | Beta, Inc | ||||||||||
| 13313-06-45 | 1 / 0 | SR | S | N/A | SR | S | Not | ||||
| evaluated | FFP | $38M | N/A | ||||||||
| 5 | ABC AFB | ||||||||||
| FAAAA-10-C-0014 | 1 / 4 | R | S | N/A | SR | S | CPAF | $11M | N/A | ||
| TOTAL: | 7 / 8 | ANY CPARS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY? |
Y: N: X
-- Satisfactory
-- Marginal
-- Unsatisfactory
-- Unknown -- Relevant R -- Somewhat Relevant
SR
-- Not Relevant
NR
-- Unknown
UK
Past Performance Data Sources
| Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal |
| Contract Information Sheets (Prime and Subcontractors) |
| Provided by contractor as part of proposal |
| Questionnaires |
| Included as part of the RFP package |
| Completed by contractor references |
| Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team |
| Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) |
| Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts |
Past Performance Additional Notes
| Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Technical subfactors. |
| Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors |
| Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team List |
| Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria |
| Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform |
FACTOR 3
PRICE
| Reasonableness |
| Price proposal should address all RFP requirements |
| Competitive market should establish price reasonableness |
| PCO makes the determination of price reasonableness |
| Realism |
| Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance |
| Proposal should be consistent with technical approach |
| Provide rationale to support price |
| Balance |
| Pricing for one or more CLINs is significantly overstated or understated |
| Increases performance risk & may result in unreasonable prices |
Price Evaluation
Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation Initial Evaluation offeror’s proposal ENs prepared and finalized Evaluation of EN responses Follow-up ENs Initial Ratings established Ratings adjusted Based on EN responses Release ENs to offerors Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Receive FPRs from offerors Final evaluation of proposals Final ratings established SSA Best Value Decision
INITIAL
EVALUATION
DISCUSSIONS
FINAL
SOURCE SELECTION
AWARD
Evaluation Summary
| Technical | Alpha, Inc. | |
| Subfactor 1 | Management | A |
| Subfactor 2 | Logistics | A |
| Subfactor 3 | Installation / Repairs | A |
| Subfactor 4 | Installation Scenario | A |
| Past Performance | SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE | |
| Price | $XX |
Source Selection is a Subjective process
Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror
SSET evaluation is based on stated factors and written criteria listed in the RFP, not a comparison of offeror proposals
SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria
Summary
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .