Pre_Solicitation_Conf_MSN7_15Jul19.pdf

AF Life Cycle Management Center AFLCMC… Providing the Warfighter’s Edge

AN/MSN-7 Communication Central System Contractor

Logistics Support (CLS)

Pre-Solicitation Conference

15 July 2019

Agenda

0830-0845: Introduction and Opening Remarks 0845-0900: Program Background 0900-0930: Solicitation Overview 0930-0945: Break 0945-1030: Source Selection Training 1030-1100: Keys to Developing a Good Proposal 1100-1130: Open Question & Answer Session

Introduction

Branch Chief, ATCALS Sustainment Programs:

Mr. Donald Lytle

Program Manager (PM): Ms. Ella Le Program Engineer: Mr. Ted Huskinson Procurement Contracting Officer: Ms. Carrie Brown Contract Specialist: Mr. Robert Westerman Price Analyst: Ms. Courtney Snodgrass Source Selection Advisor: Mr. Van Garmon

Disclaimer

This briefing/training is to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

This conference does not constitute a contract, a promise to contract, or a commitment of any kind on the part of the Government nor does it constitute as a change to the RFP Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting are for discussion purposes only

Rules of Engagement Where possible, ask questions in writing

Submit questions only to the PCO, Ms. Carrie Brown at Carrie.Brown.8@us.af.mil, and Contract Specialist, Mr.

Robert Westerman at Robert.Westerman.4@us.af.mil

Official written responses will be posted on FedBizOpps on a non-attribution basis

Verbal questions and answers are not binding Government reserves the right to contact respondent for further clarification of submitted questions Clarification questions to the briefer are permissible when it applies to the general audience and not a specific condition/arrangement for you or your company

Government may limit or stop oral questions at their discretion

Opening Remarks

Ms. Carrie Brown Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/HBK

AN/MSN-7 Communication Central System Contractor

Logistics Support (CLS)

Program Background

Ms. Ella Le Program Manager

AFLCMC/HBAAA

Mr. Ted Huskinson Engineer

AFLCMC/HBAAB

Program Background MSN-7 is a deployable air traffic control tower used for control of aircraft during taxi, takeoff and landing on and around airfields. The MSN-7 operates as a self-contained system, with a primary vehicle that contains all electronic equipment required for operations and a support vehicle that provides normal deployment.

The primary mission of MSN-7 is to provide rapidly deployable Air Traffic

Control tower services for USAF deployment operations such as bare bases and alternate off-base landing areas.

The secondary mission of the MSN-7 is to provide temporary replacement of existing air traffic control tower facilities while they are being repaired or refurbished.

Program Background Current Users: Air Combat Command (ACC), US Air Force, Europe (USAFE), and

National Guard Bureau (NGB)

The MSN‐7, developed for the US Air Force by Tracor Aerospace Inc. of Austin TX, was first deployed in July 1998 and the final system was delivered in May 1999.

Program Overview Provide Supply Support of all MSN-7 parts, support equipment components, materials, consumables, and replenishment of parts.

Provide Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) for the MSN-7s

Provide help desk 24/7 support to include technical troubleshooting and supply of parts as requested by the field.

Must be available 24/7/365 days to support the field as needed.

Provide on-site Mobile Depot Maintenance (MDM) repair or equipment modifications to field system as needed.

Provide all transportation for movement of all material/items as well as the entire MSN-7s.

Provide Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) repairs as needed and delivery of the repaired LRUs to the users.

AN/MSN-7 Communication Central System Contractor

Logistics Support (CLS)

Solicitation Overview

Ms. Ella Le Program Manager

AFLCMC/HBAAA

Ms. Carrie Brown Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/HBK

The Government plans to award a single contract for the AN/MSN-7, Communication Central System Contractor Logistics Services (CLS).

CLS will support a fleet of eighteen (18) (16 operational, 1 trainer, and 1 hot mock-up) systems

CLS requirements will primarily include Program management AN/MSN-7 Parts Supply – Support equipment components, material, and consumables Replenishment of parts / Inventory Control Depot-level maintenance On-site mobile depot maintenance (As Required) System Modification & installation services (As

Required) 12

Solicitation Overview

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements Terms and conditions Representations and certifications PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors, and elements Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award

Solicitation Requirements

Contract Information

This acquisition is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract

Contract Type: Firm Fixed-Price and Cost-Reimbursable No-Fee for Other Direct Costs

Period of Performance 28 March 2020 – 27 March 2025 (+6 Mo. Option – 27

September 2025) Base Year (28 March 2020 – 27 March 2021)

Option Years (12 Mo. Options 28 March XX – 27 March XX)

Option to Extend (6 Mo. Option 28 March XX – 27 Sep XX)

*These dates will change depending on date of award

CLIN TYPE DESC QTY U/I

X001 FFP Product Service Support 12 MO

X002 FFP Maintenance Labor and Materials 12 MO

X003 FFP Spares (*50 Pre‐Priced SubCLINs) ‐ EA

X004 FFP Programmed Depot Maintenance 6 LO

X005 FFP (TBN) Over and Above (O&A) 1 LO

X005AA FFP O&A Engineering Fixed Hourly Labor Rate 20 LO

X005AB‐AC RESERVED

X005AD O&A Fixed Material Handling Rate 5 LO

X006 FFP Phase‐In 60 Days

X007 FFP (TBN) Phase‐Out 60 Days

X008 FFP (NSP) Data 1 LO

X009 CR – No Fee Other Direct Costs 12 MO

CLIN Structure

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Management Personnel Management Plan

Inclusion of all skillsets required per PWS requirements, for both on-site and potential offsite (MDM) activities

Level of experience and/or qualifications to meet the PWS requirements

Small Business Participation 10% annual Small Business Subcontracting

Requirement by % of total contract value

Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Supply Support Government Furnished Property (GFP)

Track and maintain GFP (Inventory Spares) Reconstitution of an AN/MSN-7 Field support requests

Parts order and information requests 24/7/365 help desk support

Repair individual AN/MSN-7 equipment, subsystems, and parts

PDM

Repairs sent in from the field

Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Supply Support (Cont.)

Shipping

OCONUS for both parts and complete units MICAP, priority, and routing requirements and ensure ITAR import/export documentation is maintained

Shipping Documentation System condition at pickup/delivery Arrival at the contractor’s facility Shipment from the contractor’s facility Shipping damage discovery and handling

Subfactor 3: Program Transition Fully operational by the end of phase-in (60 Days) Hiring and training of personnel Joint inventories (with Outgoing Contractor) Transitioning and tracking work in process Facility preparation to assume CLS responsibilities Minimize disruption and impact to user community

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products

Recency – within 3 years Relevancy – same Scope, Magnitude, Complexity Performance Quality – PPIF, CPARs, etc.

Provided information and information obtained from other sources

Factor 3 - Price

Government shall assess all technically acceptable offers for price reasonableness (including completeness), unbalanced pricing, price realism, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing will be evaluated using Pricing Matrix All proposed CLIN unit pricing shall be input into the

Pricing Matrix, not in the RFP, Schedule B All periods of performance must be priced

Estimated quantities per CLIN are provided in the Pricing Matrix for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government

Preliminary Milestones

EVENT MILESTONE ACTUAL

Draft PWS/RFP to Industry 3 Jul 19 Pre-Solicitation Conference 15 Jul 19 Release Formal RFP 5 Aug 19 Receipt of Proposals 17 Sep 19 Award (with discussions) 22 Jun 20 Kick-Off Meeting (tentative) 7 Jul 20

Mr. Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

AN/MSN-7 Communication Central System Contractor

Logistics Support (CLS)

Source Selection Training

Topics

SOURCE SELECTION

– What Is It

– Best Value

– Main Members

– Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

– Technical

– Past Performance

– Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

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 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 Team Main Members

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 Evaluation

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

Offeror

A

Offeror

B

Offeror

C

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other

SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B 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 supporting rationale) and total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

Request For Proposal

EVALUATION

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

SECTION

L

SECTION

M

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors

1 Program Management

2 Maintenance and Supply Support

3 Program Transition

Relative Order of Importance

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).

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-off Process

Factor 1 Technical

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance

– Satisfactory Confidence

– Neutral Confidence

– Limited Confidence

– No Confidence

Factor 3 Price

– Reasonable, Balance, Realism

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP

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 past performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment of which offerors provides the overall best value.

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

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.

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Technical Evaluation

Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor

– 1- Program Management – 2 elements (a-b)

– 2- Maintenance and Supply Support – 6 elements (a-f)

– 3- Program Transition – 1 element (a)

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.

Section L Instructions to Offerors

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

Subfactor 3 Transition

a) Provide a transition approach describing how the Offeror will be fully operational by the end of the phase-in period. As a minimum, the approach must include the hiring and training of personnel, conducting joint inventories, transitioning and tracking work in process and facility preparation to assume CLS responsibilities. The approach must describe how the Offeror will minimize disruption and impacts to the AN/MSN-7 user community.

The approach shall also include a comprehensive schedule detailing transition milestones. (PWS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3).

Subfactor 3 Transition

a) An approach to manage and accomplish transition, which ensures the Offeror will be fully operational by the end of the phase-in period, in accordance with PWS 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

a)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a)

b) Deficiency

MAINTENANCE AND

SUPPLY SUPPORT

PROGRAM

TRANSITION

a)

b) Deficiency

c) Deficiency d) e) f)

Technical Additional Notes

To be Acceptable, the technical approach must…

– Address the details listed in Section L (Instructions to Offerors)

– Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

– Provide convincing rationale how the approach will meet requirements listed in Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award).

– Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding PWS paragraphs) are met.

Section L (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach. Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award) provides Measures of Merit for technical acceptability.

The technical approach does not have to address all PWS requirements. The technical evaluation will only include the PWS paragraphs which are listed with each subfactor.

Technical

Make sure the technical proposal stays within the required page limit. Additional pages beyond the page limit can not be considered by the Government evaluation team.

The Government evaluation team can only consider information contained in the proposal.

The proposal should not merely agree to meet requirements. It should describe the offeror’s approach to successfully accomplish the requirements.

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

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.

Neutral Confidence

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.

Recency

Recency, as stated in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.1

– 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

– Price – Contract Type

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the AN/MSN-7 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following: Program Management, Help Desk Support, Spares Provisioning, Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) and Repairs/reconstitution of Parts, IUID Implementation, and Transition Support

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the AN/MSN-7 CLS requirement in terms of dollar value of parts managed, personnel skill type and level involved in the effort and contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform. Generally, efforts of less than $100,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example:

multiple overhaul contracts under $100,000 on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the AN/MSN-7 CLS technical requirements, including the defined factors and sub-factors.

Price Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the AN/MSN-7 CLS requirement.

Past Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE QUALITYRELEVANCY

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

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT UNKNOWN

Past Performance Evaluation

-- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown -- RelevantR -- Somewhat RelevantSR -- Not RelevantNR -- UnknownUK-- Very RelevantVR

Ratings

Program Title PPQ / CPARs Relevancy Performance

Quality

BETA, INC (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAAAA-12-C-0004

2 / 3 VR S

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-13-0500

2 / 0 SR M

VFY AFB

FAAAB-13-C-0005

1 / 1 R S

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Delta, Inc 13313-06-45

1 / 0 VR S

ABC AFB

FAAAA-10-C-0014

1 / 4 SR S

TOTAL: 7 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN

SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

Past Performance Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance Information Forms (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

Other sources as needed

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2.

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.

Provide details regarding any known adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions. Also discuss if the corrective actions were effective.

Past Performance page limits are preferences and not requirements. Offerors are requested to keep narratives within the page limits. However, offerors may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Price Evaluation

Reasonableness (“unreasonably high”)

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Balance

– Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year.

– Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5%.

Realism (“unrealistically low”)

– Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance.

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

– Provide rationale to support price.

Price

Provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed, such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.

Describe how the proposed price is generally consistent with the technical approach.

SOURCE SELECTION PHASES

AND

AWARD

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

Award w/o Discussions Competitive Range

Send ENs to Offerors

Request for Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established

Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION DISCUSSIONS FINAL

EVALUATION

RESULT RESULT RESULT

Evaluation Summary

Factor 1 Technical Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Program Management A

Subfactor 2 Maintenance and Supply Support A

Subfactor 3 Program Transition A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Factor 2 Past Performance

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Trade-off Considerations

Very Relevant in all areas

LIMITED

SATISFACTORY

Alpha, Inc.

Beta, Inc.

Overall Satisfactory Performance.

No adverse issues

Marginal performance on 1 contract

Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating

Trade-off considerations are not based on a comparison of Confidence ratings.

They are based on specific relevancy and performance aspects.

Trade-off consideration

Note: All offerors rated as Satisfactory Confidence are considered equal

Very Relevant in all areas except magnitude

Summary

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

Mr. Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

Keys to Developing A

Good Proposal

Typical Proposal Shortfalls

Proposal instructions are not followed

– Information not provided in the way it was requested

– Too little or too much information

Statements in the proposal are not well supported

Proposals are not well organized

– Does not follow proposal instructions structure, makes the evaluator hunt for the information DUNS/CAGE code references do not match

Deficiencies – preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance

– Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements

Not signing the RFP and all amendments

Keys to Developing A Good Proposal

Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks

Demonstrate sufficient resources to meet the requirements

Support your statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate that you have valid and practical solutions for all requirements

Substantiate, don’t simply make claims

– Tell the who, what, when, where, how, how often, etc.

– Give us a reason to believe you; provide information to allow an independent assessment

– Don’t repeat the language in the PWS, just reference the section of the PWS to which you are referring

– Tell the benefit to the Government of your proposed plan

Understand the RFP requirements Understand the PWS Understanding the evaluation criteria will help you know where to place emphasis in your proposal

Follow the proposal instructions – provide material where requested

– Keep pricing data out of the technical volume

Tab the information

– Don’t make us have to guess or search for answers

– Follow the exact numerical outline in the instructions

Complete the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 3)

– Pricing Matrix – Attachment 3.0 completed in its entirely with unit prices and rates proposed for all CLINs across all contract performance years

– Include in the pricing volume any notes/explanations that may be helpful in our evaluation of your prices

Don’t make changes to the PWS and submit a new versions

– Document stands as written

– Don’t submit a Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW)

Don’t make changes to the RFP and submit a new version

– Document stands as written and amended by PCO only

What’s Next

15 Jul: Government will post Briefing and answers to initial written questions on FBO

22 Jul: Follow-on questions due to Government 29 Jul: Government will post answers to follow-on questions 5 Aug: Tentative date to release formal solicitation

Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting is for discussion only. Verbal questions and answers are not binding. The final solicitation is the guiding direction for your solicitation response.

Summary

This briefing/training was designed to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions

The formal solicitation is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

Submit questions only to the PCO, Ms. Carrie Brown at Carrie.Brown.8@us.af.mil, and Contract Specialist, Mr. Robert Westerman at Robert.Westerman.4@us.af.mil; questions and answers will be posted to www.fbo.gov

Open Question & Answer Session