C-32_C-40_CLS_Pre-Solicitation_Conference_4_Nov_14_Final.pdf

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

C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C Contractor Logistics Support

Pre-Proposal Conference Solicitation FA8106-13-R-0002

04 November 2014

Mr. Scott Masterson Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil 405-734-0151 mailto:Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil

Welcome to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C

Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Pre-Proposal Conference presented by the Air Force Life Cycle Management

Center Directorate of Mobility

Commercial Derivative Aircraft Division (AFLCMC/WLV)

Tinker Air Force Base

Welcome

AGENDA

Program Description Source Selection Training Addendum L, Supplement to FAR 52.212-1 Addendum M, Supplement to FAR 52.212-2 Proposal Overview

− Volume I – Technical Proposal − Volume II – Past Performance − Volume III – Pricing − Volume IV – Contract Documentation

Solicitation Overview Keys to Developing a Good Proposal Conclusion

Purpose 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

Disclaimer

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

No one-on-one Government-Contractor briefings will occur

Rules of Engagement

Where possible, ask questions in writing via question forms − Submit questions only to the PCO, Mr. Scott Masterson − Official written responses will be posted on FedBizOpps on a non-attribution basis − Verbal questions and answers are not binding − The 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

The Government may limit or stop oral questions at their discretion

Program Description Provide Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for the following Commercial Derivative Aircraft (CDA):

– 4 Boeing 757-200 aircraft (Designated C-32A)

– 4 Boeing 737-700 aircraft (Designated C-40B)

– 7 Boeing 737-700 aircraft (Designated C-40C)

Aircraft located at four Main Operating Bases:

Andrews, Scott, Hickam and Ramstein

Provides airlift support for the President, First Lady, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Congressional Leaders, Cabinet-level dignitaries, and US Combatant and Component Commanders from all services

Partial CLS for C-32 and C-40 Aircraft at Andrews and Scott

– Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS)

– Depot Maintenance (CFT’s, Drop-in, Scheduled)

– Modification kits and installations

– Engine Overhaul/Repair

Full CLS for two C-40B Aircraft at Hickam and Ramstein

– All Partial CLS Support

– Day-to-day (line) aircraft maintenance

Joint Base Andrews, Maryland

– Four (4) C-32A aircraft operated by 89 Airlift Wing

– Two (2) C-40B aircraft operated by 89th Airlift Wing

– Three (3) C-40C aircraft operated by ANG 201st Airlift Squadron

Scott AFB, Illinois

– Four (4) C-40C aircraft operated by AFRC 932nd Airlift Wing

Joint Base Pearl Harbor – Hickam Field, Hawaii

– One (1) C-40B aircraft operated by 15th Airlift Wing

Ramstein Air Base Germany

– One (1) C-40B aircraft operated by 86th Airlift Wing

Operating Locations

C-32A

• 4 Boeing 757-200 commercial derivative

• In-the-sky office for Senior Leaders

• Maintained to FAA standards

• Transportation for President, Vice President, First Lady, Cabinet, Members of Congress

• First aircraft delivered in 1998

C-40B

• 4 Boeing 737-700 commercial derivative

• In-the-sky office for Senior Leaders

• Maintained to FAA standards

• Provides transportation for Combatant

Commanders

• Delivered first C-40B to AF in 2002

C-40C

• 7 Boeing 737-700 commercial derivative

• In-the-sky office for Senior Leaders

• Maintained to FAA standards

• Provides transportation for Members of

Congress, Senior Military Leaders and Senior Executive Staff

• Delivered first C-40C to AF in 2002

Program Management Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply

(COMBS)

Component (engines, landing gears, auxiliary power units) overhaul/restoration, repair, and lease OCONUS Line Maintenance Depot Maintenance to include C-checks, Unscheduled

Drop-in Maintenance and Paint Modification/Service Bulletin Kits and Support Contract Field Team Support Other non-routine Over and Above (O&A) tasks and/or materials

Program Scope

Transition - Phase In (Four Months) – Base Award Option 1 - Full Scale Performance Option 2 (1st Evaluation Period) Option 3 (2nd Evaluation Period) Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 - (Incentive Option 1) * Option 7 - (Incentive Option 2) * Extension of services (if necessary)

* AWARD OF ANY OPTION IS AT SOLE DISCRETION OF

GOVERNMENT TO INCLUDE EARNED INCENTIVE OPTIONS

Contract Ordering Period

Incentive Options

Evaluation and Incentive Option Periods

Process

– Incentive options are evaluated and may be earned during

Option Period 2 and 3

– If Incentive Option 1 is NOT earned during the 1st Evaluation

Period, then Incentive Option 2 is lost

– Incentive Option 1 may still be earned during the 2nd

Evaluation Period

Phase- In

Option

Option 2 - Evaluation

Period 1

Option 3 - Evaluation

Period 2

Option

Option

Option 6 - Incentive Option 1

Option 7 - Incentive Option 2

Incentive Options To earn consideration for an Incentive Option award, the contractor must achieve at least a "Satisfactory" rating on each and all of the following Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) elements:

– Quality of Product or Service

– Schedule

– Business Relations

– Management of Key Personnel

– Utilization of Small Business

The PCO shall notify the contractor, within 30 days after the CPAR is complete and final for the evaluation period whether the Contractor earned consideration of an Incentive Option

C-32 / C-40 CLS

Source Selection

Training

Van Garmon

AFMC AFSC/PZCAB

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

Air Force Sustainment Center

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 Selects which proposal or proposals represent the best value to the Government

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

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 total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

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

RFP Appendix L

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-1

RFP Appendix M

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-2

Request for Proposal

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

3 Resources and Materiel Management

Subfactors

Evaluation Factors

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price)

Order of Importance

2 Maintenance

1 Program Management

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

ACCEPTABLE

UNACCEPTABLE

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

FACTOR 2

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

REASONABLE

REALISM

BALANCE

FACTOR 3

TRADEOFF

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 in determining the competitive range

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 The SSA will assess the price and past performance ratings 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

PERFORMANCE

LIMITED

TOTAL

Evaluation Factors and

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Technical Rating Definition

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Technical Rating Definitions

Technical Evaluation

Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1- Program Management – 3 elements (a - c) 2- Maintenance – 5 elements (a – e) 3- Resources and Materiel Management – 3 elements (a – c)

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 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

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

RESOURCES

AND MATERIEL MGMT

a) Program Management Approach

b) Subcontracts

c) Transition Planning

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a) Spare and Repair Parts

b) High Value Spares/Leases

c) Support and Test Equipment

a) Depot Level Mx

b) Line Mx

c) Contract Field Teams

d) VIP Aircraft Painting

e) OEM Technical Data Access

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 Provide little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, and degradation of performance (Low Risk) 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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2

PERFORMANCE

LIMITED

TOTAL

Evaluation Factors and

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

LIMITED

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

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.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

NO

CONFIDENCE

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

Performance Confidence Definitions DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

BLUE -- EXCEPTIONAL

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

GRAY -- UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation

Technical Price

Program Title PPQ / CPARs

SF 1

PM

SF 2

MX

SF3

RM

Contract Type Amt Rel Perf

Alpha, Inc (Prime)

1 Contract 1001 # / # R S VR E VR S FFP $246M VR S

2 Contract 1002 # / # VR S R S R S FFP / T&M $335M SR S

3 Contract 1003 # / # SR E SR S SR M FFP $35M VR S

Zeta, Inc (Subcontractor) 4 Contract 2001 # / # N/A SR S VR M T&M $77M N/A

5 Contract 2002 # / # N/A R E VR S CPAF $467M N/A

6 Contract 2003 # / # N/A SR S VR S T&M $33M N/A

TOTAL:

ANY CPARS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown -- Exceptional -- Relevant R -- Somewhat Relevant SR -- Not Relevant NR -- Unknown UK -- Very Relevant VR

Past Performance Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal Contract Information (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

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

PERFORMANCE

LIMITED

TOTAL

Evaluation Factors and

Reasonableness Price proposal should address all RFP requirements Competitive market should establish price reasonableness PCO makes the determination of price reasonableness

Realism Relates to pricing that appears to be too low Pricing shall be realistic for the work required and must be consistent with the proposed approach Price proposal should reflect clear understanding of requirement Price should not pose a risk to performance

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

EVALUATION

Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Program Management A

Subfactor 2 Maintenance A

Subfactor 3 Resources and Materiel Management A

Past Performance SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Evaluation 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

Summary

Appendix L, Addendum to FAR

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Mr. Scott Masterson Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil 405-734-0151

The Government intends to award without discussions Provide all the required information in your proposal The Appendix L and Appendix M are your guides for properly preparing your proposal Specific instructions on format and content Non-conformance with the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation or being determined non-responsive

Clear, concise, include sufficient detail Substantiate the validity of your claims Do not repeat the PWS in your proposal Do not use up space explaining your awards and kudos

ITO - Overview

ITO - Preparation Read the ITO (Appendix L, Addendum 52.212-1) and the

Evaluation Factors for Award (Appendix M, Addendum 52.212-2)

Prepare your proposal exactly according to the instructions - no deviations

Send out your questionnaires, authorization letters, and consent letters

We request Past Performance, Volume II, 15 calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date − Early submission is optional, but desired

Offeror must fill in all information in Section A of RFP Submit your SIGNED proposal before the closing date and time listed in the RFP

Offeror shall make a clear statement on the SF1449 that the offered prices are valid for the specified period identified in the solicitation (365 days), subject to the terms and conditions stated within the RFP

Signature by the offeror on the SF1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept − Provide the correct number of copies of your proposal − Government will retain one (1) copy

Address all questions and concerns to the PCO, address is located in para 2.7.5 (scott.masterson@us.af.mil)

If requested, debriefings will be held with those excluded from the competitive range or determined unsuccessful (para 2.2.3)

ITO - Proposal Information mailto:scott.masterson@us.af.mil

Discrepancies − Notify the PCO immediately with the error and remedy

Bidder’s Library is established at Tinker AFB and will be made available on an appointment basis through the PCO − Need Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) approved

DD Form 2345, Military Critical Technical Data Agreement, access to For Official Use Only (FOUO) and/or Export Controlled data documents

− Need Boeing Non-Disclosure Agreement or license agreement for access to Boeing Proprietary data and documents

Oral presentations will not be utilized Electronic documents are posted on http://www.fbo.gov

ITO - Rules of Engagement http://www.fbo.gov/

Amendments to Solicitation (para 2.2.9) − All terms and conditions not amended remain unchanged and in full force and effect − You must acknowledge receipt of any amendments by signing and returning the amendments with your proposal This is also your acknowledgement of understanding

Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposal (para 2.2.10) − Must be in sealed envelope or package − Paper media and electronic media (CD-ROM) − Addressed to PCO − Time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the Offeror

ITO – Amendments

Use the Table 2.1, Proposal Organization In each volume

− Title Page Solicitation number Name Address Telephone Facsimile Email address

− Team List using format of Attachment 2.0 to the ITO Include Letters of Intent as an attachment

ITO - Volume Organization

Table of Contents − Use a Table of contents to delineate the sub-paragraphs within each volume

− Tab indexing is important to identify sections

− Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures Glossary and Abbreviations

− Provide explanation of all abbreviations and acronyms − Glossaries do not count against page limitations for respective volumes/sections

ITO - Volume Organization

ITO - Page Limitations / Cross Referencing

Page Limitations − See Table 2.1, Proposal Organization for page limits − These are maximums − Excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation

Cross Referencing − Each proposal volume/section shall be stand-alone − DO NOT use cross referencing between volumes or between designated volume sections − Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume section, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal

Address Pricing Information ONLY in the Price Proposal (Vol III)

Page size and format − 8.5 x 11 inches - Spacing is 1.5 lines − Text size no less than Arial 12 − Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software − When both sides of a page are used, each side counts as a page − 1-inch margins for top and bottom; ¾-inch side margins − Pages numbered sequentially by volume − Page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation

Notices, if used − Use the same format for electronic and hard copy proposals − Do not exceed 11 x 17 for tables, charts, graphs and figures

Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as a single page per side

Fold out pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text

Any text within figures, charts, tables, and graphs which do not meet requirements will not be considered in the evaluation

ITO

Page Size and Format

Binding and Labeling − Use a 3-ring binder − Must lay flat when opened − Staples shall not be used − Use a cover sheet on each volume − Cover sheet and spine must have same identifying data

Volume number Title Copy number Solicitation number Offeror’s name

− Do not use red or other applicable security designation colors − Apply your applicable markings

FAR 52.215-1(e) Restrictions on Disclosure and Use of Data FAR 3.104-4 Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information

ITO- Binding & Labeling

Must be identical to hard copies Written hard copies take precedence Identify each Compact Disc-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM)

− Offeror‘s name, volume number and title − Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions such as subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices and attachments

− Volumes I through IV must each be submitted in electronic format on separate CD-ROMs

− If compressed provide the decompression program − Only acceptable formats (as specified in each section)

MS Office 2007 or 2010 (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and/or Project) Adobe PDF

ITO - Electronic Offers

Do not use embedded links to outside data sources CD-ROMs will be scanned for viruses, bots, tracking software and computer risks.

− If detected, CD-ROM will be rejected and not included with proposal No additional time allowed for CD-ROM damage, unreadable data or rejection due to computer threats detected during security scanning

ITO - Electronic Offers

Appendix M Addendum to FAR

52.212-2, Evaluation

Factors for Award

Mr. Scott Masterson Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil 405-734-0151

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision − Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and

Price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable

Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.104-1 and 9.104-3

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation

Evaluation Factors for Award Evaluation Basis

One prime contractor for this acquisition Correction potential of proposals (If Awarding with

Discussions) − Sole discretion of the Government − Could be eliminated from competitive range

Not considered correctable The amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision

Rejection of offers − The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions

− All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach

Competitive Range Determination − Multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate

Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505 − Competitive range determination will based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors − Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a debriefing IAW

FAR 15.505

Discussions

− The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary Imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially

− If during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision

− If a Request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation

Reviews and Visits − The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer

Solicitation Requirements − Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements

Terms and conditions Representations and certifications PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors − Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Maintenance Subfactor 3: Resources and Materiel Management

− Factor 2: Past Performance

− Factor 3: Price

Technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price

Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off of technically acceptable proposals − For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 is approximately equal to Factor 3

Evaluation Factors for Award Relative Importance

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals − Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each Offeror in determining the competitive range

− Technical proposals will be evaluated based on a pass/fail basis, para 2.2 o Rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable

− Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.3

− Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

Evaluation Factors

VOLUME I

Douglas D. Williams

AFLCMC/WLVVC

Acquisition Program Manager

ITO Volume I Factor 1 - Technical

Be specific and complete − Do not include past performance

Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important

Explain your actual methodology for accomplishing the subfactors and all elements

All requirements are mandatory and must be included with your initial proposal

Address your proposed approach

Provide the documents requested

Meet the minimum performance and or capability requirements

Address each subfactor and all elements in detail

Approach must represent a Low Risk to unsuccessful contract performance

ITO Volume I Technical Organization

See Proposal Organizational Table 2.1 in ITO − Title page − Team List − Letters of Intent − Table of Contents − List of tables and figures − Glossary of Contractor Specific Abbreviations and Acronyms − Technical Subfactor 1 – Program Management − Technical Subfactor 2 – Depot Level Maintenance − Technical Subfactor 3 – Resources and Material Management

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Factors for Award

3.3.1 The Offeror shall provide its

approach to managing the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C CLS program that demonstrates an understanding and capability for establishing and executing the program.

3.3.1.a. Program Management Approach: Describe the Offeror’s Program Management approach to establish, maintain, and provide program oversight and risk management to execute CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets.

(PWS 1.1.2, 1.3.1, 1.4.1-1.4.7)

2.2.1 The Government will assess the

Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential PM Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

2.2.1.a. Program Management Approach:

The offeror’s approach must clearly describe their Program Management plans and methods to establish and maintain adequate program oversight and risk management for CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets IAW PWS paragraphs 1.1.2, 1.3.1, and 1.4.1-1.4.7.

Subfactor 1

3.3.1.a.(1). Per DFARS 252.237 7024, submit the Offeror’s Continuation of Essential Services Plan. Describe the Offeror’s approach to establish and maintain the capability for Continuation of Essential Services identified in Attachment 13 to the PWS. (PWS

1.1.2 and PWS Attachment 13)

2.2.1.a.(1). Continuation of Essential Services Plan - The offeror’s approach must clearly describe their plans and methods to establish and maintain essential services for the CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.2 and PWS Attachment 13.

Subfactor 1

3.3.1.b. Subcontracts: Describe the Offeror’s approach to establish and maintain subcontract arrangements and relationships; identifying subcontractors, their role and work performed; and identifying the flow down of system requirements and performance that addresses the requirements of PWS and FAR 52.219/DFARS 252.219 series clauses in the RFP as well as Clause GKK 12-028-1. (PWS 1.4.2.2)

- The Offeror shall complete the attached Proposed Team List (ITO Atch 2.0) template which details the breakout and distribution of planned work between the prime and primary subcontractors, the percentage of performance as a whole of the contract effort and primary PWS functions they shall perform. (PWS 1.4.1.2, 1.4.2.2.)

- The Offeror shall detail an approach and plan for subcontracting to Small Businesses for each option year award period in order to meet and maintain the 10% annual Small Business subcontracting (by % of total contract value) required by the contract per proposal clause GKK 12 028 1, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements and Incentives. (PWS 1.4.2.2)

2.2.1.b. Subcontracts – The offeror’s subcontracting approach must clearly describe subcontract arrangements and relationships, roles, and work to be performed by subcontractors as well as flow down of systems requirements which ensure the PWS requirements are met. The offeror’s approach must demonstrate the capability to meet and maintain the 10% annual Small Business subcontracting requirement (by % of total contract value) per proposal clause GKK 12-028-1, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements and Incentives and PWS paragraphs

1.4.1.2 and 1.4.2.2.

Subfactor 1

3.3.1.c. Transition Planning with Transition Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Transition Plan (TP) and Phase-In Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) which demonstrates a disciplined approach to establishing the full C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C CLS capability by the beginning of Option Year 1. The approach must include development of a critical path analysis of transition milestones which shall be reflected in the IMS. As a minimum the TP shall include: (PWS 1.4.5, 3.1)

- Staffing Plan: Provide a proposed Contractor organization chart and detailed staffing plan and timeline for the contract including all Contract operating locations (does not include depot maintenance centers). Provide details on minimum experience, special qualifications, licenses, and any required training for each position.

Incorporate staffing timelines into the IMS. (PWS 1.4.5, 3.1, 1.6.1-1.6.2.8)

- Resources: Address plans and provide a detailed schedule to establish initial materials strategy, support and test equipment strategy, furnishings, and other items necessary to establish capability at the fleet support center and each operating location to meet contract performance requirements no later than the start of Option year 1 performance. Incorporate resource timelines into an IMS. As there is no direct sustainment support during the transition period, no direct charges for sustainment material acquisition shall be authorized as part of the initial period. These shall be incorporated into the COMBS Cost per Flying Hour rates and/or specific maintenance CLINs, as appropriate. (1.3.2, 1.18 - 1.18.1.7, 1.18.2-1.18.4.6)

2.2.1.c. Transition Planning – The Offeror’s approach must clearly demonstrate the integrated planning, resources, and capability to establish full C-32/C-40 CLS performance capability by the beginning of Option Year 1 IAW PWS paragraphs 1.3.2, 1.4.5, 1.6.1-1.6.2.8, 1.18 -1.18.1.7, 1.18.2- 1.18.4.6, and 3.1.

Subfactor 1

3.3.2. The Offeror shall provide, in the proposal, an

approach for meeting the world-wide maintenance requirements for the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C CLS program. The approach shall provide as a minimum the following essential components:

3.3.2.a. Depot Level Maintenance: Provide a plan to support scheduled and unscheduled depot level maintenance to include as a minimum scheduled C-checks, drop-in maintenance, aircraft on ground, and contract field team capability. Submit a copy of a valid and current FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated Repair Station with Operations Specifications for each equivalent commercial model Covered Aircraft. Provide depot information to include such information as number of aircraft (capacity) that can be hangared/worked simultaneously and shifts/personnel available to support simultaneous depot maintenance (PWS 1.4.3, 1.17-1.17.1.14, 1.17.4-1.17.8.1, 1.17.10)

2.2.2. The Government will assess the Offeror’s

proposed maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential Maintenance Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

2.2.2.a. Depot Level Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach to support depot level maintenance must ensure all requirements are met per PWS 1.17.1.

The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate all depot level maintenance shall be accomplished at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 facility certificated for the applicable model of aircraft IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4.3, 1.17-1.17.1.14, 1.17.4-1.17.8.1, and 1.17.10.

Subfactor 2 Maintenance

3.3.2.b. Line Maintenance: Address capability to provide timely and capable field level maintenance and support to Covered Aircraft which meets AF requirements and meets or is equivalent to FAA FAR Title 14 Part 121 requirements of the contract (excluding dispatch requirements). Address availability/use of FAA qualified/licensed personnel; required tools, parts and equipment; and ability to meet the contract performance requirements. (PWS 1.4.3, 1.171.11, 1.17.5.5, 1.17.7-1.17.10.4)

3.3.2.c. Contract Field Teams: Address capability to provide FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility’s qualified depot level contract field teams (CFTs) world-wide for repair/recovery of Aircraft on Ground (AOG) events to include engine replacement.

(PWS 1.17.11-1.17.11.1)

2.2.2.b. Line Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach to support line maintenance must ensure all requirements are IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4.3, 1.171.11, 1.17.5.5, and 1.17.7-1.17.10.4.

2.2.2.c. Contract Field Teams – The Offeror’s approach to provide FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 qualified depot level contract field teams (CFTs) for worldwide repair/recovery of Aircraft on Ground (AOG) to include engine replacement must ensure all requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.17.11-

1.17.11.1 are met.

Subfactor 2

3.3.2.d. VIP Aircraft Painting:

Address capability and process controls to perform executive custom paint application at a licensed FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility per the paint specification and appearance standards. Provide a list of planned paint facilities to be used and address their capabilities and experience with executive custom aircraft painting for both “Scuff Sand and Paint” and “Full Strip and Paint” tasks for the C-32A and for each of the paint schemes for the C-40B and C-40C aircraft.

Address aircraft paint protection processes during depot level maintenance. (PWS 1.17.1.11,

1.17.2 1.17.3)

2.2.2.d. VIP Aircraft Painting – The Offeror’s approach to perform executive paint application at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility per the paint specification and appearance standards must ensure all requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.17.1.11 and 1.17.2-1.17.3 are met. the Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential Maintenance Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

Subfactor 2

3.3.2.e. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Data Access and Letters of Intent/Evidence of Data Access: Address Offerors ability to acquire data from the OEMs as required to maintain aircraft; aircraft systems and avionics; aircraft engines and APUs; and provide Field Service Representative (FSR) duties.

Attach copies of Letters of Intent for data access/license, Proprietary Information Agreements or other evidence of data access with the primes/OEMs. As a minimum, address these agreements/licenses with OEMs listed in PWS paragraph

1.2.9: (PWS 1.2.9, 1.6.2.4, 1.14.2,

1.16.5.1)

2.2.2.e. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Technical Data Access – The Offeror’s approach to acquire data from the OEMs must ensure capability to maintain aircraft, aircraft systems, avionics;

aircraft engines, APUs, and Field Service Representative (FSR) requirements. Attach copies of Letters of Intent for data access/license, Proprietary Information Agreements, or other evidence of data access with the primes/OEMs IAW PWS paragraphs 1.2.9, 1.6.2.4, 1.14.2, and 1.16.5.1.

Subfactor 2

3.3.3. The Offeror shall provide, in the proposal, an

approach for resource management for the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C programs. The approach shall provide as a minimum the following essential components:

3.3.3.a. Spare and Repair Parts: Address strategy and capability to operate and manage a Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) to source, manage, stock, repair, overhaul and dispose of required spares and repair parts in sufficient quantities or by other agreements by operating location to ensure the ability to maintain the C-32A, C 40B, and C-40C fleets to PWS individual fleet readiness requirements: (PWS 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.7.5, 1.18-1.18.1.17, 1.4.2.1, 1.6.2.8, 1.7.5, 1.11.3, PWS Table 1-2)

2.2.3. The Government will assess the Offeror’s

proposed RM approach and Material Management Plan to include, but not limited to requirement in PWS 1.4.2.1. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential RM Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

2.2.3.a. Spare and Repair Parts – The Offeror’s approach for spare and repair parts must ensure capability to meet performance requirements IAW PWS paragraphs 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.7.5, 1.18-1.18.1.17, 1.4.2.1, 1.6.2.8, 1.7.5, 1.11.3, and PWS Table 1 2.

Subfactor 3 - Resources & Materiel Management

3.3.3.b. High Value Spares/Leases:

Address capability to provide timely leased/spare aircraft engines, APUs, and landing gears to maintain the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets to PWS readiness requirements and AF and FAA Airworthiness standards. (PWS 1.17.5.4, 1.18.2-1.18.4.6)

3.3.3.c. Support Equipment: Address the ability and plans to source and provide required C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C Support Equipment to include Test Equipment, tools, maintenance aids, and associated equipment for each Covered Aircraft operating location. Provide a planned list for each operating location by name, part or model number, manufacturer and quantity in an Excel spreadsheet. (PWS 1.3.1, 1.18- 1.18.1.2, 1.18.1.9, 1.18.1.13, 1.18.6.8)

2.2.3.b. High Value Spares/Leases – The Offeror’s approach for providing high value spare/leases for engines, APUs, and landing gears must ensure capability to meet performance requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.17.5.4 and 1.18.2-1.18.4.6.

2.2.3.c. Support and Test Equipment – The Offeror’s approach for Support Equipment must ensure an understanding of the Support Equipment requirements, capability to source the items, and meet the requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.3.1, 1.18-1.18.1.2, 1.18.1.9, 1.18.1.13, and 1.18.6.8.

Subfactor 3 - Resources & Materiel Management

VOLUME II

PAST

PERFORMANCE

AF Life Cycle Management Center

Douglas D. Williams

AFLCMC/WLVVC

Acquisition Program Manager

Submit a Past Performance Volume IAW the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO

Required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform work outlined in solicitation

Government will use data provided by Offeror and subcontractors/ partners and data obtained from other sources in evaluation − Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) − Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) − Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIS) − System for Award Management (SAM) − Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) − Defense Contract Management Agency

ITO Volume II

Submit a consent letter (ITO Attachment 1.4) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter (ITO Attachment 1.5) authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance

ITO Volume II Consent

The past performance contract is relevant if it is within the same scope, magnitude and complexity as effort defined in the PWS. Simply being another Government contract does not make it relevant. Relevancy shall be based upon major functions of the contract such as:

a. Providing Boeing 737/757 depot and Boeing 737 organizational (flight line) maintenance support to DoD and/or FAA standards

b. Providing sourcing and management of logistics/sustainment for an equivalent commercial aircraft fleet of more than 5 aircraft to include operation of COMBS or other contractor supply point and world-wide mission & supply support for AF or FAA certified aircraft

c. Scheduled Depot, Unscheduled Depot, & Drop-In Aircraft Maintenance at an FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility of an equivalent aircraft fleet

d. Providing world-wide contract field teams for recovery/repair of large commercial passenger type aircraft

e. Aircraft Modifications

f. Aircraft Configuration Management

g. Executive Custom Aircraft painting at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 facility

h. Organizational maintenance support for aircraft to AF and FAA standards

ITO Volume II Relevant Contracts

4.1.3 Current Contracts

The past performance contract is current when it has actual relevant performance from three years prior to the request for proposal through the request for proposal. New work that has begun within the 180 days prior to the release of the RFP may be excluded by the Government based upon opportunity to perform and/or limited feedback available.

ITO Volume II Past Performance

4.1.4 Significant Subcontractors

Significant subcontractors are those relevant and current subcontractors or vendors that meet any of the following criteria:

a. FAA certified aircraft engine overhaul to OEM specifications

b. FAA FAR Title 14 Depot Facilities for equivalent commercial aircraft models

c. FAA FAR Title 14 Aircraft Paint facilities

d. Performed more than 10% of total contract value by dollar award (by % of total contract value)

Offerors are requested to submit past performance information for each relevant contract 15 calendar days before the solicitation closing date − Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification

ITO Volume II Early Proposal Info

Use of the PPI on-line tool is mandatory

Recommend up to four (4) recent, relevant contracts for the prime and three (3) for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner (over 10% of the total workload requirements)

Submit only information on subcontractors and teaming partners performing key or critical portions of the C-32/C-40 CLS effort

Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPI contracts are not automatically assigned an “Unknown Confidence” rating

Fewer numbers may provide sufficient information to allow the Government to determine a confidence rating

Past Performance Information Sheets

As soon as practicable, Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (ITO Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (ITO Attachment 1.3) to all points of contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information (PPI) tool (ITO Attachment 1.1)

The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by E-mail, directly to Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil

RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND

THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE

OFFEROR

Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The Government will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary

Past Performance Questionnaire

Offerors shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate

The offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified

Categorize the relevance information into the specific technical subfactors and Cost/Price assessment used to evaluate the proposal

Relative Contract Narrative

Changes that have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts − Explain if your company has been acquired?

− Explain if your company acquired another company?

− Explain if your company merged with other companies?

− Explain any reorganizations?

− Explain any other pertinent data such as name changes or CAGE code changes?

Put all of the above information into a “roadmap” Show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment

Roadmap must be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified, yet general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources 89

Organizational Change History

VOLUME III

PRICING

NANCY FILIPPO

AFSC/PZCF

LEAD PRICE ANALYST

Volume III General Instructions

Prices are evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and price realism

Compliance with the instructions is mandatory

Failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal

Information beyond that required by the instructions…