USAFA_PresolicitationConf.ppt

Headquarters U. S. Air Force 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

USAF Academy Pre-Solicitation Conference for Solicitation # FA8106-14-R-0004

24 October 2014

Introductions

Welcome

Agenda

Disclaimer

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

These slides are for general information and will not take precedence over the formal solicitation

We don’t have everything locked down as of today. Some little things may change so read the final RFP and attachments and appendices for the latest information. The formal solicitation takes precedence.

Disclaimer

Overview Bottom Line Up Front

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.

BE AWARE!!!!

What we want to do here today is go over the Instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria so that you have a better understanding of what we are looking for in your proposals.

Additonal proposals and responses to EN costs you money and costs the govt money. Let’s all get it right the first time.

Rules of Engagement

Ask questions in writing

Ask questions only to PCO

Be professional

Failure to comply with rules may result in removal from Base

Formal responses to all questions will be provided via FBO

Source Selection Training

AIR FORCE

SUSTAINMENT CENTER

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

TEAM TINKER

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

Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

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

1 Phase In / Transition 2 Program Management 3 Maintenance and Supply 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 4 Tow Support

TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

ACCEPTABLE

UNACCEPTABLE

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

FACTOR 2

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

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.

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)

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

LEVEL RATING

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

EVALUATED

PRICE

REASONABLE

REALISM

BALANCE

FACTOR 3

TRADEOFF

Technical Rating Definition Technical Rating Definitions

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE

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

Technical Evaluation

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

PHASE-IN /

TRANSITION

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

AND SUPPLY

a) b)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a) b) c) d) a) b)

TOW

SUPPORT

a) b)

Technical Additional Notes

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.

LEVEL RATING

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

EVALUATED

PRICE

REASONABLE

REALISM

BALANCE

FACTOR 3

TRADEOFF

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

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.

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) 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.

Recency

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

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

Past Performance Evaluation

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation R S

SUB 3

M&SS

SUB 2

PM

SUB 1

PI/T

R S R S

SR

Y $100M (10 yr) Government Program

F34601-99-C-9932 FFP/CR

SR

S R S R S $155M (8 yr) Company A Excel Project FFP

SR

S

SR

S $75M (5yr) Company B Order 58CP FFP/T & M

ALPHA, INC.

DOLLAR

AMOUNT

PROGRAM

CONTRACT #

ALPHA, INC

N/A $50M (10 yr) Company C N/A (G) FFP with Incentive $30M (9 yr) Government Program

F09603-98-C-9950 CPFF

N/A

ZETA CORP

R S R P Y R S

SR

S

PRIME

SUBCONTRACTOR

PRICE

R S R S

SR

S N/A N/A

SUB 3

TS

R S R S

SR

S R S

SR

S

Past Performance Data Sources Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

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.

LEVEL RATING

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

EVALUATED

PRICE

REASONABLE

REALISM

BALANCE

FACTOR 3

TRADEOFF

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

Source Selection is a Subjective process

Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror

SSEB 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

BREAK

Performance Work Statement Updates

PWS Updates This briefing was Designed to Highlight Selected Changes & Clarifications in the PWS

BREAK

Appendix D Instructions to Offerors

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Offeror agrees to hold proposal prices for 365 days

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

This is also your acknowledgement of understanding

Name, address, CAGE code of offeror and signature

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

FAR 52.215-1(e):

(e) Restriction on disclosure and use of data. Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall --

(1) Mark the title page with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of -- or in connection with -- the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

MS Word 2007 MS Excel 2007 MS Power Point 2007 MS Office XP

These are the only formats so don’t send something in a PDF format.

Volume I

Section 4 is the technical proposal

Volume II

Volume II

Volume II

Similar service, complexity, scope, type, magnitude, schedule Address each in your PPIS narrative Similar breadth and depth of skills Make sure they are recent

Performed during the past (3) three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation

Volume III

Volume III

Volume IV

Volume IV

LUNCH

Appendix E Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Factors for Award

Initial proposal evaluation results After discussions Prior to issuance of Final Proposal Revision If eliminated Offeror’s can request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505

Evaluation Factors

Phase-In, Base Period, All option year prices, The six month extension

Technical Factor 1

A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technically unacceptable rating.

Rating

Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

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

Provide sufficient details

Make sure you address the last two bullets in the past performance information

Each subfactor will be covered more extensively in a later briefing.

Each subfactor will be covered more extensively in a later briefing.

Factor 2

Will be discussed more in-depth later.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant performance More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance

Degree

Description

RELEVANT (R)

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information system (FAPIIS) Electronic Subcontract Reporting (eSRS) and commercial sources

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated

NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

Consideration may be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule For individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated Will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort

NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

Generally, efforts of less than $25M will be considered “Not Relevant” for Magnitude and Cost/Price unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: multiple overhaul contracts under $25M on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract).

Maintenance & Supply Support at multiple sites Organization, Intermediate depot maintenance on multiple platforms Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) Scheduled and unscheduled Aircraft Maintenance Tow Services Aircraft repairs, modifications, and configuration Aircraft records manangement

Aircraft Type(s) Supported Number of Aircraft Supported Contract Value

Aircraft Maintenance Concept Aircraft Mission Breadth/Depth of Skills

Adverse finding Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system Information identified, Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated

Evaluation Factor #2

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating

Description

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.

Price Factor 3

TEP is calculated as detailed in paragraphs 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 of Appendix L. Appendix F is provided as a TEP calculation worksheet based on pricing calculations from Tables 1 and 2.

Will be discussed in-depth later.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Should include reasons for the widely varying proposed pricing based on price assumptions utilized in the development of the pricing proposal. Keeping in mind the Government intends to award without discussions

Examples of Unbalanced Pricing---Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more contract line items (CLINs) is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques

2.4.3.1 There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

2.4.3.2 The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment if the Offeror believes additional data other than cost or pricing data provides support necessary to justify or clarify proposed pricing, it may be included in Price Volume III FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items applies to this solicitation. FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR part 15 applies regarding price analysis as a basis for determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

The six-month extension of services under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary The six-month extension of services is not to be considered part of the last option period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized For purposes of calculation, the overall evaluated proposal price of each CLIN total will be calculated

Pricing Matrix (Appendix F) of the Price Volume III will be used to develop the TEP. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy and electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP calculation.

Hourly rate CLINs will be…