Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Charts.pptx

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

C-12 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Pre-Solicitation Conference Solicitation # FA8106-15-R-0007 Ms. Melissa Mitchell

AFLCMC/WLVK

6 Aug 2015 405-739-4443 Email: melissa.mitchell.7@us.af.mil

AFLCMC… Providing the Warfighter’s Edge

Agenda Disclaimer Attendance and Ground Rules Milestones Program Overview Source Selection Procedures Program Challenges Pricing Points of Contact

FOUO

Disclaimer

Any presentation points in the following briefing or any ensuing discussions DO NOT constitute direction to the contractor. Only the Contracting Officer can communicate direction to the Contractor to initiate, change, or suspend work performance.

Following is preliminary information only All information provided is subject to change Government is not currently soliciting proposals All questions must be submitted in writing to the PCO by close of business 10 August 2015 Official written responses will be posted on FedBizOps website with non-attribution Verbal questions and answers are not binding

Attendance and Ground Rules

Attendance Confirmation of participants Government requests that any additional participants submit their contact information for attendance records Ground rules Call-in protocol and etiquette Questions should be submitted in writing to Procurement Contracting Officer Questions are due by close of business 10 August 2015

Program Milestones

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Overview Current C-12 Program

C-12 Beechcraft Super King Air derivative 28 A/C – 20 worldwide locations C-12C/D/F carry 7 passengers & C-12J carry 19 passengers twin turboprop 29-43 years old, low airframe hours (15,000 hours average) Full CLS Provides diplomatic and special duty support Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)

Passenger/cargo/medevac support Pacific Air Force at Yokota AFB Japan and Elmendorf AFB AK

Test support 586FLTS Holloman AFB NM 412TW Edwards AFB CA Mission Requirement Challenges/Issues 15 single aircraft sites Passports/Visas difficult to obtain for contractor personnel Difficult to staff sites Foreign customs clearance for parts/materials is lengthy Majority of sites lack U.S. military infrastructure

Overview C-12 Locations

Bogota Andrews Brasilia Accra Budapest Nairobi Bangkok Tegucigalpa Elmendorf Yokota Edwards Holloman Manila Ankara Riyadh Cairo Buenos Aires

Gaborone Rabat AFMC 5 a/c PACAF 5 a/c DIA 14 a/c DSCA 4 a/c

Islamabad

SOURCE

SELECTION

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 that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior technical risk, and/or 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 Risk Past Performance Price Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

Source Selection 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 OfferorB

C

A Offeror B

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

A OfferorB

SSA does compare proposals against each other SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical acceptability for each offeror Technical Risk, Past Performance ratings and total evaluated price for each offeror Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

Request for Proposal

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 3

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4

PRICE

1 Program Management Subfactors 2 Maintenance 3 Supply Support 4 Transition

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL RISK

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) will be approximately equal, and individually more important than Factor 4 (Price).

When combined, Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price).

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process Factor 1 Technical Acceptable Unacceptable Factor 2 Technical Risk Low Moderate High Factor 3 Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence Factor 4 Price Reasonable, Realism, Balance

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

Technical Risk will be evaluated against Subfactor 1 (Program Management), Subfactor 3 (Supply Support) and Subfactor 4 (Transition) IAW para 2.3

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.5

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the technical risk and past performance ratings, and price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

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

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government

Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1- Program Management – 4 elements (a – d) 2- Maintenance – 2 elements (a – b) 3- Supply Support – 1 element (a) 4- Transition – 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 (Deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor.

An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor.

Technical Evaluation

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

SUPPLY

SUPPORT

a)

b) Deficiency c) d)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a)

a) b)

TRANSITION

a) Deficiency b)

Technical Additional Notes To be Acceptable, the technical approach must… Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

Provide convincing rationale of how the approach will meet requirements.

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

Section L (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 Section L and Section M

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL RISK

Technical Risk Ratings Definitions

Technical Risk Definitions Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Technical Risk Evaluation Technical Risk focuses on weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactors listed in Factor 1 Technical.

Risk considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Technical Risk will be evaluated for the following subfactors 1- Program Management 3- Supply Support 4- Transition

Offerors will receive a single risk rating for subfactors 1,3, and 4 combined

Technical Risk will not be evaluated for Subfactor 2 Maintenance

Technical Risk Evaluation

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

SUPPLY

SUPPORT

a) Weakness b)

c) Weakness d)

TECHNICAL RISK FACTOR

RATED AS

LOW, MODERATE, HIGH

a) Weakness

a) b)

TRANSITION

a) b)

Technical Risk Additional Notes For subfactors 1, 3 and 4, the offeror shall address all Technical Risk the offeror considers to have a potential for disruption to schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Offeror shall provide the rationale for each risk, including quantitative estimates of the impacts on cost, schedule, and performance.

The Offeror shall describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of the risk’s potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of contract requirements, whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors.

For each risk the Offeror identifies, the Offeror shall outline how that risk is eliminated or reduced to a manageable level in the proposed mitigation plan.

FACTOR 3

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

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

PURPLE -- VERY GOOD

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory

-- Marginal

-- Unsatisfactory

-- Unknown

-- Exceptional -- Very Good -- Relevant R -- Somewhat Relevant

SR

-- Not Relevant

NR

-- Unknown

UK

-- Relevant

VR

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

Contract Information Sheets (Prime and Subcontractors) Provided by contractor as part of proposal

Questionnaires Included as part of the RFP package Completed by contractor references Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Past Performance Additional Notes Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Technical subfactors, and scope, magnitude and complexity.

Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team List Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria.

Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform.

FACTOR 4

PRICE

Price Evaluation Reasonableness

Realism

Balance

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

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

PROGRAM CHALLENGES

Contract Risk Successful performance requires more than just C-12 maintenance Site/personnel Access, challenging logistics, etc Contractor must understand required lead times Passports, visas, shipping, etc The purpose of the conference is to facilitate an understanding of the Government solicitation

Program Challenges

Passports (requirements vary by site location) Some site locations require Official (Red) passports for in-country personnel before issuing visas/site access credentials Requires accreditation to local U.S. embassy Personnel fall under Chief of Mission (COM) authority Dependent on contract number (expires with the contract) Process starts over with personnel turnover Embassy may limit number of personnel accreditations Family members do not require Official passports Temporary site personnel may require different credentials Approach must demonstrate understanding of passport requirements

Program Challenges:

Subfactor 4-Transition

Difficulties obtaining foreign visas and site access Each country has unique and challenging processes Dependent on current political climate May require in-country sponsorship Must understand visas requirements (work, permanent, temporary, etc) Family members also require visas Some countries may require extended processing times to obtain visas Must request site access after issuance of appropriate visas Site specific access credentials required Variable timeframes depending on site Approach must demonstrate understanding visa/site access requirements Program Challenges:

SF 4-Transition

Obtaining customs clearance Contractor is solely responsible for customs clearance of parts Each country has unique and sometimes challenging processes Dependent on current political climate May require in-country broker/facilitator Contractor must be familiar with local country business practices as relates to custom processes Some shipping documents require translation into host country language Little to no U.S. Government assistance available Approach must demonstrate understanding of customs clearance processes

Program Challenges:

SF 3-Supply Support and SF-4 Transition

International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) Contractor is required to comply with ITAR requirements for shipping C-12 spares and components Approach must demonstrate understanding of ITAR requirements

Program Challenges:

SF-3 Supply Support and SF-4 Transition

Single aircraft sites Challenges in meeting mission capable rates may include Maintenance planning/scheduling No spare aircraft to meet mission requirements Sufficient parts availability is crucial No U.S. military infrastructure Approach must demonstrate understanding of maintaining the aircraft at single aircraft sites

Program Challenges:

SF 1-Program Management SF 2-Maintenance and SF 3-Supply Support

SERVICE SUMMARY

Highlights of Service Summary

See PWS for complete list

Highlights of Service Summary continued

FACTOR 4

PRICE

General Information Prices are evaluated for reasonableness (including completeness), balance, and price realism Proposal will only be considered complete if it fully complies with the instructions, including unit prices provided in every open block of Pricing Matrix An adequate accounting system as determined by Defense Contracting Management Agency is required Pricing information beyond that required by the instructions shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position Under no circumstances shall pricing information/documentation be included outside of pricing volume in the proposal Factor 4-Price

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all Offerors including:

Basic Period Option prices Pricing proposed for the six (6) month extension Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions The TEP evaluation quantities reflect best estimated quantities (BEQs) based on historical data and future projected requirements The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only

Reasonableness Reasonableness is based on one or more of the techniques as defined FAR 15.404 (must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay) Completeness is one facet of reasonableness Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror Balance The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that exhibits unbalanced pricing Balanced pricing is determined by a lack of significant unexplained variance with respect to separately priced CLINs or SubCLINs and/or within one CLIN’s pricing from year to year

Price Realism Proposed pricing must demonstrate adequate understanding of the requirement and does not pose a risk to performance Shall be realistic for the work required Must be consistent with the proposed approach and show an understanding of the requirement, including program complexity

All proposed prices shall be sufficient and adequately proposed to ensure performance is not at risk due to understated prices

PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

Proposal Organization

Volume ITO Paragraph Number

Volume Title Hard Copies/ Disk Copies Page Limit

3.2.4 3.2.5

3.2.6 Subfactor 1 Program Management

Subfactor 2 Maintenance Subfactor 3 Supply Support

Table 2.1. Proposal Organization

* Not included within the 90-page limit

Proposal Organization Table 2.1. Proposal Organization

Volume ITO Paragraph Number

Volume Title Hard Copies/ Disk Copies Page Limit

All questions shall be submitted in writing to the PCO by close of business 10 August 2015

Ms. Melissa Mitchell, PCO Melissa.mitchell.7@us.af.mil Phone: 405-739-4443 Point of Contact image1.png image2.png image3.jpeg image4.tmp image5.tmp