C-20_C-37_CLS_Pre-Proposal_Conference_10_Aug_2017.pdf

On Thursday August 10th 2017 the Government hosted the Pre-Proposal Conference. The following charts were presented and are being provided on FBO for informational purposes only. These charts are not a part of the formal RFP.

Offerors shall rely on the information in the formal RFP when building their proposals. All information in the RFP takes precedence over any information contained in these charts.

All questions submitted during the Pre-Proposal Conference are going to be reviewed and posted to FBO as soon as possible.

PRE-PROPOSAL CHARTS

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

C-20G/F, C-37A, and C-37B Commercial Derivative Aircraft

Division (CDAD) Support Pre-Proposal Conference

Solicitation FA8106-16-R-0012 10 August 2017

Mr. Robert Carlsen Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLK (VIPSAM)

robert.carlsen@us.af.mil 405-739-3831

Welcome to the C-20G/F, C-37A, and C-37B

Commercial Derivative Aircraft Division (CDAD) Support 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 Appendix K, Supplement to FAR 52.212-1 Appendix L, Supplement to FAR 52.212-2 Break for Lunch Proposal Overview 1300 CST

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

Solicitation Overview Keys to Developing a Good Proposal Conclusion 1630 CST

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. Robert Carlsen − 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):

– 1 Gulfstream G-IV aircraft (Designated C-20F)

– 5 Gulfstream G-IV aircraft (Designated C-20G)

– 13 Gulfstream G-V aircraft (Designated C-37A)

– 7 Gulfstream G-550 aircraft (Designated C-37B)

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 USAF C-37A/B Aircraft as designated in PWS at JBA

– Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS)

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

– Modification kits and installations

– Engine Overhaul/Repair

Full CLS for USAF, USN, USA, C20G/F and C-37A/B Aircraft as designated in PWS

– All Partial CLS Support

– Day-to-day (line) aircraft maintenance

COMBs Support only for one Coast Guard C-37A Aircraft at Reagan National Airport

Program Description

Joint Base Andrews, Maryland

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

MacDill AFB, Florida

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

Joint Base Pearl Harbor – Hickam Field, Hawaii

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

Ramstein Air Base Germany

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay Hawaii

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

Sigonella Air Base Italy

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

Reagan National Airport

– as designated in PWS Table 1-1

Operating Locations

Program Management Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply

(COMBS)

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

Drop-in Maintenance and Paint Modification/Service Bulletin Kits and Support Contract Field Team Support Other non-routine tasks and/or materials to be negotiated on a case by case basis

Program Scope

AWARD OF ANY OPTION IS AT SOLE DISCRETION OF

GOVERNMENT TO INCLUDE EARNED INCENTIVE OPTION

Contract Ordering Period

Incentive Options To earn consideration for the 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 the Incentive Option

C-20 / C-37 CDAD

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

Factor 1 – Technical

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

Topics

Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities Past Performance Price

Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

Source Selection Authority (SSA) Makes the award decision Approves entering and closing discussions

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 Documents evaluation results

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 K

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-1

RFP Appendix L

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-2

Request for Proposal

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors

2 Supply Chain Management

3 Maintenance

4 Phase In

1 Program Management

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.1.2

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals, For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process

Factor 1 Technical Acceptable Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Neutral Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence

Factor 3 Price Reasonable, Realism, Balance

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.1.3

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

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value.

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP

Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Three types of ENs Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the 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 – 5 elements (a - e) 2 – Supply Chain Management – 1 element (a) 3 – Maintenance – 2 elements (a – b) 4 – Phase-In – 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

Technical Evaluation

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

SUPPLY CHAIN

MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

a)

b) Deficiency c)

d) Deficiency e)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a) b)

a) Deficiency

PHASE-IN

a) Deficiency

Technical Additional Notes

To be Acceptable, the technical approach must… Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements Provide convincing rationale of how the approach will meet requirements 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

The technical approach must specifically address all criteria in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2

The technical approach does not have to address all PWS requirements

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

The Technical evaluation does not consider..

Past Performance information Company awards

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

Substantial Confidence

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

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 “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor

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

EXCEPTIONAL -- BLUE

SATISFACTORY -- GREEN

MARGINAL -- YELLOW

UNSATISFACTORY -- RED

UNKNOWN -- GRAY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Recency

Recency, as stated in the RFP Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, 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

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.3.2.2 Scope Magnitude Complexity Contract Type

Performance Quality

Performance Considerations Positive performance (Satisfactory to Exceptional ratings)

Adverse performance Issues (Marginal and Unsatisfactory ratings) How significant was the issue?

Did the contractor take any corrective actions?

Did the corrective actions result in improved performance?

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

Past Performance Evaluation Technical Price

Program Title PPQ / CPARs

SF 1

PM

SF 2

SCM

SF3

MX

SF4

PI

Contract Type AMT REL PF

BETA, INC (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAAAA-12-C-0004

2 / 3 VR E SR S SR S R S FFP / IDIQ $87M R S

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-13-0500

2 / 0 VR S R M R M NR NR T&M / FFP $23M SR M

VFY AFB

FAAAB-13-C-0005

1 / 1 R S R S SR S R E FFP / T&M $45M R S

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Beta, Inc 13313-06-45

1 / 0 R E N/A SR S N/A N/A

ABC AFB

FAAAA-10-C-0014

1 / 4 VR S N/A R S N/A N/A

TOTAL: 7 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

Past Performance Data Sources

Past Performance volume from 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

Other sources as needed

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to overall Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity (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 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.

Offerors should provide details regarding any adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions.

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Price Evaluation

Reasonableness Price proposal should address all RFP requirements Competitive market should establish price reasonableness

Realism Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance

Provide rationale to support price

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%.

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

Technical Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Program Management A

Subfactor 2 Supply Chain Management A

Subfactor 3 Maintenance A

Subfactor 4 Phase-In 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 K, Addendum to FAR

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Mr. Robert Carlsen Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Robert.carlsen@us.af.mil 405-739-3831 mailto:Robert.carlsen@us.af.mil

The Government intends to award without discussions Provide all the required information in your proposal Appendix K and Appendix L 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 K, Addendum 52.212-1) and the

Evaluation Factors for Award (Appendix L, 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 (robert.carlsen@us.af.mil)

If requested, debriefings will be held with those excluded from the competitive range or determined unsuccessful (para 2.2.2)

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

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 2.2.5) − 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 2.2.6) − 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 2.3, 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 2.3, 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, 2010, or 2013 (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 L

FAR 52.212-2,

Evaluation Factors for Award

Mr. Robert Carlsen Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Robert.carlsen@us.af.mil 405-739-3831 mailto:Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil

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

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 64

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: Supply Chain Management Subfactor 3: Maintenance Subfactor 4: Phase-In

− 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 acceptable/unacceptable 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

TECHNICAL

Mr. Joe Adamski

AFLCMC/WLV

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 2.3 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 – Supply Chain Management − Technical Subfactor 3 – Maintenance − Technical Subfactor 4 – Phase-In

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Factors for Award

3.3.3 Subfactor 1 Program Management. The

offeror shall provide an approach for PM for the combined effort for the C-20 and C- 37 CLS program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

3.3.3.a. Page 10 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

3.3.3.b. Page 10 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

3.3.3.c. Page 10/11 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1 ITO Attachment 4.0 Spreadsheets ITO Attachment 3.0 Scenario

3.3.3.d. Page 11/12 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

3.3.3.e. Page 12 of Appendix K FAR 52.212-1 ITO Attachment 2 Teaming List

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 components: Low Risk

2.2.1.a. Page 4 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

2.2.1.b. Page 4 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

2.2.1.c. Page 4/5 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2 ITO Attachment 4.0 Spreadsheets ITO Attachment 3.0 Scenario

2.2.1.d. Page 5 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

2.2.1.e. Page 5/6 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2 ITO Attachment 2 Teaming List

Subfactor 1 Program Management

3.3.4. The offeror shall provide, in the proposal, an approach for SCM for the C-20 and C-37 program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

3.3.4.a. Page 12 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

2.2.2. The Government will assess the

Offeror’s proposed SCM approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the 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 components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:(Low Risk)

2.2.2.a. Page 6 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

Subfactor 2 Supply Chain Management

3.3.5. The offeror shall provide, in the

proposal, an approach for meeting the daily and depot maintenance requirements for the C-20 and C-37 program. The approach shall provide the following essential components:

3.3.5.a. Page 12/13 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

3.3.5.b. Page 13 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

2.2.3. The Government will assess the

Offeror’s proposed M approach. Offerors are required to present all the information in the initial proposal as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance: (Low Risk)

2.2.3.a. Page 6 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

2.2.3.b. Page 6 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

Subfactor 3 Maintenance

3.3.6. The offeror shall provide, in the

proposal, the Phase-In Plan IAW CDRLs:

A002 Management Plan A003 Inventory/Utilization Data Report A004 Status Report A005 Data Accession List for the C-20 and C-37 program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components

3.3.6.a. Page 13 Appendix K FAR 52.212-1

2.2.4. The Government will assess the

Offeror’s Phase-In Plan. Offerors are required to present all the information in the initial proposal as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance: Low Risk

2.2.4.a. Page 6/7 Appendix L FAR 52.212-2

Subfactor 4 Phase-In

VOLUME II

PAST

PERFORMANCE

AF Life Cycle Management Center

Mr. Joe Adamski

AFLCMC/WLV

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 Gulfstream GIV/GV/G550 depot and 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 20 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 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 two (2) to 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-20/C-37 CLS effort

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

Fewer numbers may be acceptable, if the Government determines there is sufficient information 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 robert.carlsen@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 85

Organizational Change History

VOLUME III

PRICING

Mr. Robert Carlsen Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Robert.carlsen@us.af.mil 405-739-3831 86 mailto:Robert.carlsen@us.af.mil

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 shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position

Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal

Price Reasonableness, Balance, and Price Realism

Price Reasonableness − Reasonableness is based on an overall evaluated proposed price and must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business

Balance − Balanced pricing is determined with respect to separately priced CLINs or SubCLINs or significant unexplained variance within one CLIN’s pricing from year to year

Price Realism − Proposed pricing must demonstrate adequate understanding of the requirement and all proposed prices shall be sufficient and adequately proposed to ensure performance is not at risk with prices proposed too low

Appendix G Pricing Matrix

Pricing will be evaluated using the Appendix G Pricing Matrix

Proposed CLIN unit pricing shall be input into the Pricing Matrix – All periods of performance must be priced

Estimated quantities per CLIN are provided in the Pricing Matrix for evaluation purposes only − Estimated quantities do not obligate the Government to exercise or guarantee such quantities or extend pricing during the contract performance period

The TEP is found in cell AH511 and cross-checked in cell AI511 of the Pricing Matrix, and is the TEP your proposal will be evaluated on

VOLUME IV

CONTRACT

DOCUMENTATION

AF Life Cycle Management Center

Mr. Robert Carlsen

AFLCMC/WLK (VIPSAM)

Lead Contracting Officer

Offeror’s proposal shall include − Signed copy of the Model Contract − Pricing Matrix (Appendix G) − DD Form 254 (Appendix F)

The “original” proposal should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched hole

Completed blocks 12, 17 and signature and date for blocks 30a, 30b, and 30c of the SF 1449 and all amendments − This constitutes an offer which the Government may accept

Complete all fillable contract clauses

Volume IV Contract Documentation

Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offerors − Completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the Systems for Award Management (SAM) website https://www.sam.gov

− After reviewing the SAM database information, the offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items are correct

Volume IV Contract Documentation https://www.sam.gov/

You are required to meet all solicitation requirements − Terms and conditions − Representations and certifications − Technical requirements − Evaluation factors and subfactors and elements

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award

Clearly identify any exception and provide rationale Utilize table 6.2 in Appendix K for exceptions

Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Final Facility Clearance is required PRIOR to Source Selection Decision Brief for Offeror and any subcontractors performing COMSEC work − The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify facility clearances prior to award Offerors who do not have a facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD From 254) attached to this solicitation will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award

Facility Clearance

Notice is all Offerors and any and all subcontractors − Proscribed classified COMSEC information is involved in this effort. Therefore, US companies operating under Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) as defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual with a Special Security Agreement as the mitigation instrument are on notice that a National Interest Determination (NID) will be required. The NID decision will be made by the Government and documented prior to award of the contract. If the NID is denied, the contractor will be determined non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9.

− The offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess a facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation and be entitled to COMSEC information without additional authorization (i.e. NID). Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9.

Proscribed Classified COMSEC Information Notice

If the offeror plans to subcontract COMSEC work to a subcontractor, NISPOM 9-407 will apply

Subcontracting requiring the disclosure of classified COMSEC information shall be awarded only upon the written approval of the Government Contracting Activity

(GCA)

− Due to the long authorization process and in order to be in compliance with the NISPOM at contract award, the offeror's request for authorization to subcontract classified COMSEC work shall be included in the proposal.

− Request is by letter to PCO with subcontractor’s name, full address, CAGE code, facility clearance level, ownership information, and shall address any FOCI issues

Subcontracting Classified COMSEC Work

Solicitation

Review

AF Life Cycle Management Center

Mr. Robert Carlsen

AFLCMC/WLK (VIPSAM)

Lead Contracting Officer

Solicitation Review Important Contract Information Information at the Beginning of Solicitation CLIN Structure and Review

This acquisition is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract IAW FAR 16.504

The total scope of work for which orders may be issued is set forth in the Performance Work Statement

All requirements will be acquired by issuance of Task Orders

Minimum amount is the price of the first three months for the Transition/Phase-In period

The Maximum dollar amount the Government may order under this contract is $999 Million

The Government reserves the right to add Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for additional aircraft and relocation of aircraft, as required to support the C-20 and C-37 programs

All proposal preparation expenses for the entire contract performance period shall be included in contract overhead expenses

Important Contract Information

Immediately following the signature page of the solicitation there is important information which includes, but is not limited, to the following:

– ITAR information

– Purpose of RFP

– Government rights to add and remove requirements

– Line item structure for Options

– Ozone Depleting Substance information

– Ordering period of performance

– How the incentive option works

– Payment Instructions

Information at Beginning of Solicitation

CLIN Review

CLIN Structure CLIN CLIN Type X001 Data Not Separately Priced 0002-0015 Phase-In FFP Monthly X050-X056 Program Management FFP Monthly X100-X125 Subscriptions FFP Monthly X200-X203 Air Force COMBS FFP Monthly X210-X224 Navy COMBS FFP Monthly X230-X231 Army COMBS FFP Monthly X240 Coast Guard COMBS FFP Monthly X300-X303 Air Force C-37 MOB FFP Monthly X320-X324 Navy MOB FFP Monthly X330-X331 Army MOB FFP Monthly X340 Coast Guard MOB FFP Monthly

CLIN Review Cont.

CLIN CLIN Type X400-X420 C-37 Engine Maintenance FFP Monthly X431-X451 C-37 Engine O&A FFP Per Occurrence/Cycle X500 – X525 Flying Hours FFP Rate Per Hour X600-X629 C-20G Inspections FFP Per Occurrence X635-X647 C-20 Inspections FFP Per Occurrence X651-X667 C-20F Inspections FFP Per Occurrence X700-X721 C-37A Inspections FFP Per Occurrence X725-X740 C-37B Inspections FFP Per Occurrence X745-X758 C-37 Inspections FFP Per Occurrence X800-X801 Modification and Kit Installs FP Per Occurrence X810-X812 Contact Field Team Support FP Per Occurrence

CLIN Review Cont.

CLIN CLIN Type X900-X915 Over and Above FP Per Occurrence-TBN X950-X953 Tuition FP Per Occurrence

Typical Shortfalls, Keys to Developing a

Good Proposal Mr. Robert Carlsen Lead Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WLVK

Robert.carlsen@us.af.mil 405-739-3831 mailto:Scott.Masterson@us.af.mil

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 Past Performance POCs are not current 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 past performance and experience material out of the technical volume − Keep pricing data out of the technical volume

Tab the information Don’t…