C-21_CLS_Pre-Solicitation_Conference_4_Feb_19_(PDF_Version).pdf

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

C-21 Contractor Logistics Support Pre-Solicitation Conference

4 Feb 2019

AGENDA

Program Description Source Selection Training Attachment 5, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Attachment 6, Addendum 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 1600 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, Matthew Tonay − 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 full Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for the C-21 Fleet

The primary mission of the C-21 aircraft is to provide transportation of United States Government personnel, cargo, and other personnel worldwide.

Secondary missions identified for the C-21 aircraft include USAF pilot upgrade training and medical evacuation.

Scott AFB, IL

– as designated in PWS Table 1-2

Ramstein Air Base Germany

– as designated in PWS Table 1-2

AMC Base X (DOL)

– as designated in PWS Table 1-2

Operating Locations

Program Management Contractor procures and owns parts (limited GFP) Component (engines, landing gears, auxiliary power units) overhaul/restoration, repair, CONUS/OCONUS Line Maintenance All Depot Maintenance Modification/Service Bulletin Kits and Support Contract Field Team Support

*Above list is not all inclusive

Program Scope

Contract Ordering Period

Ordering Period Dates Base 1 Sep 2020 to 31 Dec 2021 Option I 1 Jan 2022 to 31 Dec 2022 Option II 1 Jan 2023 to 31 Dec 2023 Option III 1 Jan 2024 to 31 Dec 2024 Option IV 1 Jan 2025 to 31 Dec 2025 Option V 1 Jan 2026 to 31 Dec 2026 Option VI 1 Jan 2027 to 31 Dec 2027 Option VII 1 Jan 2028 to 31 Dec 2028 Option VIII 1 Jan 2029 to 31 Dec 2029 Option IX 1 Jan 2030 to 31 Aug 2030

C-21 CLS

Source Selection

Training

Van Garmon

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 in Technical subfactors 1-3, and superior technical capabilities in Technical subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators, 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 Subfactor 4 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

Ratings for Subfactor 4 and Past Performance (along with supporting rationale), 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 Attachment 5

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-1

RFP Attachment 6

ADDENDUM

TO FAR

52.212-2

Request for Proposal

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors

1 Program Management

2 Maintenance

3 Supply Chain Management

4 Technical Performance Discriminators

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 2.1.2

Technical acceptability in subfactors 1 through 3 is a prerequisite to the best value analysis with potential trade-off between Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators, 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, Subfactor 4

(Technical Performance Discriminators) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other. Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators and Factor 2 Past Performance are each significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). When combined, Subfactor 4 and Factor 2 are significantly more important than Factor 3.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process

Technical Subfactor 1-3 will not include trade-off considerations Acceptable Unacceptable

Technical Subfactor 4 will include trade-off consideration Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process

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

Factor 3 Price Total Evaluated 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 Technical Subfactor 4, Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all offerors technically acceptable in Subfactors 1 through 3 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

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable

Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1 – Program Management – 6 elements (a – f) 2 – Maintenance – 2 elements (a – b) 3 – Supply Chain Management – 4 elements (a – d) 4 – Technical Performance Discriminators – 6 elements (a – f)

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

A “Marginal” subfactor rating will be considered unawardable

Technical evaluation will also consider risk. Technical Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings.

Technical risk focuses on weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for each subfactor.

Definitions

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

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

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

Technical Subfactor 4 As a minimum, the offeror must meet all criteria for the subfactor to be awardable.

To receive an Outstanding (Blue) or Good (Purple) rating, an offeror’s proposal must include one or more strengths, as identified by the Government evaluation team.

For this evaluation, a strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal which has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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 Low to Moderate Technical 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 Price

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

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

MX

SF3

SCM

SF4

TPD

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 an unacceptable 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 Maintenance A

Subfactor 3 Supply Chain Managment A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators BLUE

Past Performance SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Evaluation Summary

Technical Alpha, Inc. Beta, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Program Management A A

Subfactor 2 Maintenance A A

Subfactor 3 Supply Chain Managment A A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Subfactor 4 Technical

Performance Discriminators

BLUE PURPLE

Past Performance SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Price $XXX,XXX,XXX $XXX,XXX,XXX

Evaluation Summary Example

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

Attachment 5, Addendum to FAR

52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Matthew Tonay Contracting Officer

The Government intends to award without discussions Provide all the required information in your proposal Attachment 5 and 6 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 (Attachment 5, Addendum 52.212-1) and the

Evaluation Factors for Award (Attachment 6, 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 – Timeliness of proposals handled IAW FAR 15.208 49

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 (matthew.tonay.1@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

Discrepancies − Notify the PCO immediately with the error and remedy

Bidder’s Library will be posted on FBO as a package.

− 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

ITO - Rules of Engagement

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 (para 2.4) − 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 (Para 2.5) − 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

Matthew Tonay

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 Technical Subfactor 4, Past Performance, and Price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable within Technical Subfactors 1-3

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 63

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: Supply Chain Management Subfactor 4: Technical Performance Discriminators

− Factor 2: Past Performance

− Factor 3: Price

Technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Technical Subfactor 4, 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, Subfactor 4 (Technical Performance Discriminators) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other. Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators and Factor 2 Past Performance are each significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). When combined, Subfactor 4 and Factor 2 are significantly more important than 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 Subfactors 1-3 will be evaluated based on a acceptable/unacceptable basis, para 2.2

− Technical Subfactor 4 will be evaluated based upon Table 1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

− Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.3

− Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

Evaluation Factors

VOLUME I

TECHNICAL

Mike Kreft 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 be no worse than Moderate 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 – Maintenance − Technical Subfactor 3 – Supply Chain Management − Technical Subfactor 4 – Technical Performance Discriminators

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Factors for Award

3.2.3 The offeror shall provide an approach for PM

for the C-21 CLS program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

• a. Provide a written plan to address the Quality System requirements of the PWS paragraph 1.31.1. As a minimum, the plan shall address compliance with ISO 9100/American National Standards Institute/American Society for Quality Control AS9100 and FAA requirements.

• b. Provide an approach to plan and schedule phase and time change/time between overhaul requirements. (PWS 1.5.3)

• c. Provide a plan to provide mission essential services during crisis, support deployments, drop-in maintenance, aircraft on ground, and Contract Field Team (with the proper security clearances) as listed in Attachment 17 in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024. (PWS 1.23)

• d. Provide signed letters of intent with the OEM, Engine Maintenance agreements, and subcontractors ensuring PWS requirements are met. (PWS 1.0, 1.5.1, 1.21)

• e. Provide an approach to facilitate a successful transition to next contractor or retirement of fleet during phase out. (PWS 1.32.2)

• f. Provide a description of the offeror’s property management system, plan, and any customary commercial practices, voluntary consensus standards, or industry-leading practices and standards to be used by the offeror in managing Government property

2.2.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed PM 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:

• a. A plan to manage the Quality System which ensures compliance with ISO 9100 and/or American National Standards Institute/American Society for Quality Control AS9100 and FAA requirements are met in accordance with PWS 1.31.1.

• b. A plan to schedule phase and time change/time between overhaul. (PWS 1.5.3)

• c. An effective plan to support mission essential services during crisis, deployments, drop-in maintenance, aircraft on ground, contract field team, employee strikes which ensures PWS requirements are met. A proposed plan to provide mission essential services during crisis will be evaluated IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and 7024(b) (1) and (2) as a minimum. (PWS 1.23)

• d. Signed letters of intent with the OEM, Engine Maintenance agreements, and subcontractors ensuring PWS requirements are met. (PWS 1.0, 1.5.1, 1.21)

• e. An approach to facilitate a successful transition to next contractor or retirement of fleet during phase out. (PWS 1.32.2)

• f. A description of the offeror’s property management system, plan, and any customary commercial practices, voluntary consensus standards, or industry-leading practices and standards to be used by the offeror in managing Government property.

Subfactor 1 Program Management

3.2.4. The offeror shall provide an approach for

Maintenance for the C-21 CLS program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• a. An approach to obtain and maintain access to required data systems which ensures all requirements of PWS are met. (PWS 1.7, 1.8, 1.9)

• b. An approach to providing the effective method(s) to identify and perform Main Operating Base (MOB) maintenance to meet Mission Capable (MC) Rate, Non Mission Capable Supple (NMCS) Rate, Home Station Departure Rate (HSDR), in accordance with PWS para 1.5, and table 2-1. An effective method will demonstrate the ability to meet MC rates and other maintenance, including the adherence to FAA, OEM, and regulatory requirements. (PWS 1.14.1, 1.14.2)

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 components:

• a. An ability to obtain and maintain access to required data systems which ensures the requirements of the PWS are met. (PWS 1.7, 1.8, 1.9)

• b. Providing the effective method(s) to identify and perform Main Operating Base (MOB) maintenance to meet MC, NMCS, HSDR, in accordance with PWS.

An effective method will show an approach for the ability to meet mission capable rates and other maintenance, including the adherence to FAA, OEM, and regulatory requirements. (PWS 1.14.1, 1.14.2)

Subfactor 2 Maintenance

3.2.5. The offeror shall provide an approach for

SCM for the C-21 CLS program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

• a. Provide an approach to procure long lead items. (PWS 1.6)

• b. Provide an approach to manage pre-positioned engines to meet PWS requirements. (PWS 1.5.5)

• c. Describe the inventory management system database. (PWS 1.6)

• d. Provide an effective approach for an Aging Aircraft/DMSMS program. The approach must address supply chain management through 2030 and beyond (not limited but to include parts obsolescence). (PWS para 1.6.2, 1.17, 1.30, 1.33.10.1)

2.2.3. 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:

• a. An approach to procure long lead items. (PWS 1.6)

• b. Ability to manage pre-positioned engines to meet PWS requirements. (PWS 1.5.5)

• c. Inventory management system database meets the requirements of PWS. (PWS 1.6)

• d. An effective approach for an Aging Aircraft/DMSMS program. The approach must address supply chain through 2030 and beyond (not limited but to include parts obsolescence). (PWS para 1.6.2, 1.17, 1.30, 1.33.10.1)

Subfactor 3 Supply Chain Management

3.2.6. The offeror shall provide an approach for Technical

Performance Discriminators for the C-21 CLS program. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

• a. Provide a facilities plan which includes effective capability and flow of full workload processes, and ensures all requirements of the PWS are met or exceeded to include depot maintenance, paint/interior, and drop in maintenance. (PWS para 1.2, 1.6, 1.22.4, 1.24, 1.33.1, 1.33.8, Table 2-1, para 3.1)

• b. Provide an effective approach for managing subcontractor’s performance/participation, schedule and cost to ensure PWS requirements are met or exceeded. Approach includes expertise in management of organized work force and effective plan for strike mitigation. 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 all PWS requirements are met. (PWS 1.24.2,1.33.10.4, 1.34.4)

• c. Provide an approach to operate and maintain an inventory and supply ordering system which ensures effective supportability of delivery requirements in accordance with the PWS. The approach must include an effective process for worldwide inventory control and SCM for both Contractor Furnished Property (CFP) and Government Furnished Property (GFP) which ensures MC, NMCS, HSDR, Shipping overseas (AOG/COMBS), requirements are met or exceeded. This process shall include, but not be limited to, managing parts obsolescence, clearing foreign customs, C-21 spares support methodology including procurement of the spares and inventory management (e.g.

location of both CFP and GFP spares). (PWS Para 1.5, 1.5.3, 1.5.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.32, 1.32.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2)

2.2.4. The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed

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:

• a. A facilities plan which includes effective capability and flow of full workload processes, and ensures the requirements of the PWS are met or exceeded to include depot maintenance, paint/interior, and drop in maintenance. (PWS para 1.2, 1.6, 1.22.4, 1.24, 1.33.1, 1.33.8, Table 2-1, para 3.1)

• b. An effective approach for managing subcontractor’s performance/participation, schedule and cost to ensure PWS requirements are met or exceeded. Approach includes expertise in management of organized work force and effective plan for strike mitigation. 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. (PWS 1.24.2,1.33.10.4, 1.34.4)

• c. An approach to operate and maintain an inventory and supply ordering system which ensures effective supportability of delivery requirements in accordance with the PWS. The approach must include an effective process for worldwide inventory control and SCM for both Contractor Furnished Property (CFP) and Government Furnished Property (GFP) which ensures MC, NMCS, HSDR, Shipping overseas (AOG/COMBS), requirements are met or exceeded. This process shall include, but not be limited to, managing parts, clearing foreign customs, C-21 spares support methodology including procurement of the spares and inventory management (e.g. location of both CFP and GFP spares). (PWS Para 1.5, 1.5.3, 1.5.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.32, 1.32.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2)

Subfactor 4 Technical Performance

Discrimtors

• d. Provide a phase-in approach in order to meet MC, NMCS, and HSDR on day one of full performance. Ensure the approach contains the following items:

– 1. Provide an effective approach to develop a milestone schedule with critical paths to ensure the offeror is fully operational by contract performance start date. (PWS 1.32.1.1)

– 2. Provide a staffing plan detailing how the contractor will procure qualified personnel with a country clearance, how passports, visas, security clearances will be handled and maintained, and address how the offeror will handle OCONUS employment and labor laws. (PWS 1.32.1)

– 3. Provide a stand up plan for implementation of SCM with COMBS. (PWS 1.32.1.1)

• e. Using the deployment scenario in the ITO, Attachment 3.0, provide an Operational Plan (OPLAN) and illustrate in a written plan the approach to support the deployment with personnel, parts, support equipment for initial transition and sustainment of the scenario site. (PWS 1.22, 1.22.1, 1.22.2, 1.22.3, 1.22.4, 1.33.12)

• f. Provide documentation of a current valid facility security clearance and safeguarding for classified information/material at the contractor facility at the classification level of SECRET or higher. (PWS 1.24, 1.32.1)

• d. A phase-in approach in order to meet MC, NMCS, HSDR on day one of full performance. Ensure the approach contains the following items:

– 1. Provide an effective approach to develop a milestone schedule with critical paths to ensure the offeror is fully operational by contract performance start date. (PWS 1.32.1.1)

– 2. Provide a staffing plan detailing how the contractor will procure qualified personnel with a country clearance, how passports, visas, security clearances will be handled and maintained, and address how the offeror will handle OCONUS employment and labor laws. (PWS 1.32.1)

– 3. Provide a stand up plan for implementation of SCM with COMBS. (PWS 1.32.1.1)

• e. Deployment Scenario response plan. (PWS 1.22, 1.22.1, 1.22.2, 1.22.3, 1.22.4, 1.33.12)

• f. Documentation of a current valid facility security clearance and safeguarding for classified information/material at the contractor facility at the classification level of SECRET or higher. (PWS 1.24, 1.32.1)

Subfactor 4 Technical Performance

Discrimtors (con’t)

VOLUME II

PAST

PERFORMANCE

AF Life Cycle Management Center

Steve Cameron Equipment Specialist

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

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

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:

Scope:

Lear 35/A Other Lear business aircraft Similar commercial type of aircraft to the Lear 35/A Other commercial aircraft Magnitude:

Fleet size Dispersed fleet of two or more locations within CONUS and OCONUS Long term deployment to OCONUS Quantity of engines/components repaired per year Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform Complexity:

Dispersed fleet of two or more locations within CONUS and OCONUS Long term deployment to OCONUS

Volume II Relevant Contracts

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

The past performance contract is current when it has actual relevant performance from three years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Volume II Past Performance

4.1.4 Significant Subcontractors

Significant subcontractors are those relevant and current subcontractors or Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 5% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 5% of the total effort, but is determined to be performing a critical function.

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

Volume II Early Proposal Info

Use of the PPI on-line tool is mandatory

Recommend up to three (3) recent, relevant contracts for the prime and up to three (3) for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner (over 5% of the total workload requirements or performing a critical function.)

Submit only information on subcontractors and teaming partners performing key or critical portions of the C-21 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 matthew.tonay.1@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

Matthew Tonay Contracting Officer

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 the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance with prices proposed too low

Attachment 2 Pricing Matrix

Pricing will be evaluated using the Attachment 2 Pricing Matrix

Proposed CLIN unit pricing…