Presolicitation_-_All_Charts_presented_on_1_April_14.pdf

CFT 2015

Pre-Solicitation Conference

April 1 - 3 2014

Nicole Shinn, Program Manager

AFSC/PZIY

(405) 734-0123 Email: nicole.shinn.1@us.af.mil

Wade Ward, Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIEA

(405) 734-0490 Email: bradley.ward.3@us.af.mil

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

Agenda

RSC Small Business Development Center Remarks Opening Remarks Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information PWS Discussion Open Discussion

Rules of Engagement

Communication – Wade Ward (bradley.ward.3@us.af.mil) &

Melony Adamski (Melony.Adamski.1@us.af.mil)

Offerors can ask questions throughout the day

To receive an official answer, questions MUST BE SUBMITTED

IN WRITING

Please submit ALL questions in writing regarding this conference and/or draft documents NLT COB 15 April 14

Rose State College Small Business Development Center

Welcome by AFSC/PK

Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information

Mr. Steve Myles

(405) 734-0268 Email: stephen.myles@us.af.mil

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

Overview of Contract Field Teams

(CFT)

1 April 2014

CFT History

In 1951 the Air Force envisioned the need to augment organic maintenance capabilities Supplement depot, organizational and field level maintenance and modification efforts Joint Logistics Commanders encouraged the

Interservice use of CFT Recognized the capability for fiscal savings

Supports Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard and other Federal Agencies

Services Single Managers within DoD endorse CFT as Enterprise Vehicle

Overview of CFT

Contract Field

Teams

$0.3B Annually Multiple

Long Term Contracts

95 + Sites Worldwide

Supports DoD & Multiple

Agencies

Supports Theater

Operations

AFPEO/CM

Program

•Acquisition •Oversight •Reporting •Daily Ops

11 Countries 5,000 +

Contractor Maintenance

Workforce http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/physical_world_map_1600.htm

CFT Contract History

10 active multiple award IDIQ contracts 6 Large Businesses (Full & Open) – world-wide

Teams 50 FTEs & greater 4 Small Businesses – CONUS only

Teams <50 FTEs Period of Performance: 03 Oct 08 to 30 Sep 15 7-yr contract: 2-yr Basic, Two 2-yr options, One 1-yr option Current option: Option 2 (Year 2), 01 Oct 12 – 30 Sep 14 Last option: Option 3, 01 Oct 14 – 30 Sep 15 6-month extension was included but not evaluated

Contract types in use: FFP, T&M, CR

CFT Program Office

Administration

Program Management Oversight AFSC/PZIY Procuring Contract Office AFSC/PZIE Contract Administration Office DCMA-Dayton Annual PMRs with AFMC/CA and AFPEO/CM Annual Reviews with AF/Army/Navy SSMs Centralized Ordering Management at Tinker

Status

~70 Active Task Orders 95 + Sites supported World-Wide Obligated ~$0.2B in FY14 Obligated ~$5.0B to date

Mission

Provide rapid deployment capability to field necessary skilled technicians for modification, repair or maintenance on DoD weapon systems on-site anywhere in the world

Customers Supported

CFT Mission

Provide rapid deployment capability to field necessary skilled technicians for modification, repair or maintenance on DoD weapon systems on-site anywhere in the world Multiple platforms Multiple levels of maintenance Multiple sites worldwide Augmentation workforce

Facilities Maintenance Grounds Keeping Construction Work Administrative Work Classroom Training (limited to “over the shoulder”, OJT)

Inactive Systems – will NOT Maintain Static Displays Total System Support – Turnkey Operations

CFT Contracts Shall NOT Be Used For

CFT PROGRAM OFFICE

CFT Oversight Structure and Integration

DCMA

Purchasing Contract Officer

Program Manager

Logistics Management Specialist

Contract Negotiator

Financial Resource Advisor

Program Analyst

Quality Assurance Specialist

Administrative

Ground Gov’t Flight Representative

Administrative Contract Officer

Quality Assurance Representative

Awards Contract

Oversee Task Order

Workload Agreements

Prepares Contract for Award

Process/Track Financials

Contractor Performance

QASPs

Process MIPRs

Gov’t Flight Representative Delegation of Authority for all GFR sites

Administers Contract

Process CARs

Maintains Oversight

AFPEO/CM

Overarching Acquisition and Program Guidance

Summary

Quick Overview of CFT

Detailed Discussion to follow Procurement

PWS

Questions or Comments

Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information

Procurement Overview

1 April 2014

Wade Ward, Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIEA

(405) 734-0490 Email: bradley.ward.3@us.af.mil

Disclaimer

Draft RFP & associated documents (i.e. PWS, CDRLs) are subject to change

Responses to this pre-solicitation conference are voluntary and will not affect any contractor's ability to submit a proposal when the formal RFP is released

Materials presented and discussed at today’s Pre-Solicitation Conference are for information purposes only The formal RFP shall be the only document used for determining how to respond to the Government’s requirements Formal RFP that will be posted on FedBizOpps supersedes any communication and presentation at this Pre-Solicitation Conference

Procurement Overview

Draft RFP & PWS posted on FBO Multiple award IDIQ w/ FFP, T&M, and CR line items Two competition pools:

Full and Open (F&O) Small Business (SB)

NAICS 336411, 1500 employees Period of Performance:

3 Year base ordering period 2 two year option periods Possible six-month extension (7.5 years total)

Performance-Price Trade off source selection

Contract Parameters

Multiple award IDIQ contract $11.4B program ceiling (See H-6) $5K minimum order amount (See H-6)

Overall ordering period: 01 Jan 16 – 30 Jun 23 Three year basic period: 01 Jan 16 – 31 Dec 18 Two, 2 year option period(s):

Option I: 1 Jan 19 – 31 Dec 20 Option II: 1 Jan 21 – 31 Dec 22

Six month extension: 01 Jan 23 – 30 Jun 23

Contract types:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with minimum team complement (MTC) Time and Materials (T&M) Cost Reimbursable (CR)

CLIN Structure

Contract CLIN Structure

X001 – Firm Fixed Price (FFP) X002 – Overtime in support of FFP (FFP) X003 – Surge (FFP) X004 – Over and Above (FFP)

X005 – CAP/CAS (CR)

X006 – Time and Materials (T&M) X007 – Overtime in support of T&M (T&M) X008 – Material/Non-Material (T&M) X009 – Travel (CR) X010 – Transition In (FFP) X011 – Transition Out (FFP) X012 – Data (NSP) 0013 – Post Award Conference (Basic Contract – FFP)

Competition Pools (H-9)

Small Business

SB awarded < 100 FTEs CONUS and < 50 FTEs OCONUS Up to 7 SB awards

Full & Open Larger CFT requirements awarded > 100 FTEs CONUS and > 50

FTEs OCONUS Up to 6 F&O awards

Potential mixture of LB/SB Post Award H-Clause 9 allows provisions for successfully performing SBs (in

SB Competition Pool) opportunity to expand into the F&O pool for requirements < 150 CONUS

Acquisition Strategy

Source Selection Procedures

Best-Value Continuum Goal: Best Value Decision Performance price trade off source selection

Best-Value Continuum Approach Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor One – Program Management Subfactor Two – Resource Management Subfactor Three – Quality Management Subfactor Four – Scenario Application Subfactor Five – Small Business Sub-contracting plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Acquisition Strategy

Performance Price Trade Off (PPT)

“Satisfactory” is the highest confidence rating for past performance

“Relevant” is the highest rating for relevancy Award will be made to the offerors representing the best value to the Government – potential trade-off between Past Performance/Price

Offerors must be determined technically acceptable to be eligible for award

Intend to award without discussions

Technical Subfactor 4 Scenario Application

4 sample scenarios consisting of

FON

Pricing sheet

PWS

Scenarios are used to assist in the evaluation of Technical Subfactor 4 - Scenario Applications Section L 3.2.6 (c) (Attachment 8) and Section M - 2.2.4 (c) (Attachment 9) Rates provided are for technical evaluation purposes only and will NOT contribute to an offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Technical Subfactor 4 Scenario Application

Purpose of scenarios

Ensure offerors understand task order PWSs Ensure offerors understand how to propose for subsequent task orders IAW Fair Opportunity procedures specific to a CFT requirement

Rates proposed in the sample pricing sheet will not be utilized for ANY actual work Sample PWS will not be used for an actual task order award Rates will only be used to assist in the evaluation of Technical

Subfactor 4

Labor Category Rate Matrix

8 Not-to-exceed (NTE) categories:

FFP (CONUS)

FFP Overtime (CONUS)

FFP (OCONUS)

FFP Overtime (OCONUS)

T&M (CONUS)

T&M Overtime (CONUS)

T&M (OCONUS)

T&M Overtime (OCONUS)

NTE Rates proposed/evaluated for the 4 FFP categories will be the same rates evaluated for the 4 T&M categories

Labor Category Rate Matrix is used to calculate total price as defined in Section L (5.0. Factor 4 – Price) and Section M (2.4. Factor 3 – Price)

All proposed rates should be fully loaded/burdened to include all applicable direct labor, indirect labor, general & administrative (G&A) and profit

OCONUS NTE rates shall account for all costs associated with sustaining a qualified workforce overseas IAW special provision/clause H-5

Contractors will be provided the opportunity to voluntarily reduce any NTE rates on subsequent competitive task order proposals

Offerors must provide all inclusive, fully burdened overhead rates associated with material handling, service handling, and travel handling IAW Section L 5.3 and Section M 2.4.7 & 2.4.7.1

Draft RFP Clauses

FAR/DFARS/AFFARS clauses

Special clauses specific to CFT requirements

Very important to review all clauses in detail

Notional Milestones

Industry Day 24-25 Apr 13 Pre-Solicitation Conference 1-3 Apr 14 Issue Formal RFP (Est. 60 days) Jun 14 Receipt of Proposals Aug 14 Estimated Contract Award Dec 15

OPEN QUESTION &

ANSWER SESSION

Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information

AFSC/SB Tinker (OL)

Air Force Sustainment Center Small Business Office (AFSC/SB) 3001 Staff Drive, Ste 1AG85A Tinker AFB OK 73145-3009 Phone: (405) 739-2601

Initial Point of Contact for AFSC/SB Tinker (OL) Business Opportunities

Provides Small Business Assistance

Manages the Source Development Program

AFSC/SB: http://www.tinker.af.mil/sbo.asp

Small Business Administration (SBA):

http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/ http://www.tinker.af.mil/sbo.asp http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/

Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information

Source Selection Training

Van Garmon

AFMC AFSC/PZCAB

(405) 734-3815 Email: Van.garmon@us.af.mil

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

SOURCE SELECTION

What Is It Best Value Main Members Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

Technical Past Performance Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

Topics

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

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

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities Past Performance Price

Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

PERFORMANCE – PRICE TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION

Source Selection Authority (SSA) Makes the award decision Selects which proposal or proposals represent the best value to the Government Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) Directs the evaluation of proposals Source of all direct communication between the

Government and offerors Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Evaluate Proposals Assign ratings Present evaluation results to the SSA

Source Selection Team Main Members

Source Selection Evaluation

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

Offeror

A

Offeror

B

Offeror

C

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other

SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

SSA does compare proposals against each other

SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical acceptability for each offeror

Past Performance ratings and total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Factor rating definitions Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria

INSTRUCTIONS

TO

OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND FORMAT

Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc

Proposal separated into volumes, such as Technical, Past Performance, Price, etc

Past Performance Package

SECTION

L

SECTION

M

Request for Proposal

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

1 Program Management

2 Resource Management

3 Quality Management

Subfactors

Evaluation Factors

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past

Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

Order of Importance

4 Scenario Application

5 SB Subcontracting Plan

TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

ACCEPTABLE

UNACCEPTABLE

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

FACTOR 2

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

COMPLETENESS

REASONABLE

FACTOR 3

TRADEOFF

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals

Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror

Technical will be evaluated IAW para 2.2

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.3

Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

The SSA will assess the price and past performance ratings for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP

Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs)

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 Each offeror is given the opportunity to revise their proposal

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

PERFORMANCE

TOTAL

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Rating Definition

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

Technical Rating Definitions

Technical Evaluation

Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1 - Program Management – 5 elements (a – e) 2 - Resource Management – 3 elements (a – c) 3 - Quality Management – 3 elements (a – c) 4 - Scenario Applications – 6 elements (a – e) 5 - SB Subcontracting Plan – 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 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

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

a) b) c) d) e)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a) b) c)

a) b) c)

SCENARIO

APPLICATIONS

SB

SUB. PLAN

a)

a) b) c) d) e)

PERFORMANCE

TOTAL

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

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

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

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

NO

CONFIDENCE

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

Confidence Definitions DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5

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

Recency

Recency, as stated in the RFP The effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the current

RFP

If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance

For example, if a contract was completed within the recency timeframe, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract, which may have occurred seven years ago

Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and Price for this requirement

Relevancy considerations Similar service Breadth and depth of skills

Similar… Scope Magnitude Complexity Contract Type

Relevancy

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

Reflects how relevant the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition

Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

Past Performance Evaluation

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation

R S

SUB 3

QM

SUB 2

RM

SUB 1

PM

R S R S

SR Y

$700M (10 yr)

Government Program

F34601-99-C-9932 FFP/CR

SR S R S R S $455M

(8 yr)

Company A Excel Project FFP

SR S SR S $95M

(5yr)

Company B Order 58CP FFP/T & M

ALPHA, INC.

DOLLAR

AMOUNT

PROGRAM

CONTRACT #

ALPHA, INC

N/A $10M (10 yr)

Company C N/A (G) FFP with Incentive

$30M (9 yr)

Government Program

F09603-98-C-9950 CPFF N/A

ZETA CORP

R S

R P Y

R S

SR S

PRIME

SUBCONTRACTOR

PRICE

R S

R S

SR S

N/A

N/A

SUB 3

SA

R S

R S

SR S

R S

SR S

SUB 3

SB

R S

R S

SR S

N/A

N/A

Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

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

Questionnaires

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

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Additional Notes

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Technical subfactors

Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team

List Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform

PERFORMANCE

TOTAL

Completeness Did the offeror complete the Labor Category Rate

Matrix as required by the RFP Does the offeror’s proposal include all supporting price information as required by the RFP

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

Price Evaluation

Release ENs to offerors

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

Request for Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established

SSA Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION DISCUSSIONS FINAL

EVALUATION

SOURCE SELECTION

AWARD

Total

Evaluated Price

Past Performance Confidence Level Technical

Evaluation Summary

SSA’s Best Value Decision is based on comparison of all remaining offerors

ACCEPTABLE Offeror A $3.63B

• 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

Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information

Jennifer Hawley

(405) 734-0523 Email: jennifer.hawley@us.af.mil

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

Past Performance 1 April 2014

Past Performance Information

Up to Five Contracts for the Prime Up to Three Contracts for any subs Specifically state which contractor (prime/sub) will be performing which factors/sub-factors Contract examples should reflect performance within the last three years Organizational Structure Change History - 4.3.3

Section L Past performance information must show your ability to do all types of CFT work

Overview of CFT Program Procurement Overview Small Business Discussion Break Source Selection/Evaluation Criteria Lunch Past Performance Information

Draft PWS Discussion 1 Apr 14

Nicole Shinn, Program Manager

(405) 734-0123 Email: nicole.shinn.1@us.af.mil

CFT Draft PWS

CFT Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) Basic PWS sets up structure for Task Order (TO)

PWSs Template for future TO requirements Establishes performance metrics that will be measured against all TOs Much more robust to fully define the government’s expectations for how to be minimally successful on all TOs

Requires CDRL submissions on all TOs to help measure performance and for any customer requested deliverable

Presenter Presentation Notes

1.0 Introduction – CFT Vision

2.0 Scope – CFT Mission

Contractor shall provide rapid deployment capability to field supplemental skilled technicians for modification, repair or maintenance on DoD weapon systems on site anywhere in the world

Organizational, Intermediate, Depot level maintenance services

Supports non-commercial weapons systems for which the Government owns the tech data

CFT does not include personal services or inherently governmental functions

DoD, other federal agencies & FMS customers 76

3.0 General Requirements

Technical references for PWS requirements

4.0 Performance Requirements

4.1 Program Management & Reporting

Management of the CFT program and task order requirements

4.1.1 Tracking & managing costs down to the CLIN level, CFSR – CDRL A006 (TO)

4.2 Contractor Personnel

Resourcing requirements for personnel to include selection, recruitment & hiring for TO requirements Rapid response (expectations defined in clause H-3) Expectations for backfill of skills with turnover

4.0 Performance Requirements (Cont.)

4.2 Contractor Personnel

4.2.1 definition of transition and transition expectations

Transitions in as few as 7 days could be possible Transition Plan – CDRL A007 (TO) Transition Execution status – CDRL A008 (TO)

4.2.1.1 Transition execution – CDRL A008

4.2.2 establishes the requirement for the use of a

Minimum Team Complement for FFP (FFP MTC) on TO requirements

4.2.2.1 FFP MTC consistently met for all TOs – CFT 104

4.2.3 establishes the requirement to staff site supervision at each site IAW the TO PWS

4.2.3.1 Site supervision consistently met for all TOs – CFT

104 78

4.3 Quality

Establishes the requirement to utilize a quality system that is compliant with the standards of AS9100

4.3.1 Requires the submission of a Quality Control Plan

acceptable to the government Quality Assurance Representative for all TOs Quality Control Plan – CDRL A009 (TO)

4.3.1.1 Acceptable Quality Control Plan within 30 days of

Task Order PoP start – CDRL

4.3.2 Development of Standard Operating Procedures

(SOPs) & Local Operating Instructions (LOIs)

4.3.2.1 SOPs – CDRL A001 (Basic &TO), LOIs – CDRL A010

(TO)

4.3.2.1.1 Acceptable LOIs within 30 days of Task Order

PoP start – CDRL

4.3 Quality (Cont.)

4.3.2 Development of Standard Operating Procedures

(SOPs) & Local Operating Instructions (LOIs) (Cont.)

4.3.2.2 Requires the development of workbooks if applicable

to the work tasks Must be included in the transition plan if required QAR must review for compliance prior to TO PoP start If N/A, tasks must be documented IAW technical publications or SOPs

4.3.2.3 Inspection requirements for work tasks to include

maintaining records, documenting defects, corrective actions taken, final inspection & acceptance

4.4 Aviation Maintenance

Specifies the development of written Flight Operations

Procedures (FOPs) and Ground Operations Procedures (GOPs) for all flight/ground operations of aviation maintenance FOPs/GOPs – CDRL A011 (TO)

4.4.1 Approved FOPs/GOPs by day 1 of Task Order PoP

start – CDRL

4.5 Voucher submission

Establishes the requirement to submit vouchers for cost efforts through Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) FFP efforts shall be submitted in WAWF also with a copy to

DCMA

4.6 SB reporting

Applicable to LBs only Requires the submission of a participation plan which will support the sub-contracting plan SB Participation Plan – CDRL A002 (Basic)

4.7 Task Order Performance and Schedule Metrics

Customer developed – CFT 104

4.8 Services Summary

PWS/QASP Service Summary Table Performance Objective PWS

Paragraph Performance Threshold Method of Assessment

Fully executed Contractor Transition Plan for all Task Orders

4.2.1 Execute each transition plan within all Contractor

specified goals in CDRL A007

CFT PMO will monitor each Task Order transition upon occurrence.

100% Inspection

Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Minimum Team Complement (MTC) consistently met for all applicable Task Orders

4.2.2 FFP MTC measured against the basic contract shall

be met when the FFP MTCs for all Task Orders are fully manned on day 1 of Task Order PoP and when no task order with a FFP MTC discrepancy in any given month has a repeated discrepancy for the same task order in consecutive months.

CFT PMO will monitor each Task Order with an FFP MTC monthly.

100% inspection

Site Supervision consistent with Task Order PWS Requirements

4.2.3 Site Supervision measured against the basic

contract shall be met when site supervision for all Task Orders is on-site on day 1 of Task Order PoP and when no task order has a supervisory absence/vacancy of longer than 30 calendar days.

CFT PMO will monitor Task Order site supervision monthly.

100% inspection

Acceptable Quality Control Plan (QCP) for all Task Orders

4.3.1 All QCPs are acceptable to the QAR within 30

calendar days of the start of Task Order PoP

CFT PMO will monitor each Task Order QCP submission.

100% Inspection

Acceptable Local Operating Instructions (LOIs) for all Task Orders

4.3.2.1 All LOIs are acceptable to the QAR within 30

calendar days of the start of Task Order PoP

CFT PMO will monitor all LOI submissions not related to aviation.

100% Inspection

Acceptable FOPs/GOPs for all aviation Task Orders

4.4.1 All FOPs/GOPs/Aviation LOIs are approved in

writing by the G/GFR by day 1 of the start of the Task Order PoP

CFT PMO will monitor all FOPs/GOPs/Aviation LOIs submissions.

100% Inspection

5.0 Special Requirements

5.1 Safety

OSHA

Appendix C

5.2 Security

Some Requirements may include DD254 Contractors required to have a Common Access Card

(CAC) must pass a trustworthy National Agency Check plus Written Inquiries with a Credit Check (NACI), or equivalent KTR responsibility to gain access to the base/post Employee protections

5.0 Special Requirements (Cont.)

5.3 Government Furnished Equipment, Facilities &

Services Government provides infrastructure/work space GFP may be provided – TO PWS, Appendix B Government Transportation may be provided – TO PWS

Government Furnished Vehicles Vehicle Rental Mileage Reimbursement for POV

Logistics Support CONUS: No Government furnished quarters, messing, etc., except for emergency care unless Task Order PWS specifically authorizes

OCONUS: May include quarters, messing, commissary, banking, postal service, etc. – Task Order PWS will specify

5.4 Timelines/Work Schedules

Holiday Listing Task Order PWS, to include:

Down Days/Weather Days Re-scheduling Surge/Emergency Operations Weekends/Holidays Night Operations Offsite Operations

5.5 Travel

TDY – Task Order PWS

If passports/visas required – Task Order PWS Contractor arranges all airfare, car rental, lodging, etc. 86

5.6 OT, Surge, Over & Above Work

Applicable to FFP; Overtime, surge, weekend work

5.7 Training

Contractor provides all training, exceptions specified in

Task Order PWS Copies provided to the government – Task Order PWS

5.8 Physicals

FFP – Contractor pays for any/all, to include Fitness for duty T&M – OSHA required physicals will be reimbursed through Material/Non-material CLIN; Fitness for duty are the Contractor’s responsibility

5.9 Data Rights

All data returned to government at Task Order expiration Government has unlimited rights to all deliverables & will retain custody of all deliverables Documentation –

Any provided by the Government remains the Government’s Any generated by the Contractor remains the Government’s

5.10 Mission Essential Services

If applicable, submit CDRL – Task Order PWS

5.11 Green Procurement

Any CAP/CAS/Material/Non-Material purchased must be acquired following GPP guidelines, i.e. recycled, environmentally preferable, etc. 88

5.12 Strike Plan

For contractor employees covered under a Collective

Bargaining Agreement CDRL A013, if applicable – Task Order PWS

5.13 Contractor Labor Dispute Plan/Unrepresented

Employees For contractor employees not represented by a union CDRL A014, if applicable – Task Order PWS Either CDRL A013 or A014 will be applicable to every Task

Order

5.14 Nuclear Weapons Related Material

Task Order PWS

5.15 Distinctive Requirements for OCONUS Task Orders

Task Order PWS will specify country specific requirements as applicable Some examples:

Technical Expert Status Accreditation (TESA) Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

5.16 Contractor Vehicle/Equipment Operation

Government no longer issues OF 346, “US Government

Motor Vehicle Operator’s Identification Card”, i.e. driver’s license Contractor employees operating government equipment must be certified by the Contractor and at the Contractor’s expense Task Order PWS will specify required certifications 90

5.16 Contractor Vehicle/Equipment Operation (Cont.)

Contractor employees must be able to show proof of required training as a qualified operator CDRL may be required listing all contractor personnel who operate government equipment Task Order PWS will specify required training & CDRL

5.17 Contractor Manpower Reporting

All Contractor labor hours must be reported through the electronic Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (eCMRA), http://www.ecmra.mil Annually, NLT 31 Oct http://www.ecmra.mil/

5.18 Reporting Requirements

Any delay in Contractor performance must be reported to

Task Order COR Task Order PWS will specify how quickly, format, etc.

6.0 CDRLs

Menu of CDRLs CFT customers may select Not all inclusive

Required CDRLs Basic: Standard Operating Procedures – A001 Basic: Small Business Participation Plan – A002 Basic: Personnel Report – A003 Task Order: Contract Funds Status Report – A006

6.0 CDRLs (Cont.)

Required CDRLs (Cont.)

Task Order: Transition Plan – A007 Task Order: Transition Execution – A008 Task Order: Quality Control Plan – A009 Task Order: Standard Operating Procedures – A001 Task Order: Local Operating Instructions – A010 Task Order: Flight Operating Procedures/Ground

Operating Procedures – A011 (if applicable) Task Order: GFP Inventory – A012 Task Order: Strike Plan – A013 Task Order: Contractor Labor Dispute Plan – A014

Either A013 or A014, not both

Attachment A: Team Complement Lists all categories that could be required No guarantee requirements exist for all Skills listed in Basic Contract Attachment A include:

Skills currently on CFT Nationwide Wage Determination

Non-standard occupations, recent addition to the CFT NWD from the Directory of Occupations

Task Order PWS Team Complement section will specify:

Number of personnel required by skill code and CLIN type Minimum Team Complement if requirement is FFP Supervisory ratio or team leads Number of man-hours for a FTE Personnel that are identified as Key Personnel

Attachment A: Team Complement Examples of current skills on the CFT NWD:

Support and clerical operations

01270 – Production Control Clerk 01410 – Supply Technician

Automotive Service Occupations 05190 – Motor Vehicle Mechanic 05310 – Painter, Automotive

Machine Tool Operation/Repair Occupations 19010 – Tool and Die Maker

Attachment A: Team Complement (Cont.)

Examples of current skills on the CFT NWD:

Mechanics and Maintenance/Repair Occupations

23021 – Aircraft Mechanic I 23380 – Ground Support Equipment Mechanic 23391 – Gunsmith I 23430 – Heavy Equipment Mechanic 23980 – Woodworker

Technical Occupations 30081 – Engineering Technician I

Skills added from the current DOL Directory of

Occupations:

05010 – Automotive, Electrician 05130 – Motor Equipment Metal Mechanic (Motor Vehicle

Body Repairer) 05160 – Motor Equipment Metal Worker 19010 – Machine-Tool Operator (Toolroom) 23260 – Fabric Worker 31060 – Helicopter Pilot

Non-standard skills recently added:

Technical Order Library Clerk Technical Order Librarian Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) I, II & III Maintenance Test Pilot, Rotary Wing/Fixed Wing – Prop & Jet Aircraft Logs and Records Technician Petroleum Supply Specialist Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician I & II Media/Sand Blaster Equipment Cleaner

Attachment B: Terms Explained

Additional Topics

4 scenarios: 2 Full & Open, 2 SB

Full & Open Marine Corp Base, Albany, GA: vehicle maintenance USARPAC Army Aviation

Small Business F-15 TCTO modifications Aircraft/AGE corrosion control at Kadena AB, Japan

Scenario differences:

Supervisory ratio FTE man-hours Transition time & associated transition requirements

CONUS/OCONUS

Additional Topics

Page limits will most likely be changing on the RFP

Please do NOT provide “filler” info just to meet the full page limit

Content should be whatever is necessary and reasonable to address the technical factors

FOPs/GOPs Scenarios now ask for full submission of Task Order specific FOPs/GOPs Will most likely be changing to a different element under program management for a corporate approach to aircraft operations Considering submissions as they stand now, is the current page limit reasonable to meet the elements?

Transition wording in para 3 of scenario FONs

OPEN QUESTION &

ANSWER SESSION