CFT LASR Pre-Solicitation Conference_15Mar24.pdf

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 1

Marcus L. Haberichter, Program Manager - AFSC/PZIYA Ryan McCabe, Contracting Officer – AFSC/PZIEB

Controlled by: Department of the Air Force Controlled by: AFSC/PZIEB CUI Category: SSEL Distribution/Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil

Contract Field Teams (CFT)Labor Augmentation Support Requirements

(LASR)

Pre-Solicitation Conference

FA8108-24-R-0004

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

19 March 2024

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 2

Disclaimer 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

This conference does not constitute a contract, a promise to contract, or a commitment of any kind on the part of the Government

Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting are for discussion purposes only

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 3

Agenda 0900-0915: Introduction and Opening Remarks 0915-0930: Program Background 0930-1015: Solicitation Overview 1015-1030: Break 1030-1200: Source Selection Training and Keys to

Developing a Good Proposal

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 4

Rules of Engagement Ask questions in writing

Submit questions only to the PCO, Ryan McCabe at ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil via Attachment 7 to Draft RFP 2 on SAM.gov by 22 March 2024 at 4:00PM CST

Official written responses will be posted on SAM.gov on a non-attribution basis

Verbal questions and answers are not binding

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

Government may limit or stop oral questions at their discretion mailto:ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 5

CFT LASR Program Background

Marcus Haberichter – CFT Lead Program Manager marcus.haberichter@us.af.mil

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 6

Team Introduction CFT Program Management Branch Chief: Mr. Paul Archer

Contracting Division Chief: Ms. Georgette Strub

Contracting Branch Chief: Mr. Ed Adams

Contracting Section Chief: Ms. Jennifer Russ

Lead CFT Program Manager: Mr. Marcus Haberichter

Procurement Contracting Officer: Mr. Ryan McCabe

Small Business Advisor: Ms. Stacy Cochran

Source Selection Advisors: Ms. Melissa Mitchell & Ms. Jill Graham

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 7

Program Goals and Objectives Provide rapid labor augmentation capability for all levels of maintenance Maintain flexible contract types that meet the mission

Viable Small Business set-aside

Ensure robust oversight at all sites

Exceptional customer service

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI

CFT History

1951 – Created to augment USAF organic maintenance capabilities in support of Korean Conflict

Expanded in 1970’s to support DoD and other Federal Agency organic maintenance requirements In 2007 Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition

Policy expanded CFT to include CFT Program Office Effecting Full-service Customer support

1981 – present: Joint Logistics Commander Inter-Service endorsed for responsiveness, fiscal savings and reduced contract lead times

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 9

Acquisition Background Customers do not have adequate manpower to fully meet all their requirement CFT LASR fills that need Organizational, Intermediate and Depot level

CFT is mission essential to training commands. CFT is primary workforce for all launch and recovery activities A-76 study driven CFT personnel on Unit Manning Documents

CFT rapidly develops requirements documents to fill urgent manpower needs <180 total days to award

CFT Active Task Orders

CONUS LOCATIONS

North Island CA

NAS Norfolk/Oceana VA

MCAS New River NC

Jacksonville FL

NAMO Patuxent River MD

MCAS Quantico VA

NAS Whidbey Island WA

NAS Lemoore CA

China Lake CA

USAR Los Alamitos CA

MCAS Miramar CA Camp Pendleton CA

Davis-Monthan AFB AZ

Dyess AFB,TX

AO NAS JRB Ft. Worth TX

Ft. CavazosTX Little Rock

AFB AR

Whiteman AFB MO

JRB New Orleans

LA

JRTC Ft. Johnson LA

USCG

Mobile AL

MacDill AFB FL

Seymour-Johnson AFB NC Ft. Liberty, NC

Hunter AAF GA

USAR Conroe TX

Ellsworth AFB SD

Toledo ANGB OH Vance AFB OK

Yuma AZ NAS Mayport FL

Beale AFB CA McLaughlin ANGB WV

NAS Point Mugu CA

USAR Fresno CA

USAR Carswell JRB TX

Andrews AFB MD

Randolph AFB San Antonio TX

NAS Key West FLLaughlin AFB TX Columbus

AFB MS

Shepard AFB TX

Springfield

ANG IL

Service Key: Air Force, Army, Navy/Marines, Coast Guard

CFT Active Task Orders

OCONUS LOCATIONS

Hawaii Kaneohe Bay

Okinawa Kadena AB MCAS Futenma

El Salvador JB Comalapa

United Kingdom Lakenheath RAF

Japan Iwakuni

Service Key: Air Force, Army, Navy/Marines, Coast Guard

CFT Labor Skills

Labor Skills Labor Skills Labor Skills Labor Skills Production Control Clerk Shipping/Receiving Clerk Fabric Worker Woodworker Scheduler, Maintenance Stock Clerk Ground Support Equipment Mechanic Technical Order Library Clerk Supply Technician Tools and Parts Attendant Ground Support Equipment Servicer Technical Order Librarian

Automobile Body Repairer, Fiberglas Warehouse Specialist Ground Support Equipment Worker Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) I

Automotive, Electrician Aerospace Structural Welder Gunsmith I Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) II

Automotive Worker Aircraft Mechanic I Gunsmith II Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) III

Mobile Equipment Servicer Aircraft Mechanic II Gunsmith III Non-Maintenance Test Pilot/Co-Pilot Pilot (non-MTP)

Motor Equipment Metal Mechanic, Motor Vehicle Body Repairer Aircraft Mechanic III Heavy Equipment Mechanic

Maintenance Test Pilot, Rotary Wing

Motor Equipment Metal Worker Aircraft Mechanic Helper Heavy Equipment Operator Maintenance Test Pilot, Fixed Wing/Prop

Motor Vehicle Mechanic Aircraft, Painter Machinery Maintenance Mechanic Maintenance Test Pilot, Fixed Wing/Jet

Motor Vehicle Mechanic Helper Aircraft Servicer Machinist, Maintenance Aircraft Logs and Records Technician

Painter, Automotive Aircraft Worker Maintenance Trades Helper Petroleum Supply Specialist

Machine-Tool Operator, Toolroom Electrician, Maintenance Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic Aircrew Survival Flight Equipment Technician I

Tool and Die Maker Electronics Technician Maintenance Rigger Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II

Forklift Operator Electronics Technician Maintenance Sheet-Metal Worker, Maintenance Media Blaster/Sand Blaster Material Coordinator Electronics Technician Maintenance Welder, Combination, Maintenance Equipment Cleaner

Contract Field Team Labor Categories

Sheet1

Contract Field Team Labor Categories

Labor Skills Labor Skills Labor Skills Labor Skills

Production Control Clerk Shipping/Receiving Clerk Fabric Worker Woodworker

Scheduler, Maintenance Stock Clerk Ground Support Equipment Mechanic Technical Order Library Clerk

Supply Technician Tools and Parts Attendant Ground Support Equipment Servicer Technical Order Librarian

Automobile Body Repairer, Fiberglass Warehouse Specialist Ground Support Equipment Worker Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) I

Automotive, Electrician Aerospace Structural Welder Gunsmith I Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) II

Automotive Worker Aircraft Mechanic I Gunsmith II Non-Destructive Inspection Technician (NDI) III

Mobile Equipment Servicer Aircraft Mechanic II Gunsmith III Non-Maintenance Test Pilot/Co-Pilot Pilot (non-MTP)

Motor Equipment Metal Mechanic, Motor Vehicle Body Repairer Aircraft Mechanic III Heavy Equipment Mechanic Maintenance Test Pilot, Rotary Wing

Motor Equipment Metal Worker Aircraft Mechanic Helper Heavy Equipment Operator Maintenance Test Pilot, Fixed Wing/Prop

Motor Vehicle Mechanic Aircraft, Painter Machinery Maintenance Mechanic Maintenance Test Pilot, Fixed Wing/Jet

Motor Vehicle Mechanic Helper Aircraft Servicer Machinist, Maintenance Aircraft Logs and Records Technician

Painter, Automotive Aircraft Worker Maintenance Trades Helper Petroleum Supply Specialist

Machine-Tool Operator, Toolroom Electrician, Maintenance Pneudraulic Systems Mechanic Aircrew Survival Flight Equipment Technician I

Tool and Die Maker Electronics Technician Maintenance I Rigger Aircraft Survival Flight Equipment Technician II

Forklift Operator Electronics Technician Maintenance II Sheet-Metal Worker, Maintenance Media Blaster/Sand Blaster

Material Coordinator Electronics Technician Maintenance III Welder, Combination, Maintenance Equipment Cleaner

Acquisition Background CFT Contract may not be used for:

Facilities Maintenance Grounds Keeping Construction Work Administrative Work Engineering Work Classroom Training (limited to “over the shoulder” OJT) Inactive Systems – no Static Display maintenance Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) Working for Government Contractors Turnkey Operations Labor hour support Non-performance based work Personal Services

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 14

CFT LASR Solicitation Overview

Ryan McCabe – Contracting Officer Ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 15

Milestones

Event Milestone Actual

1st Draft RFP 23 Nov 23 23 Nov 23

2nd Draft RFP 23 Feb 24 28 Feb 24

Pre-Solicitation Conference 3 Apr 24 19 Mar 24

RFP Release 30 May 24

Proposals Received 2 Jul 24

Anticipated Award 26 Aug 25

*Dates subject to change

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 16

Solicitation Overview Two Competition Pools

Small Business & Full & Open Contract Type

FAR 15

Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Task Orders under IDIQ Orders will be competed using FAR 16.5 (FOPRs) Firm-Fixed Price, Cost-Reimbursement, Time & Materials Minimum Order – Post-Award Conference (Virtual)

Potential Period of Performance – 10 Years 5-Year Basic Ordering Period and 5-Year Option Ordering

Period Anticipated release of RFP – May/June 2024

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 17

Solicitation Overview Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements

Terms and conditions Representation and certifications All factors and subfactors

AS9100D Certification Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) Minimum

Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) Small Business Participation Commitment Document Past Performance

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 18

Competition Pools Small Business

SB awarded < 100 FTEs CONUS and < 50 FTEs OCONUS Full & Open

Larger CFT requirements awarded > 100 FTEs CONUS and > 50 FTEs OCONUS Potential mixture of LB/SB Allows SBs option to compete in both pools

Post Award H-Clause allows provisions for successfully performing SBs

(in SB Competition Pool) opportunity to expand into the F&O Pool for requirements

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 19

Competition Pools On-Ramping Unilateral Additional contractors to either pool as needed Same evaluation and selection as original contract awards

Off-Ramping Used for non-performing contractors with no active task orders in either pool Allowing Contractor’s term to expire without exercising

Option 1 Debarment, suspension, or ineligibility Termination

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 20

CLIN Structure Contract CLIN Structure

X001 – Labor FFP X002 – Overtime FFP

X003 – CAP/CAS CR

X004 – Labor T&M X005 – Overtime (T&M) X006 – Mat’l/Non-Mat’l T&M X007 – Travel CR X008 – Transition “in” FFP X009 – Transition “out” FFP X010 – Data NSP X011 – Post Award Conference C/R (minimum order)

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 21

Special Requirements H-Clauses

H-1 Process And Criteria For Issuing Task Orders H-2 Competition Pools H-3 Shift Differential & Premium Pay H-4 Government Provided Support At Government Operated

Locations H-5 Overtime Procedures H-6 Small Business Recertification To Large Business H-7 On-ramping H-8 Off-ramping H-9 Teaming/Cross-teaming H-10 Unilateral MTC Increase Or Decrease By Up To 25%

*H-Clauses to receive new numbering format before RFP release

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 22

Evaluation Factors

Ryan McCabe – Contracting Officer Ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 23

Factor 1 - AS9100D Certification Factor 2 – Technical

SF1: HTRO Self Scoring Matrix SF2: Small Business Participation Commitment

Document Factor 3 – Past Performance

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 24

Factor 1 Step 1, Factor 1 – AS9100D Certification

Acceptable/Unacceptable To be determined Acceptable, offerors must provide current

AS9100D certification

If awarding without Discussions, offerors rated as Unacceptable for Factor 1 will be ineligible for award No further evaluation

If Discussions are contemplated, offerors rated as Unacceptable in Factor 1 will be excluded from competitive range and will be ineligible for award No further evaluation

Offerors rated as Acceptable for Factor 1 will move on to Step 2

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 25

Factor 2, Subfactor 1 Step 2, Factor 2 – Technical

Step 2a, Subfactor 1: HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) –

43,400 Government validation utilizes Work Samples and

Relevant Work Sample Narratives with only downward adjustments

Offerors that submit an HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix that is not equal to or above the MTTR will not be validated

Points Available 61,000

MTTR 43,400

Offerors Self-Score Total 18,000 Government Validated Score -

Will NOT Proceed to SF2b or remainder of evaluation

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 26

If awarding without Discussions, offerors that do not have a Government validated MTTR that meets or exceeds 43,400 will be ineligible for award No further evaluation

If Discussions are contemplated, offerors that do not have a Government validated MTTR that meets or exceeds 43,400 will be excluded from the competitive range and ineligible for award No further evaluation

Points Available 61,000

MTTR 43,400

Offerors Self-Score Total 45,000 Government Validated Score 43,000

Will NOT Proceed to SF2b or remainder of evaluation

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 27

Offerors that meet or score above MTTR after Government validation move on to Step 2b

Points Available 61,000

MTTR 43,400

Offerors Self-Score Total 43,400

Government Validated Score 43,400

Will Proceed to SF2b Evaluation

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 28

Factor 2, Subfactor 2 Step 2b, Subfactor 2– Small Business Participation Commitment

Document Acceptable/Unacceptable Extent of the proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S.

small businesses Completion and submission of Small Business Participation

Commitment Document

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 29

Factor 2, Subfactor 2 If awarding without Discussions, offerors rated as

Unacceptable for SF 2 will be excluded from competitive range and ineligible for award No further evaluation

If Discussions are contemplated, offerors rated as Unacceptable for SF2 will be excluded from competitive range and ineligible for award No further evaluation

Offerors rated as Acceptable for SF2 will move on to Step 3

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 30

Factor 3 Step 3, Factor 3 – Past Performance

Acceptable /Unacceptable Recency

Work performed DURING the past five (5) years from solicitation release

Example: Offeror A provides a Work Sample for a contract that was awarded September 2018 with period of performance of Sep 2018 – Sep 2023.

Work Sample is recent because Offeror A was performing on contract during the past five (5) years Relevancy

RATING DEFINITION

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 31

Performance Quality

In-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients.

RATING DEFINITION

Satisfactory (S)

Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory (U) Red

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered.

Corrective actions were either ineffective or nonexistent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Unknown (UK) Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 32

Past Performance Confidence

Offerors rated as Unacceptable for Factor 3 will not be considered in the best value award decision

Offerors rated as Acceptable for Factor 3 will move on to Step 4

RATING DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE

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

UNACCEPTABLE

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 33

Best Value Award Decision

Step 4 - Best Value Award All Offerors that have Acceptable for Factor 1

AS9100D Certification, Government validated score that Meets or exceeds MTTR, have an Acceptable Subfactor 2 SBPCD and have Acceptable Factor 3 Past Performance

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 34

Proposal Considerations The number of Work Sample submissions SHALL NOT exceed limitations set forth in Column C in the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix Offerors shall adhere to page limitations

Relevant Work Sample Narratives Rule: Limited to two (2) pages per contract Exception: Work Samples that cover multiple evaluation criteria (See Section L 4.4.2) Example: Work Sample that covers four (4) evaluation criteria may have a Relevant Work Sample Narrative that exceeds the maximum of two (2) pages to fully describe relevancy.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 35

Proposal Considerations Small Businesses competing in both Small Business and Full and

Open Competition pools shall submit two (2) proposals (Section L 1.0)

Small Business Participation Commitment Document submitted by ALL offerors submitting proposals. (Section L 4.4.4)

Subcontracting Plans submitted by other than Small Businesses only (Section L 6.1)

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 36

Proposal Submittal Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE)

All proposals shall be submitted using DoD SAFE, https://safe.apps.mil/ . All interested offerors must e-mail Ryan McCabe at ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil in order to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE IAW ITO 2.1.6 Email PCO to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE Upload proposal files via DoD SAFE Notify PCO by email that files have been uploaded

Provide a copy of the DoD Safe upload confirmation screen shot

Proposal will be considered timely, even if the files are not accessible to the PCO in DoD SAFE until after the proposal closing date and time https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:ryan.mccabe.2@us.af.mil

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 37

Hot Topics Discussion on AS9100D Certification

Require AD9100D for evaluation and award Maintained throughout contract period HTRO “credits” AS9100C work

HTRO Matrix feedback Addresses emerging workloads

Drone and UAV Low Observables and specialty coatings

H-Clause Considerations

MTC comments Assigned defined as “Onsite and available to work”

Without regard for employment status Offset payment for vacancies

Cross-Reference Matrix

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 38

Break

Back at 1030 for Source Selection Training and Keys to Developing a

Good Proposal

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 39

Source Selection Training

Melissa Mitchell

AFSC/PZCAB

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 40

Topics

SOURCE SELECTION

– What Is It

– Best Value

– Main Members

– Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

– Technical

– Past Performance

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

CUI

What is HTRO?

HTRO is a source selection process that is neither tradeoff nor Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Is suitable for any competitive acquisition where the

Government can establish objective scoring criteria Ideal for services efforts where the technical/non-price factors are the most critical aspect of the award decision Focuses on prior experience in performing same or similar work Best value is defined as the offeror with the highest

Government-validated technical score (and where applicable, price and/or past performance) Use of price and/or past performance as additional evaluation factors is at the discretion of the CO

Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO)

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 42

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 43

Common Structure Source Selection Team (SST) typically uses objectively verifiable evaluation criteria focused on quality of offerors previous experience/past performance RFP includes weighted scoring matrix Offerors self-score and submit with proposal Government performs evaluation to validate technical score

Note: The most common structure discussed here is not intended to reflect the only approach. The HTRO concept can be modified, as needed, to meet the acquisitions team’s needs.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 44

Advantages Can expedite source selection process Simplifies evaluation process reduced evaluation time

“days versus weeks” Provides objectively rated evaluation criteria Provides transparency throughout the process Allows for flexible approaches:

HTROs (without price or other non-technical factors) HTRO Realistic and Reasonable Price (with price or other non-technical factors) 2HTRO (with price or other non-technical factors) Other modified HTRO concepts

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 45

Source Selection Team Main Members

Source Selection Authority (SSA)

– Makes the award decision

– Approves entering and closing discussion

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO)

– Directs the evaluation of proposals

– Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

– Evaluate Proposals

– Assign ratings

– Present evaluation results to the SSA

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 46

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Three types of ENs

– Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated

– Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range

– Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 47

Request For Proposal

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

Section L

Section M

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 48

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 49

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

SSA does compare proposals against each other

For the best value award decision, the SSA will assess the Factor 1

AS9100D Certification and Factor 2 Technical and Factor 3 Past

Performance evaluation results, along with supporting information to make an integrated assessment of which offeror(s)provides the overall best value

CUI

For this acquisition, in order to be eligible for award an Offeror must be determined Acceptable for Factor 1 AS9100D Certification, must have a validated score at or above the MTTR of 43,400 points, must be

Acceptable for Subfactor 2 SBPCD and must be determined Acceptable for Factor 3 Past Performance.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 50

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 1

AS9100D Certification

Subfactors

1 HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix

2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document

CUI

FACTOR 3

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 51 and Ratings for HTRO Process

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

Factor 2 Technical Subfactor 1 - HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix

MTTR is 43,400 points Subfactor 2 – Small Business Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD)

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

Factor 3 Past Performance

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 52

Evaluation Methodology The Government will conduct evaluations in accordance with Section

M, paragraph 2.2.1 Evaluation Methodology

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification will be evaluated IAW Section M, paragraph 2.2.1, Step 1. Step 1 is a prerequisite in order to proceed to Step 2.

Factor 2 Technical will be evaluated IAW Section M, paragraph 2.2.1, Step 2 (to include Step 2a and Step 2b.)

Offerors who are determined Acceptable as a result of STEP 1 for

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification are eligible for the remainder of the evaluation for Factor 2 Technical and Factor 3 Past Performance as described in STEPs 2a, 2b, and Step 3 below.

Initial ratings for the factors will be established for each offeror.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 53

Offerors who are determined Acceptable as a result of STEP 1 for

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification, will be evaluated Factor 2 Technical, Subfactor 1 HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix IAW Step 2a.

Offerors who are determined to have a validated score at or above the MTTR of 43,400 points in Subfactor 1 will be eligible for the evaluation for Subfactor 2 as described in STEP 2b below.

Offerors who are determined to have a validated score at or above the MTTR of 43,400 points Factor 2 Technical, Subfactor 1 HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix will be evaluated for Subfactor 2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) IAW Step 2b.

Factor 3 will be evaluated IAW Section M, paragraph 2.2.1, Step 3 Offerors who are determined Acceptable as a result of STEP 2b for Subfactor 2 SBPCD, will be evaluated Factor 3 Past Performance.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 54

For the best value award decision, the SSA will assess the Factor 1

AS9100D Certification and Factor 2 Technical and Factor 3 Past Performance evaluation results, along with supporting information to make an integrated assessment of which offeror(s)provides the overall best value IAW Section M, paragraph 2.2.1, Step 4.

For this acquisition, in order to be eligible for award an Offeror must be determined Acceptable for Factor 1 AS9100D Certification, must have a validated score at or above the MTTR of 43,400 points, must be Acceptable for Subfactor 2 SBPCD and must be determined Acceptable for Factor 3 Past Performance.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 55

Step 1 Step 2a Step 2b Step 3 Step 4 Factor 1

AS9100D

Certification

Factor 2 Technical

Subfactor 1 HTRO Self- Score Matrix

Factor 2 Technical

Subfactor 2

SBPCD

Factor 3 Past

Performance

STOP

If Acceptable, Evaluation

Proceeds to Step 2a

If Unacceptable, Evaluation Stops at Step 1

STOP

Government validated

MTTR equal to or above 43,400, Proceeds to Step 2b

MTTR less than 43,400, Evaluation Stops at Step 2a

If Acceptable, Evaluation

Proceeds to Step 3

If Unacceptable, Evaluation Stops at Step

2b

STOP

If Acceptable, Evaluation

Proceeds to Step 4

If Unacceptable, Evaluation Stops at Step 3

Best Value Award

Decision

For this acquisition, in order to be eligible for award an Offeror must be determined Acceptable for

Factor 1

AS9100D

Certification, must have a validated score at or above the MTTR of 43,400 points, must be Acceptable in Subfactor 2

SBPCD and must be determined Acceptable for Factor 3 Past Performance.

Evaluation Methodology Summary

STOP

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 56

At the conclusion of the initial evaluation, in the event the Government conducts an award without discussions, Offerors who are determined to have any of the following evaluation results, will be considered unawardable and will not be considered in the best value award decision:

Unacceptable for Factor 1 AS9100D Certification, based on a deficiency in Factor 1, Offerors who are determined to be below the MTTR of 43,400 points

Unacceptable for Subfactor 2 SBPCD, based on a deficiency in Subfactor 2

Unacceptable for Factor 3

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 57

In the event the Government determines discussions are necessary, Offerors who are determined to have any of the following evaluation results, will be excluded from the Competitive Range:

Offerors with an evaluated deficiency in Factor 1 Offerors who are determined to be below the MTTR of 43,400 points Offerors with an evaluated deficiency in Subfactor 2

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 58

Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 59

Factor 3 – Past Performance

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 60

Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance volume with its proposal, containing Past Performance Information (PPI) IAW the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO.

The Past Performance volume shall include a team list, which includes the prime contractor, all significant subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation.

For the work samples provided IAW Section L 4.5 and 4.5.1 in Volume II, the Government’s evaluation for Past Performance will be conducted in three phases, 1) recency assessment, 2) relevancy assessment and 3) performance quality assessment.

Offerors shall not provide additional work samples not identified in Volume II.

However, the Government also reserves the right to identify additional work samples to be utilized in its evaluation of Past Performance.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 61

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 62

Confidence Definitions

NOTE: Offerors who are determined to have an overall Unacceptable rating for Factor 3, Past Performance will not be considered in the best value award decision.

Rating Definition

ACCEPTABLE

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

UNACCEPTABLE

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 63

Recency Recency, as stated in Section M, paragraph 2.4.1

– The effort must have been performed during the past five (5) 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

– Example A:

Contract Period of Performance: 2011– 2016. Not Recent.

Contract will not be considered in the evaluation

– Example B:

Contract Period of Performance: 2017 – 2023. This contract is Recent. The entire contract may be considered in the evaluation.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 64

Relevancy In determining relevancy for each contract reference determined to be recent, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

Relevancy considerations

– Similar Scope

– Similar Magnitude

– Similar Complexity

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 65

Relevancy Definitions

CUI

Rating Definition

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 66

Performance Quality The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts.

Performance Quality consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients

Performance Quality may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information which the

Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality.

For adverse information identified, the evaluation will Consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 67

Performance Quality Definitions

CUI

Rating Definition

Satisfactory (S) Green

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory (U) Red

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or nonexistent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Unknown (UK) Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 68

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

SATISFACTORY (S) -- GREEN

UNSATISFACTORY (U) -- RED

CONFIDENCE RATING

(ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE)

RECENCY

(5 years)

RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

UNKNOWN (UK)

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 69

Past Performance Evaluation

Ratings

Program Title PPQ / CPARs Relevancy

Performance Quality

BETA, INC. (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAXXXX-16-C-0001 2 / 3 NR

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-17-0500 2 / 0 R U

VFY AFB

FAAAB-18-C-0005 1 / 1 R S

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Beta, Inc.

13313-06-45

0 / 0 R UK

ABC AFB

FAAAA-15-C-0014

1 / 4 NR

TOTAL: 6 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN

SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory -- Unsatisfactory-- RelevantR -- Not RelevantNR

-- Unknown

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 70

Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance Information Forms (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 Contracting Officer

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

– Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Other sources as needed

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 71

Additional Notes

Attachment 1.4 Consent Letter. This letter shall be executed and signed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner. The letter authorizes the release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

Attachment 1.5 Client Authorization Letter. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall submit a client authorization letter (Attachment 1.5) authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance.

Attachment 1.6 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter. This letter shall be executed and signed by the Prime contractor and each Subcontractor. The letter states that, in the event a contract is awarded to the Prime Contractor, the Prime Contractor and Subcontractor (to include teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) commit to joint contract performance as described in the proposal. A separate letter shall be completed for each subcontractor separately. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, the subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered. In the event the signed letter is not submitted with the initial proposal, but is later submitted during the evaluation, the subcontractor references will be considered at that point.

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 72

SOURCE SELECTION PHASES

AND

AWARD

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 73

Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation

Potential Draft FPR

Request for Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Initial evaluation of each offeror’s proposal

ENs prepared and finalized

Discussion briefings with each offeror

Evaluation of EN responses and follow-up ENs

Initial ratings established for each offeror Rating adjustments based on EN responses

Award w/o discussion Competitive Range

Release ENs to offerors

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established for each offeror

SSA Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION DISCUSSIONS FINAL

EVALUATION

RESULT RESULT RESULT

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 74

Evaluation Summary

ABC CO

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification Acceptable

Factor 2, Subfactor 1 HTRO Self-Score Matrix

Offeror’s Self Score: 45,000 Government Validated Score: 38,000

Factor 2, Subfactor 2 SBPCD

Factor 2 Past Performance

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 75

ACME LLC

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification Acceptable

Factor 2, Subfactor 1 HTRO Self-Score Matrix

Offeror’s Self Score: 57,000 Government Validated Score: 55,000

Factor 2, Subfactor 2 SBPCD Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 76

ALPHA INC

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification Acceptable

Factor 2, Subfactor 1 HTRO Self-Score Matrix

Offeror’s Self Score: 47,000 Government Validated Score: 44,000

Factor 2, Subfactor 2 SBPCD Acceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance Acceptable Confidence

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 77

ABC CO ACME LLC ALPHA INC

Factor 1 AS9100D Certification Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Factor 2, Subfactor 1

HTRO Self- Score Matrix

Offeror’s Self Score: 45,000

Offeror’s Self Score: 57,000

Offeror’s Self Score: 47,000

Government Validated Score:

38,000

Government Validated Score:

55,000

Government Validated Score:

44,000

Factor 2, Subfactor 2 SBPCD Unacceptable Acceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance

Acceptable Confidence

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 78

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 offerors represents the best value to the Government based the Factor 1 AS9100D Certification, Factor 2 Technical and Factor 3 Past Performance evaluation results, along with supporting information to make an integrated assessment

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUICUI 79

Keys to Developing a Good Proposal

Melissa Mitchell

AFSC/PZCAB

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 80

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 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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 81

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 82

Developing A Good Proposal

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

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 83

Developing A Good Proposal

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

Tab the information

– Don’t make us have to guess or search for answers

– Follow the exact numerical outline in the instructions

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 84

Developing A Good Proposal

Don’t make changes to the PWS and submit a new versions

– Document stands as written

– Don’t submit a Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW)

Don’t make changes to the RFP and submit a new version

– Document stands as written and amended by PCO only

B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7CUI 85

Summary

This briefing/training was designed to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions

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

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

Submit questions to the PCO; questions and answers will be posted to www.sam.gov

CUI

http://www.sam.gov/