Pre-proposal_Conference.pdf

1 For Official Use Only

Pre-proposal Conference for

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages

(DMSMS) Program

11 Aug 14

2 For Official Use Only

Agenda

Proposals due 15 Sep 14, 0800 CST

Pre-Proposal Conference Agenda

Discuss Government Requirements

Discuss Contract Type

Discuss Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure

Discuss Source Selection Criteria

Address Submitted Questions

RFP content takes precedence over Information provided in any Question & Answer Forum

3 For Official Use Only

Government Team

Program Manager: Royce Smith, 429SCMS/GUMD

Contracting Officer: Harry Taylor, AFSC/PZAAC

Program Management Team

Debra Shepherd-Moore, 429SCMS/GUMD

John Schmitz, 429SCMS/GUMD

Robert Britton , 429SCMS/GUMD

Price Analyst: Melissa Masterson, AFSC/PZCF

4 For Official Use Only

Government Requirement

Description: Provide an Enterprise-wide DMSMS Predictive Tool

Capability

Efforts include: Determining the present and future state of

Program Managed System’s Bill of Material (BOM), identified items status, and their Life Cycle procurement efforts.

Additionally, the requirement will consist of the loading and updating of the BOM data

User(s): Provide DMSMS support for all Air Force (AF) users located at Hill AFB, Tinker AFB, and Robins AFB

5 For Official Use Only

Contract Type

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price, Non-Commercial, Indefinite

Delivery, Indefinite Quantity, Services

Minimum Obligation

New awardee: Bill of Material Data Transfer

Incumbent: $500K

Period of Performance: Three years (one year basic)

Options: Two, one-year options (priced and evaluated prior to award)

6 For Official Use Only

CLIN Structure

CLIN CLIN Type BEQ/Max Qty

0001 BOM Loading FFP 500,000 / 650,000 each

0002 BOM Updating FFP 500,000 / 600,000 each

0003 Travel

0003AA Hill AFB, UT FFP 2 / 3 each

0003AB Robins AFB, GA FFP 2 / 3 each

0003AC Tinker AFB, OK FFP 4 / 5 each

0004 Data – CDRLs NSP 1 lot

0005 Data – Appendix B FFP 1 lot

0006 BOM Data Transfer FFP 1 lot

Note: Option CLINs are similar, however, there is no option CLIN

0006 for BOM Data Transfer. Quantities in option years may be different than basic year and are represented for discussion only.

7 For Official Use Only

Source Selection Criteria 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 described below

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Authority to Operate (ATO)

Subfactor 2: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities

Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

For this acquisition, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2, Past Performance, is significantly more important than Factor 3, Price."

8 For Official Use Only

Factor 1: Technical

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

All technical subfactors will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”

Subfactor 1: Authority to Operate (ATO)

Subfactor 2: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities

Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

9 For Official Use Only

Factor 1: Technical (cont.)

Subfactor 1: Authority to Operate

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a photo copy of a current ATO for their proposed

Tool/Tools

The government will consider an ATO from another DoD agency providing the DoD approved ATO contains the same security requirements as an AF ATO

The Government shall NOT evaluate any proposal that does not include a current and proper Authority to Operate (ATO)

10 For Official Use Only

Subfactor 2: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror demonstrates all of the following essential components within allotted three hours provided

Live demonstration shall be considered acceptable when the offeror's demonstration includes successfully downloading twelve individual query results to Government provided CDs which:

Were generated from a single logon point

Are displayed in a format exportable to Excel

Contain 100% of the required part attribute data requested at the beginning of the live demonstration

Display on the computer screen all part attribute data fields listed on PWS Appendix B and Appendix C that were not included in the twelve query results

11 For Official Use Only

Subfactor 3: Contractor Requirements

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 with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance

The offeror shall provide a detailed approach which ensures requirements in PWS

Sections, 1.3 through 1.3.5 are met. As a minimum, the offeror’s approach shall include details of how:

The approximately 21 million line items provided by the Government will be imported, linked, populated with PWS Appendix C data and made available to Air

Force users in 90 days

Loading of new lines of data and updating of line item data will be accomplished

The Tool/Tools Authority to Operate will be kept current

Tool Database Training will be accomplished

The technical evaluation will also consider technical risk in determining overall acceptability as it pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical risk rating will be inherent within the subfactor rating and the overall Technical rating

12 For Official Use Only

Subfactor 4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The Government will only consider the participation of the firm(s) for which offerors have provided a legally enforceable commitment

Acceptable rating in this subfactor is a score of “equal to or greater than 51”

Category Score 1 2 3 4 5 Weight

(D) Small 2.00%-

3.99%

4.00 %-

6.99%

7.00%-

14.49%

14.50%-

19.99%

>20.00% 12

(E) Small

Disadvantaged

Business

1.00%-

1.99%

2.00%- 3.99% 4.00%- 5.49% 5.50%- 6.49% >6.50% 5

(F) Women-owned Small

0.25%-

0.49%

0.50%-

0.99%

1.00%- 1.49% 1.50%-

1.99%

>2.00% 3

(G) HUBZone

Small Business

0.25%-

0.49%

0.50%-

0.99%

1.00%- 1.49% 1.50%-

1.99%

>2.00% 3

(H) Service-

Disabled Veteran-owned Small

Business

0.25%-

0.49%

0.50%-

0.99%

1.00%- 1.49% 1.50%-

1.99%

>2.00% 3

(I) Veteran

Owned Small

Business

1.00%-

1.99%

2.00%- 4.99% 5.00%- 5.49% 5.50%- 5.99% >6.00% 3

13 For Official Use Only

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the

Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments

With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as

“Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance

Factor

Rating Description

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.

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.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

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.

14 For Official Use Only

Factor 3: Price

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all technically acceptable Offerors. The TEP is the sum of extended pricing for the base year and the two option years

Unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk to the Government.

The offeror may be rejected by the PCO if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This pertains to CLIN pricing as well as TEP. To be realistic, proposed pricing shall be consistent with the proposed approach, demonstrating an understanding of the requirement and program complexity.

15 For Official Use Only

Contract Award Schedule

RFP Release 1-Aug-14

Pre-proposal Conference 11-Aug-14

Proposals Due 15-Sep-14

Evaluation Complete 17-Oct-14

Legal Review 3-Nov-14

SSA Brief 10-Nov-14

Contract Clearance 24-Nov-14

1279 Notification 8-Dec-14

Contract Award 12-Dec-14

16 For Official Use Only

Submitted Questions

Question/Recommendation: Are large business offerors expected to attach a complete copy of their Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of their response to Subfactor 4, as seems to be indicated by Paragraph 3.2.2? If so, please confirm that this corporate plan is not included in the 40 page limit.

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2, Item h); Page 59 of 89

Comment: Section L - Instructions to Offerors (ITO), Paragraph 3.2.2 - Volume

Organization, Item H - Subfactor Four, Small Business Participation Plan, states:

"Note, offeror’s that are considered a large business by the applicable NAICS must also submit a small business subcontracting plan in addition to the small business participation plan."

Government Response: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not part of the response to subfactor 4 and is not included in the 40 page limit.

17 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: How many on site personnel can the government support at each of the following locations, Hill AFB, Tinker AFB and Robins AFB?

RFP Reference: PWS Section 3.5 Location/Office Space; Page 11

Comment: PWS Section 3.5 - Location/Office Space, states, in part: "Day to day efforts shall be performed onsite at Hill AFB, Tinker AFB and Robins AFB during normal working hours (0730-1630). For contractor onsite support personnel, the

Government shall furnish office space, desk, chair, file cabinet, telephone, e-mail, and internet access."

Government Response: It is the government’s intent to allow each offeror the opportunity to propose the number of onsite support personnel the offeror needs to perform this requirement

18 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: What will be included in the tradeoff?

RFP Reference: Section M, Para 1.1, Basis for Contract Award; Page 79 of 89

Comment: Paragraph 1.1 states “This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source

Selection procedures with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.” The next sentence states the tradeoff will be made only between past performance and price.

Government Response: In 2011, the Department of Defense standardized source selection procedures utilizing “Tradeoff” and “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” source selections. For this acquisition, the Government will consider technical as

“acceptable” or “unacceptable” and will only trade past performance for price.

19 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: Is this a best value or PPT award?

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 1.1.2 Page 53 of 89; Section M, Para 1.1, Basis for Contract Award; Page 79 of 89

Comment: Paragraph 1.1.2 states, Award will be made on the basis of “best value”

…..Paragraph 1.1 states this is a “best value” award however the process description that follows describes a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) process.

Government Response: In 2011, the Department of Defense standardized source selection procedures utilizing “Tradeoff” and “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” source selections. The “Performance Price Tradeoff” source selection method is no longer a selection method; however the methodology may still be used within the

“Tradeoff” source selection. For this acquisition, the Government will consider technical as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” and will only trade past performance for price.

20 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: It appears the top rating of “Substantial Confidence” was inadvertently removed from the table 5 in paragraph 2.3.1. Recommend revising table to include the “Substantial Confidence” rating as provided in the DoD

Source Selection Procedures.

Section M, Para 2.3, Factor 3 – Past Performance; Page 83 of 89 and para 2.3.1 –

Ratings; Page 83 & 84 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 2.3 references past performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments which shows 5 confidence ratings. Paragraph 2.3.1, Table 5 includes only 4 confidence ratings.

Government Response: “Substantial Confidence” was not inadvertently removed from table 5. While past performance is significantly more important than price, the

Government is more concerned with “Satisfactory Confidence” compared to the other confidence ratings.

21 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: Was it the intent of the government to omit this file and accompanying sample data from the final RFP? Also, please confirm that the sample data file provided in the draft RFP is identical to the sample data file in the final RFP.

RFP Reference: Sample Data File Provided for Live Demonstration

Comment: In reference to the sample data provided for the live demonstration, it is noted that there was a text file in the draft version of the RFP with the file name

Sample_Data_Hybrids.txt that is not included in final version of the RFP.

Government Response: It was the government’s intent to omit, “Sample_Data_Hybrids.txt” from the RFP. It was also the government’s intent to omit the, “Sample_Data_Hybrids.txt” from the draft RFP but was mistakenly included in the draft RFP data.

22 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: If this is a requirement to be met in the PWS, suggest that

PWS Section 1.3, paragraphs 5 and 6 (as shown below) be revised to incorporate items in

Green. PWS, Appendix A: Tool Requirements Matrix; Page 15

Comment: The PWS contains an Appendix A titled "Tool Requirements Matrix." However, no reference is made to Appendix A within the sections of the PWS.

The contractor shall provide the necessary capabilities required to support the 448 Supply

Chain Management Wing (SCMW) obsolescence management initiatives as described in this PWS. The contractor’s Tool shall meet all requirements of this PWS and Appendix A at time of proposal. The contractor shall also provide engineering, technical and program support services for the effort. The requirements detailed below will be broken out by specific AFSC requirements, as applicable.

This requirement is considered Sustainment and does not allow for development or modernization of a contractor’s IT capability. This requirement does not allow for the

Government purchase of software modifications or software enhancements. This requirement does not allow for the Government purchase of computer hardware. At time of proposal, the contractor shall have a complete IT capability which has the ability to perform the requirements as stated in this PWS and Appendix A.

Government Response: Appendix A Is part of the PWS so there is no reason to single it out on its own. It is important to understand that the statement, “as stated in this PWS” means, the ENTIRE PWS.

23 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: Is it the intent of the government that offerors not respond to PWS sections 1.3.6 through 1.3.10? Otherwise, suggest that Paragraph

3.2.5 be revised to read, "... shall provide a detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in PWS Sections 1.3 through 1.3.10."

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 3.2.5 - Subfactor Three: Contractor

Requirements; Page 59 of 89

Comment: Paragraph 3.2.5 states, in part, "The Offeror shall provide an approach for the accomplishment of Contractor Requirements. The approach shall provide a detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in PWS Sections 1.3 through 1.3.5.“

Government Response: The government has determined providing a detailed approach for the accomplishment of requirements in PWS Sections 1.3 through

1.3.5. is sufficient for evaluating Subfactor 3.

24 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: DID reference for CDRL A007 DoD Architecture

Framework Documentation should be corrected to DI-MGMT-81644A.

RFP Reference: RFP Part I, Section B, CLIN X004 Data, Data Requirements

Tables (Pages 8, 15, and 21 of 89).

Government Response: The Government concurs. DID reference for CDRL A007 for CLIN 0004, 1004, and 2004 should be DI-MGMT-81644A.

Question/Recommendation: Does the government require submission of this

Attachment? If so please specify where the worksheet should be included in the proposal and if it is to be included in page count. Comment: RFP does not appear to require submission of the completed worksheet with proposal responses.

RFP Reference: RFP Part III, Section J, Small Business Participation Plan.xls Small

Business Participation Plan Worksheet (Page 44 of 89).

Government Response: The Government does not require the Small Business

Participation Plan Worksheet to be submitted. The worksheet was provided to assist with clarity and transparency in regards to the Government calculations.

However, the government does require the Small Business Participation Plan IAW section L, Instruction to Offerors.

25 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: There is no Paragraph numbered 5.3.1, can the government please clarify what paragraph number they are referring to in this sentence?

RFP Reference: Section L, Paragraph 4.3.1; Page 63 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 4.3.1 states “The target of eight pages for PPIS does not include the allowable five pages for ITO paragraph number 5.3.1, Relevant Contract

Narrative.

Government Response: ITO paragraph number 5.3.1 will be changed.

Question/Recommendation: Can the Government please re-align the Table 2.3

ITO paragraph numbers with the correct Section L numbers?

RFP Reference: Section L, Table 2.3 Proposal Organization; Page 56 of 89.

Comment: Table 2.3 references ITO paragraph numbers in the 2nd column. The numbers referenced don’t match up to the paragraph numbers in Section L.

Government Response: Table 2.3 Proposal Organization; will be re-aligned and reposted.

26 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: Is the satisfactory confidence rating the minimum awardable rating?

RFP Reference: Section M, Paragraph 2.3.1; Page 84 of 89.

Comment: Note with Table 5 Performance Confidence Assessments, states…”all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past

Performance Factor.”

Government Response: The “Satisfactory Confidence” is the maximum rating.

The Government reserves the right to make a best value or tradeoff decision within any of the confidence ratings in Table 5.

27 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: It appears the top rating of Very Relevant” was inadvertently removed from the table 4 in paragraph 2.3.2.2. Recommend revising table to include the “Very Relevant” rating as provided in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures.

Section M, Para 2.3, Factor 3 – Past Performance; Page 83 of 89 and para 2.3.2.2 –

Ratings; Page 84 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 2.3.2.2 references past performance relevancy assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1 Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings which shows 4 relevancy ratings. Paragraph 2.3.2.2 Table 4 includes only 3 confidence ratings.

Government Response: The rating of “Very Relevant” was not inadvertently removed. The Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures limits and defines 4 relevancy ratings; however, the Source Selection Authority may elect not to use all of the relevancy ratings. The Government shall consider all offerors rated relevant as equal.

28 For Official Use Only

Question/Recommendation: It appears the two top ratings Exceptional (Purple) and Very Good (Blue) were inadvertently removed from the table in paragraph

2.3.2.3. Recommend revising table to include the “Exceptional and Very Good” ratings.

RFP Reference: Section M, para 2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment; Page

85 of 89.

Comment: Paragraph 2.3.2.2 includes only 3 Quality Assessment ratings in the table with highest achievable rating being Satisfactory (Green).

Government Response: The ratings of Exceptional (Purple) and Very Good (Blue) were not inadvertently removed. The Department of Defense Source Selection

Procedures limits and defines 5 performance quality ratings; however, the Source

Selection Authority may elect not to use all of the performance quality ratings. The

Government shall consider all offerors rated satisfactory as equal.

29 For Official Use Only

Question: Is the incumbent's "Tool" a COTS product?

Government Response: The incumbents “Tool” is contractor owned and contractor managed. The Government is under contract for a noncommercial service and does not believe it is prudent to elaborate on another contractor’s product.

Question: Why are the challenges with the incumbent's "Tool" that are necessitating another procurement cycle?

Government Response: The government is not aware of any challenges with the incumbents “Tool” however, it is the government’s policy to continually seek competition where possible.

30 For Official Use Only

Question: How many BOMs need to be entered into the tool within the first 90 days?

Government Response: The government does not stipulate the number of BOMs to be loaded into the offeror’s tool. The government is providing an extract from the

PWS as an answer to what is required to be loaded into the offeror’s tool within the first 90 days:

1.3 Contractor Requirements

At the beginning of this effort, the contractor will be provided the AF indentured parts data in a flat file format on Computer Disks (CDs). Flat files will contain approximately 21 million line items populated with Government owned part attribute data listed in APPENDIX B. Contractor shall import all Government owned part attribute data into their Tool and link as required by this PWS.

In addition to the Government owned part attribute data, the contractor shall populate the same 21 million line items with the contractor supplied part attribute data listed in APPENDIX C. Contractor shall have all part attribute data populated, appropriately linked and made available for use to all AF users within 90 calendar days after contract award.

31 For Official Use Only

Question: Given the long procurement history of this requirement, is it prudent for new offerors to assume that this requirement will be equitably reviewed and awarded by Dec, 2014 as acquiesced in the RFP? Or, is it likely to be sole sourced to the incumbent as was done previously?

Government Response: The RFP stated that offerors hold their prices for 120 days from response date. The government is committed to performing an unbiased evaluation of each offeror’s proposal and award the contract by December 2014.

Question: Why is the status of the incumbent's "Tool"?

Government Response: The Government is currently contracting with BAE

Systems, and BAE’s “Tool” is currently operating within the guidelines of the governments requirements.

32 For Official Use Only

Final Comments

“Approval“ of RFP content does not change during this pre-proposal conference. Changes shall only be approved via RFP Amendment

Strongly recommend interested vendors to sign up for alerts within the Federal Business Opportunities website

Proposals due 15 Sep 14, 0800 CST