Pre-Sol_Conference(P).pptx

OKLAHOMA CITY

AIR LOGISTICS CENTER

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

TEAM TINKER

Pre-Solicitation Conference Tinker Air Force Base Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex Material Support Integrator (MSI) Program

5 March 2014

Agenda Opening Remarks Oklahoma Small Business Development Center Program History/Background Milestones Pricing Briefing Source Selection Procedures/Plans Discussions/Q&As

Opening Remarks Welcome Introduction: Government Team Members Contracting Officer: Jill Graham Cost/Price Analyst: Janice Cessna Program Manager: Scott Minnick Source Selection Advisor: Van Garmon Program Office: James Hudson

TAFB Small Business Office – OC-ALC/SB Joanne Davis, Director 405-739-2601

Rose State College Oklahoma Small Business Development Center Jeanna McManus Voice: 405-733-7348 Fax: 405-733-7586 E-mail: jmcmanus@rose.edu Web Site: www.rose.edu/small-business-development-center

OC-ALC Material Support Integrator (MSI) Point of Use History

PROGRAM BACKGROUND

PROGRAM BACKGROUND

Material Support Integration is a means to vend, control and improve accountability of Common use Items/Material at the Shop Floor 24/7

Equipment/Software supports a wide range of Material Control/Accountability solutions

Maintenance Support Group (MXSG) began installing Point of Use (POU) equipment in Nov 03

Maintenance Production Shops followed suit in Feb 05

MXSG Guidance Sep 06 MXSG to Centrally Manage the MSI Program for the OC-ALC Provide a Complex Wide Solution for POU & Common Use Items/Material Develop an Integrated Supply Contract to procure and distribute common use items to the POU locations To Date: 361 POU pieces of equipment on site, 221 POU Locations, 31 Buildings

Program Growth February 2007 140 POU devices on site, 15 buildings and purchasing approximately 5300 items Current Follow-on Effort 361 POU devices on site, 221 POU locations, 31 buildings and purchasing approximately 5664 items

REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION

Material Support Integrator Services Obtain Material and Supply Agreements with Vendors to provide all the Common Use Items

Sustainment of over 221 different locations Sustainment of over 350 Automated Point-of-Use (POU) devices Sustainment of 17 Non-Automated Cribs Sustainment of approximately 80 Production Support Centers Purchasing for approximately 5,700 Items Management and Process Improvement for entire Common Use Item List (CUIL)

Acquisition Strategy OC-ALC Material Support Integrator

Competitive procurement

Small Business Set Aside, NAICS Code 561210

J&A for Brand Name Items 282 Common Use Items Sultzer Metco, Praxair, Buehler, Struers

FAR Part 12 Contract , Utilizing FAR Part 15 Procedures Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract 1 month phase-in, 11 month Basic, four 1-year options Approximately 5,700 Items, 221 Locations, 361 Automated, 17 Non-Automated, 80 PSCs

OC-ALC Material Support Integrator

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)

CLIN 0001, FFP, Common Use Items Brand Name or Equal Brand Name provisions for Sulzer Metco, Praxair, Buehler and Struers items

CLIN 0002, FFP, Inventory Management Service Portion of Effort

CLIN 0003, NSP, Data Contractor Format CDRL A004 Inventory Management Improvement Report

0004, FFP, Phase-In

OC-ALC Material Support Integrator

Special Contract Provisions Funding for CLIN 0001 POU Common Use Items Changes in POU Common Use Item List

Performance Based Acquisition

AFI 63-138

Service Contract Act Applies

OC-ALC Material Support Integrator

Government Furnished Property 4 Laptop computers, 4 docking stations Industrial storage space in Building 9001

Source Selection Procedures Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures

Acquisition Center of Excellence involvement

OC-ALC Material Support Integrator Milestones

Notional Milestones

Pricing Briefing MSI Pricing Briefing Ms. Janice Cessna Solicitation # FA8125-14-R-0001 5 March 2014

FACTOR 3: Price Government shall assess all technically acceptable offers for price reasonableness, completeness, and balance Evaluation will include Phase-In, Basic Period, all option year prices and the potential six-month extension Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions

FACTOR 3: Price (continued) The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed pricing multiplied by the BEQs The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only

FACTOR 3: Price (continued) Reasonableness Proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness Pricing will also be evaluated for completeness Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business Burden of Proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror

FACTOR 3: Price (continued) Unbalanced Pricing Proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced Offerors may provide supporting explanation in the initial proposal of variance in pricing that suggests lack of balance Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data

FACTOR 3: Price (continued)

Pricing Information Cost assumptions Price reduction per Management Decision

Rounding CLIN pricing shall be rounded to four decimal places Government will apply specified format to determine the extended pricing and the TEP

FACTOR 3: Price (continued) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror proposed unit prices in Exhibit 1, Common Use Item List (CUIL), and Exhibit 2, MSI Inventory Management, and CLIN 0004, Phase-In.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for the Phase-In, the Basic Period, the four Option Periods, and the six-month Extension Period

FACTOR 3: Price (continued) The six-month extension unit prices will be based on the proposed unit prices for Option Period 4 Also, the overall evaluated proposal price of each CLIN total will be calculated

FACTOR 3: Price (continued) Total Evaluated Price The Best Estimated Quantities (BEQ) in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, provide information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods Evaluation quantities in the Exhibits are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government Extended pricing per CLIN will be based on proposed unit prices multiplied by the government provided estimated quantities

TEP Calculation CLIN X001 total + CLIN X002 total + CLIN 1004 = TEP

CLIN X001 total = Sum of extended amounts for all items, all yrs.

(Extended $ = Offeror proposed unit price X Est. Qty.)

CLIN X002 total = Sum of annual TEP for each period

CLIN 0004 = Proposed unit price

Source Selection Procedures/Plans

Source Selection Training

AIR FORCE

SUSTAINMENT CENTER

Van Garmon

AFMC AFSC/PZCAB

734-3815 van.garmon@tinker.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 OfferorB Offeror C

A Offeror B

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision Offeror A OfferorB

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

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

ADDENDUM

TO

52.212-1

ADDENDUM

TO

52.212-2 Request for Proposal

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

1 Resource Management 2 Program Management 3 Common Use Item List Subfactors Evaluation Factors For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

Order of Importance

TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

ACCEPTABLE

UNACCEPTABLE

PAST

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

UNKNOWN

FACTOR 2

PRICE

TOTAL

EVALUATED

PRICE

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

TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

EVALUATED

PRICE

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Rating Definition

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- Resource Management – 1 element (a) 2- Program Management – 5 elements (a – e) 3- Common Use Item List – 2 elements (a – b)

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

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

COMMON USE

ITEM LIST

a)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a) b) a) b) c) d) e)

TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

EVALUATED

PRICE

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

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

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

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.

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

NO

CONFIDENCE

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

Confidence Definitions DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5

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.

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

Relevancy considerations Similar service Breadth and depth of skills

Similar… Scope Magnitude Complexity Contract Type

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

BLUE -- EXCEPTIONAL

PURPLE -- VERY GOOD

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

Past Performance Evaluation

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation

VR

VG

SUB 3

CUIL

SUB 2

PM

SUB 1

RM

R

VG

R

VG

SR

Y $100M (10 yr) Government Program

F34601-99-C-9932 FFP/CR

R E

VR

S R S $55M (8 yr) Company A Excel Project FFP

SR

S

SR

S $25M (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

VR

E R P S

R

VG

SR

S

PRIME

SUBCONTRACTOR

PRICE

R S R S

SR

S N/A N/A

Past Performance 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

Past Performance 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.

TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR

LEVEL RATING

PERFORMANCE

LEVELS OF

CONFIDENCE

SUBSTANTIAL

SATISFACTORY

LIMITED

NO

EVALUATED

PRICE

Completeness Did the offeror complete the Bid Schedule 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

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 Release ENs to offerors 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

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

$80.0M

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

QUESTIONS

Discussions/Q&A Note: All final answers will be posted on FedBizOpps.

Submitted Questions Q1. The icon for the hyperlink to file "SGFPMod091012AppBProperty070213.xlsx" is not active. Will the GFP list be provided prior to RFP release (even in draft form)?

A1. The hyperlink will be replaced with the actual GFP listing. GFP includes:

Also note PWS para 3.2, Shared Property, for amount of office space provided.

Q2. In Addendum 52.212-1, The outline references ITO paragraph 3.2.4 (e) as "Phase In Plan (Subfactor 5)." However, there are only 3 Subfactors identified for the Technical Volume in both Attachment 1 (Instructions) and Attachment 2 (Evaluation Facotrs). Please clarify the reference to "Subfactor 5.“

A2 “Subfactor 5” should have been “Subfactor 2, Element e”. However, Table 2.3 will be changed to mirror para. 3.2.2 and the changes will be reflected in the RFP.

Q3. In Addendum 52.212-1, The outline for Volume 1 (Technical) is not consistent with the "Volume Organization" as identified in paragraph 3.2.2 on page 7. Please clarify.

A3. Table 2.3 will be changed to mirror para. 3.3.2 and the changes will be reflected in the RFP.

Q4. In Addendum 52.212-1, It is assumed that the guidance provided regarding past performance reference "up to 4" supersedes the guidance in Attachment 1.1, Past and Present Performance Information Sheet (first paragraph)… "offeror submit between 6 and 10 PPIS forms." Please confirm.

A4. “Up to 4” is the correct guidance. Attachment 1.1 changed to reflect accordingly.

Q5. What is the current method of delivery to the POU location for large, heavy material such as 25 ft long tubing or 4 ft x 12 ft sheet rock?

A5. Currently these items are drop shipped to a warehouse that has the capabilities to unload large bulky items. The warehouse is the only POU location that orders these types of items.

Q6. We would like to understand the current manpower and wage requirements for the mission, recognizing we need to align with the wage determination rates you have provided within the RFP. Please provide a numeric breakdown of the current team members supporting the mission with corresponding occupation codes. Thank you”

A6. We cannot provide a numeric breakdown of the current team members as it is considered proprietary data.

Open Question & Answer Session image12.png image1.png image13.png image14.png image2.jpeg image3.wmf image4.wmf image5.wmf image6.wmf image7.wmf image8.wmf image9.wmf image10.wmf image11.png