TAFB_CE_Ops_PreSol_Conf_Slides.pdf

72d Air Base Wing

Ms. Tamra Torres, Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIOC

CE Operations Pre-Solicitation

Conference

Wildcatters -- We ARE Airpower!

Agenda

1200-1205 OPENING REMARKS AND AGENDA

Ms. Tamra Torres, Contracting Officer, AFSC/PZIOC

1205-1215 WELCOME

Ms. Stephanie Wilson, Base Civil Engineer, 72 ABW/CE

1215-1230 KICK OFF & ADMINISTRATIVE REMARKS

PROCUREMENT OVERVIEW

Ms. Tamra Torres, Contracting Officer, AFSC/PZIOC

1230-1330 CE OPERATIONS OVERVIEW

Mr. Bede Ley, 72 ABW/CEOE

1330-1400 SMALL BUSINESS BRIEFING

Ms. Lisa Turner, Small Business Office, AFSC/SB

1400-1410 BREAK

1410-1630 SOURCE SELECTION/EVALUATION CRITERIA

Mr. Van Garmon, Source Selection Advisor, AFSC/PZCAB

Introduction

Base Civil Engineer: Ms. Stephanie Wilson Deputy Base Civil Engineer: Mr. Brad Beam Program Managers: Mr. William Ward

Mr. Bede Ley Contracting Officer: Ms. Tami Torres Contract Specialist: MSgt Aaron Trammell Price Analyst: Ms. Janice Cessna Source Selection Advisor: Mr. Van Garmon

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 nor does it constitute as a change to the RFP Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting are for discussion purposes only

Rules of Engagement

Ask questions in writing Verbal questions and answers are not binding Communication through Tamra Torres

(tamra.torres@us.af.mil) and MSgt Aaron Trammell (aaron.trammell@us.af.mil)

Questions regarding this conference requested NLT COB 22 Jan 21

Official response will be posted on beta.SAM.gov Government reserves the right to contact respondent for further clarification of submitted questions

Rules of Engagement

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

Ms. Stephanie Wilson, BCE

72 ABW/CE

Welcome

Tinker Today

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

Tinker History

Operational and Installation Support

Tinker AFB

5,588 acres

461 Buildings

-18,958,888 sq. ft.

- Valued at $31B

HQ Air Force Sustainment Center

Aircraft Commodities

Propulsion Software

Oklahoma City

Air Logistics Complex

448th Supply Chain Management Wing

Single Air Force Wholesale Supply

Chain Wing

Employ 3,000 civilian and military personnel across Hill, Robins and

Tinker AFBs

Execute $5.3B buy and repair requirements annually

Manage 76K parts with an inventory valued at $30B

Operational Units

Strategic Communications

Wing ONE - TACAMO

38 CEIG

Operations

Group

Maintenance

Group

Mission

Support

Group

Medical

Squadron

Associate Units

Tinker’s Economic Impact

Oklahoma’s Largest Single-Site Employer

$1.75B Annual Payroll

$4.83B Economic Impact

33,924 Indirect Jobs Valued at $1.59B

Team Tinker

Team Tinker

Ms. Tamra Torres, Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIOC

Procurement Overview

Procurement Overview

Acquisition Overview Civil Engineer Operations Contract Draft PWS & RFP posted on beta.SAM.gov Questions for Drafts were due 14 Jan 21

Competitive 8(a), NAICS 561210, $35.5M Threshold Single Award IDIQ w/FFP Line Items & CR CAP Period of Performance: 2 month Transition Period, 2 Year Base Ordering Period, Option Periods (7 Years, 2 Months Total)

Trade-off Source Selection Between Past Performance & Price

Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements Terms and conditions Representations and certifications PWS requirements in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors, and elements

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

Procurement Milestones

Issue Formal RFP 5 Mar 21

Receive Proposals 5 Apr 21

Award 27 Sep 21

Transition 1 Oct 21

Full Contract Performance 1 Dec 21

*Dates are estimated, not binding upon the Government, and may change as necessary.

Price Evaluation

Reasonableness (“unreasonably high”) –To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Balance –Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year.

–Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5%.

Realism (“unrealistically low”) –Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance.

–To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

–Provide rationale to support price.

Provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed, such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.

Describe how the proposed price is generally consistent with the technical approach.

Provide a detailed Price Model that supports the proposed unit prices.

Complete the Price Matrix (Attachment C) –Price Matrix – Attachment C completed in its entirely with unit prices proposed for all CLINs across all contract performance periods

–Include in the pricing volume any notes/explanations that may be helpful in our evaluation of your prices

Mr. Bede Ley

72 ABW/CEOE

CE Operations Overview

The Bottom Line

The Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, tools, material, vehicles and fuel, supervision, and services necessary to perform Operations Management and Execution for Base Civil Engineer tasks and functions as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The goal is to maintain, modify, operate, install, and perform scheduled maintenance/services on identified property and equipment to ensure safe, efficient, reliable operation, and to preclude premature degradation of property and equipment, ultimately resulting in NO IMPACTS TO TINKER AFB MISSIONS.

Contract Manager (1.1.4)

Civil Engineer Operations Business Manager Responsible for performance of work Full authority to act for the Contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of the contract Available within 20 minutes (normal duty hours) Available on-site within 1 hour (non-duty hours) Hold semi-annual program management reviews (or as directed by Contracting Officer) Hold bi-weekly operations status meetings to discuss shop issues, shop support requirements, work in progress, work classification issues, work execution, and non-performed work

Minimum Team Complement (1., 4.9)

Minimum Team Complement The contractor shall employ at least a minimum number of qualified employees to perform the services described in the

PWS

The MTC represents specific categories of maintenance workers and minimum manning requirements for each CLIN, that are applied to this contract

The contractor shall have a minimum supervisor to employee ratio of 1 to 15 (supervisors do not count towards fulfillment of the MTC)

Once the MTC is established, the contractor may utilize the manning however it prefers

The MTC represents the minimum labor, not including Supervision and Overhead, that the Government feels is necessary to meet PWS requirements

Operations Management (1.1)

Contractor shall provide maintenance, repair, construction, operation, and service functions for all Real Property (RP), all Real Property Installed Equipment (RPIE), all RP similar equipment, all designated Equipment Authorization Inventory Data

(EAID)

Operations Management shall be conducted in accordance with the principals and procedures outlined in AFI 32-1001, Civil Engineer Operations, latest version and the playbooks referenced therein.

Other Maintenance Providers

Due to privatization efforts, energy savings performance contracts, utility energy service contracts, other AF organizations, and other initiatives, there are multiple maintenance providers operating at Tinker AFB

Contractor shall be the first responder on all service requests received, determine if other providers are responsible and notify the other provider of the issue/service request

Points of demarcation have been established for utility privatization, housing privatization, ESPC and UESC

Other Maintenance Providers

Partial List of Other Maintenance Providers Electric Privatization: OG&E Water Privatization: Oklahoma City Water Utility Trust

(OCWUT)

Housing Privatization: Balfour Beatty Corporation (BBC) ESPC: Honeywell UESC: OG&E/Honeywell Production Equipment: 76th Maintenance Support Group

(76 MXSG)

Defense Health Facilities Defense Commissary Facilities

Work Implementation (1.1.1)

Maintain work requirements in AF Computerized Maintenance Management System

Serve as the centralized customer service focal point Process and control work requirements for work performed by CE work forces Process work requests within 24-hours of receipt Classify and prioritize work Provide professional, courteous and responsive customer service Provide work request feedback to facility managers Activate and manage CE Command and Control Centers to include for example, Unit Control Center (UCC), and Damage Control Center (DCC)

Work Classification (1.1.2 and 1.1.3)

Priority 1 – Emergency: Unscheduled work requiring immediate response to sustain or ensure continued mission operations, prevent significant additional damage to facilities and infrastructure or protect the safety and security of the installation, mission, or personnel

Priority 2A – Preventive Maintenance: The care and service of equipment and facilities in satisfactory operating condition by systematic inspection, detection, and correction of incipient failures before they occur or develop major defects

Priority 3A – High Risk Scheduled Corrective Maintenance Priority 3B – Medium Risk Scheduled Corrective Maintenance Priority 3C – Low Risk Scheduled Corrective Maintenance Priority 4A – Scheduled Enhancement Work: Work defined and prioritized by the base that does not contribute to sustainment of continued mission operations

Priority 4B – All Other Enhancement Work: Work that is not mission priority, potentially funded by others; work that is classified as Minor Construction or requires capitalization where a new Real Property Unique Identifier (RPUID) is required

Work Management (1.1.2)

Work Request Review Board (WRRB) Conduct weekly meetings Present the proposed means for accomplishment of work requirements Ensure requests presented for review have been properly coordinated Present work schedule for review and approval, including outstanding work requests Provide updates for approved enhancement work Prepare preliminary Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates which include labor, material, and equipment costs using work standards accepted by the facility construction, maintenance, and repair industry as required

Work Requests determined to be within CM scope shall be processed and prioritized to the appropriate shop for execution

Preventive Maintenance (1.1.3)

Draft plan due prior to start of full operations Final plan NLT 120 calendar days after full contractual operations Utilize Air Force Preventive Maintenance Task Lists Some PM will be accomplished outside of normal duty hours (~15%) Track and report obsolete or non-operational equipment to Government Document corrective maintenance generated as a result of PM execution Coordinate with facility managers prior to execution of PM Incorporate condition-based maintenance as part of PM program Ensure that manufactured recommended maintenance is accomplished during warranty period Attend beneficial occupancy and/or final inspections for projects Attend O&M training associated with projects

Operations Execution (1.2 and 1.3)

Heavy Repair Element (1.2.1 and 1.3.1) Structures Locksmith Roofing Floor coverings Painting Pavements, drainage and fences Pavement clearance Playground equipment and exercise stations Demolition support Interior modular structures Fixed ladders

(1.2 and 1.3)

Facility Systems Element (1.2.2 and 1.3.2) Fire, environmental, warning and intrusion alarm systems Interior electrical Grounding, lightning and corrosion control systems Electrical distribution and service Electrical power systems

(1.2 and 1.3)

Infrastructure Systems Element (1.2.3 and 1.3.3) Fire protection systems Sanitary and industrial wastewater systems Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants (POL) system (Liquid fuels) Storm water and sewer system Water supply storage and distribution system Natural gas system Plumbing Pest management Heating, ventilation, air conditioning/refrigeration (HVAC/R) Utility meters Visual air navigation system Vertical transportation equipment Bridge crane and hoists

(1.2 and 1.3)

Plant Operations (1.3.4) Boilers Chillers Compressed air Industrial wastewater treatment plant

Predictability Based Maintenance (1.3.5) PDM program plan prior to NTP PMP RPIE inventory as baseline Incorporate Reliability Centered Maintenance, Condition

Based Maintenance, and Machine Condition Monitoring Work alongside CSAG Government PDM team PdM team led by a Certified Reliability Engineer

Operations Execution (1.2 and 1.3)

Building Automation Systems Management (1.3.6) Dedicated personnel to oversee and operate the BAS

24-hours-per-day, 7-days-a-week Submit a BAS Management plan within 60 days of award Use BAS data to submit service calls for equipment repairs Ensure systems are operational after outages

Retro-Commissioning Program (1.3.7) RcX program plan due at onset of full contractual NTP Perform RcX annually 2,000,000 sf (+/-5%) Optimize control systems Implement corrective actions

Operations Engineering Support (1.4)

Technical Support (1.4.1) Provide support for planning and design of projects Perform maintainability, compatibility and operability reviews of project designs Attend O&M training for completed construction projects Participate in pre-final and/or final inspections of construction projects Maintain DD Form 1354 information and warranty information for both projects and in-house work

Operations Engineering Support (1.4)

Maintenance Master Plan (1.4.2) Provide equipment data for programming out year projects Recommend modifications to PM schedules Provide equipment operational data to track PM performance Update Builder SMS with equipment assessment information gathered by technicians

Base Infrastructure Program (1.4.3) Provide shop-level support for development of infrastructure programs and five-year plans Provide shop technical support in prioritizing inputs to asset management plans (AMP)

Quality Control (1.6.20)

Contractor Quality Control Management Certified to ISO 9001 or equivalent standard QC Plan due NLT 15 calendar days after start of full operation Independent inspection system that reports directly to the contract manager Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and/or Maintenance

Control Plans (MCP) for operational processes where quality controls, consistency of results, reduction of deficiencies, and communication between operators are required

Full government access to inspection database, SOPs, MCPs, inspection schedules, inspection sheets and internal tracking programs

Quality control program responsible for developing corrective action plans for any PWS non-compliance issues

Safety (1.6.21)

Safety Program Management OSHA Compliance Emergency Procedures: Fire, tornado, active shooter, bomb threats, employee accountability following emergency evacuations

Voluntary Protection Plan (VPP): Considered an applicable contractor for base program; track and report Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away Restricted and/or Transfer Case Incident Rate (DART)

Safety and Health Plan and site safety checklist due 30 workdays after contract award Plan shall include appropriate measures to ensure the

Contractor reacts promptly to investigate, correct, and track alleged safety and health violations and uncontrolled hazards in the Contractor work areas

Commander’s Safety Intent

The safety of everyone on Tinker AFB is our top priority. All Individuals must accept personal responsibility for safety and seek opportunities for improving the safety of our work environment.

Everyone working on Tinker AFB is challenged to find, fix (if able) and report all hazards and near-misses. It is our shared duty to take every reasonable step and precaution to prevent accidents and preserve the health/safety of each contractor and government employee.

Contract Initiation and Close-Out (1.7)

Transition-In Transition-in plan for CO approval at least 7 days prior to performance starting Transition period not to exceed 60 calendar days Incumbent contractor responsible for contract performance during transition Transition-Out

Transition-out plan for CO approval Responsible for all services outlined in PWS during transition-out period Turnover all government furnished property, operating procedures and continuity books

Services Summary (2.)

Contract uses a negative performance incentive using quality performance indicators (QPI)

Eight percent (8%) of all firm fixed price contract line items will be held at “risk” for satisfactory performance

Performance is measured monthly and the cumulative percentage of earned QPI will be the final determination of performance incentive paid to the contractor on a monthly basis

Thirteen QPIs have been established with weights ranging from 4-10%

Government will use surveillance methods, including quality assurance, inspections and observations, to determine if contract standards are met

Common Output Level Standards (COLS)

Air Force Guidance Intent of AF COLS is not to degrade current standards, but to provide consistency across bases.

Standardize quality of life for Airmen and allow for more accurate programming and budgeting decisions.

Currently, installation service levels vary across MAJCOMs and bases.

AF COLS addresses these differences and tries to provide a more consistent experience for our Airmen.

Tinker AFB COLS Implementation

Adjust Minimum Team Complement Reduced Performance Standards

Proposal should be based on performing at COLS 1

UNCLASSIFIED

Air Force Sustainment Center

AFSC Small Business Brief

Ms. Lisa Turner

AFSC/SB

Delivering combat power for America!

AFSC/SB Organization

UNCLASSIFIED

AFSC/SB Director* Ms. Tracy Nicholson

DSN 339-2601 Com (405) 739-2601

AFSC/SB-OL:R Director Dr Angela Harris

DSN 468-7073 Com (478) 926-7073

LaVetta Williams Small Business Professional

DSN 468-5872 Com (478) 926-5872

Mr. Randy Miller Source Development Specialist

DSN 468-5871 Com (478) 926-5871

Ms. Jennifer Roe Small Business Professional

DSN 468-9526 Com (478) 926-9526

AFSC/SB Director* Ms. Tracy Nicholson

DSN 339-2601 Com (405) 739-2601

Ms. Stacy Cochran Source Development Specialist

DSN 339-7243 Com (405) 739-7243

Ms. Lisa Turner Small Business Professional

DSN 339-2604 Com (405) 739-2604

Ms Susan Thomas Small Business Professional

DSN 339-5242 Com (405) 739-5242

AFSC/SB-OL:H Director Mr. James Dean

DSN 777- 4893 Com (801) 777-4143

Ms. Kathy Wiser Small Business Professional

DSN 777-3447 Com (801) 777-3447

Ms. Alysha Caldwell Source Development Specialist

DSN 777-2211 Com (801) 777-2211

Ms. Tracey Beringer Small Business Professional

DSN 777-9993 Com (801) 777-9993

* Dual Hatted

Ms. Crystal Witt Copper Cap Intern

DSN 339-3647 Com (405) 739-3647

**Due to COVID, our phone lines may not be working, please email our workflow account afsc.sb.workflow@us.af.mil to be sure we receive your questions/concerns.

mailto:afsc.sb.workflow@us.af.mil

Maximize SB Participation Engage early with our acquisition teams Provide Input on Request For Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis, if requested Make Set-Aside Recommendations Acquisition Strategy Panels Publicize SB Programs

Counsel Contractors – Small Business Advocate Advise what the Base/Complex/Supply Chain procures Coordinate Inquiries/Guidance Requests

Small Business Administration (SBA) Liaison Acquisition Strategy (NAICS; SB Set-Aside; Subcontracting Plans) Size Challenges

Role of the SB Office (Performs these services for AFSC, AFLCMC, and AFNWC)

UNCLASSIFIED

Search by DoDAAC (DoD Activity Address Code) Identifies installation/organization with contracting authority

Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC) DODAACs (Tinker/Robins/Hill DoDAAC list on SBO website at https://www.afsc.af.mil/Units/SBO.aspx) Tinker Air Force Base - Lead (Tinker), FA81** Warner Robins Air Force Base (Robins), FA85** Hill Air Force Base (HAFB), FA82** Review opportunities to obtain specific DoDAACs

Other Search Engines to identify your competitors Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/ USASpending.Gov

How to Find AFSC Requirements

UNCLASSIFIED

https://www.afsc.af.mil/Units/SBO.aspx https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/index.php/en/

How to search Beta.Sam.Gov or FPDS-NG

Youtube video on FPDS and how to use for Market Research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUbTyb2h7as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1amI2ykGk

Good one on Beta.Sam.Gov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY42LdBe4tY

Helpful Links

UNCLASSIFIED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUbTyb2h7as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1amI2ykGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY42LdBe4tY

Mr. Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

Source Selection Training

Topics

SOURCE SELECTION

– What Is It

– Best Value

– Main Members

– Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

– Technical

– Past Performance

– Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

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 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

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

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

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 supporting rationale) and total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

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

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors

1 Transition

2 Program Management

3 Resource / Personnel Management

Relative Order of Importance

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Factor 2 Performance and Factor 3 Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

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

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-off Process

Factor 1 Technical

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance

– Substantial Confidence

– Satisfactory Confidence

– Neutral Confidence

– Limited Confidence

– No Confidence

Factor 3 Price

– Reasonable, Balance, Realism

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP

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 2.5

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the past performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment of which offerors provides the overall best value.

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.

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government Requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor

– 1- Transition – 1 element

– 2- Program Management – 3 elements (a-c)

– 3- Resource / Personnel Management – 4 elements (a-d)

In order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor.

Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor.

An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor.

Technical Evaluation

TRANSITION

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a) Deficiency

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

RESOURCE /

PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

a) b) c) a)

b) Deficiency

c) Deficiency d)

Technical Additional Notes

To be Acceptable, the technical approach must…

– Address the details listed in Section L (Instructions to Offerors)

– Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

– Provide convincing rationale how the approach will meet requirements listed in Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award).

– Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding SOW/SRD paragraphs) are met.

Section L (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach. Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award) provides Measures of Merit for technical acceptability.

The technical approach does not have to address all PWS requirements. The technical evaluation will only include the PWS paragraphs which are listed with each subfactor.

Technical Additional Notes

Make sure the technical proposal stays within the required page limit. Additional pages beyond the page limit can not be considered by the Government evaluation team.

The Government evaluation team can only consider information contained in the proposal.

The proposal should not merely agree to meet requirements. It should describe the offeror’s approach to successfully accomplish the requirements.

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.

Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.

Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

Emphasis is on demonstrated performance

Confidence Definitions

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

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

Recency

Recency, as stated in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.1

– The effort must have been performed during the past three

(3) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP

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

– 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

– Price – Contract Type

Scope: Relevancy in regards to Scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CE Services-Operations Management requirement.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regards to Magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regards to Magnitude:

1. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity: Relevancy in regards to Complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Relevancy: Relevancy in regards to Price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the CE Services-Operations Management requirement.

Past Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE QUALITYRELEVANCY

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

Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

EXCEPTIONAL -- BLUE

SATISFACTORY -- GREEN

MARGINAL -- YELLOW

UNSATISFACTORY -- RED

UNKNOWN -- GRAY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

Past Performance Evaluation Technical Price

Program Title PPQ / CPARs SF 1

TR

SF 2

PM

SF3

R/P

MGMT

Contract

Type AMT REL PF

BETA, INC (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAAAA-15-C-0004

2 / 3 R S VR E SR E FFP $330M VR S

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-13-0500

2 / 0 R M VR M R S T&M / FFP $80M SR M

VFY AFB

FAAAB-13-C-0005

1 / 1 R S R S SR S FFP $145M VR S

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Zigmac, Inc 13313-06-45

1 / 0 R S N/A SR S N/A

ABC AFB

FAAAA-15-C-0014

1 / 4 R S N/A R S N/A

TOTAL: 7 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown-- Exceptional -- RelevantR -- Somewhat RelevantSR -- Not RelevantNR -- UnknownUK-- Very RelevantVR

Past Performance 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 Past Performance Evaluation Team

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

– Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Other sources as needed

Additional Notes

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2.

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.

Additional Notes

Provide details regarding any known adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions. Also discuss if the corrective actions were effective.

Past Performance page limits are preferences and not requirements. Offerors are requested to keep narratives within the page limits. However, offerors may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Reasonableness (“unreasonably high”)

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Balance

– Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year.

– Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5%.

Realism (“unrealistically low”)

– Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

– Provide rationale to support price

Price Analysis Techniques FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) includes seven price analysis techniques

i. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price

ii. Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications

iii. Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry

Price Analysis Techniques FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) includes seven price analysis techniques

iv. Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangement

v. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates (IGE)

vi. Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items

vii. Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at FAR 2.201) provided by the offeror

Price Additional Notes

Provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed, such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc

Describe how the proposed price is generally consistent with the technical approach.

SOURCE SELECTION PHASES

AND

AWARD

Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation

Initial Evaluation offeror’s proposal

ENs prepared and finalized

Evaluation of EN responses

Follow-up ENs

Initial Ratings established

Ratings adjusted Based on

EN responses

Award w/o Discussions Competitive Range

Send ENs to Offerors

Request for Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established

Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION DISCUSSIONS FINAL

EVALUATION

RESULT RESULT RESULT

Evaluation Summary

Technical Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Transition A

Subfactor 2 Program Management A

Subfactor 3 Resource / Personnel Management A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Factor 2 Past Performance

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Trade-off Considerations

Very Relevant in all areas

SATISFACTORY

SUBSTANTIAL

Alpha, Inc.

Beta, Inc.

Overall Satisfactory Performance.

No adverse issues

Marginal performance on 1 contract

Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating

Trade-off considerations are not based on a comparison of Confidence ratings.

They are based on specific relevancy and performance quality aspects.

Trade-off consideration

Note: All offerors rated as Substantial Confidence are considered equal

Very Relevant in all areas except Magnitude and

Transition

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 offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria

Keys to Developing A

Good Proposal

Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

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

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

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 SOW/SRD, just reference the section of the SOW/SRD to which you are referring

– Tell the benefit to the Government of your proposed plan

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

– Keep pricing data out of the technical volume

Tab the information

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

– Follow the exact numerical outline in the instructions

A Good Proposal

Complete the Pricing Matrix (Attachment C)

– Pricing Matrix – Attachment C completed in its entirely with unit prices and rates proposed for all CLINs across all contract performance years

– Include in the pricing volume any notes/explanations that may be helpful in our evaluation of your prices

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

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.fbo.gov http://www.fbo.gov/