Industry Day Feb 2022 Minutes.docx

MPSSF MPSCIV Industry Day 1-2 February 2022

Facilitator: Christianna McElheny, Program Manager

Welcome & Introductions:

MPSSF Attendees – Christianna (Primary POC/PM), Chris LeDuc, Mandy Medina-Harris, Brent Schrock, Cavan Rhodes, Lonny Clippinger HAFB Contracting Officer(s) - Casey Hodson/Marshall Neilson HAFB Small Business Office - Alysha Caldwell

Interest Parties/Attendees A2M Consulting llc.; A5RS; ABSI Aerospace and Defense; American Systems;

Atlas Business Consulting Inc.; Beshenich Muir & Associates llc.; Brandes Associates Inc.; BTAS Inc.; C4 Planning Solutions llc.; DCS Corporation; Decipher Strategies Consulting;

Diligent Consulting Inc.; Eagle 6 Technologies; EL Blake Corporation;

Enhanced Veterans Solutions; ERC llc.; GEDC & Gray Venture; GEBC llc.; GSD llc.; HX5;

Ignite Fueling Innovations llc.; Jacobs; Key ERP Solutions llc.; Kihomac Inc.; Leidos Inc.; Linquest Corporation; Micro Health llc.; Next Gen Federal Systems; Northrop Grumman;

Nova Technologies; Plans Systems International; SAIC; Sawdey Solution Services;

Sabre Systems Inc.; Semper Valens Solutions Inc.; Software Engineering Services;

Spiral Solutions and Technologies; Steel Gate llc.; Strategic Resilience Group llc.;

Sumaria Systems llc.; Summit Technologies Inc.; Sudolynx; UNCOMN; Vector Solutions Inc.;

Veterans Solutions and Services llc.; YKJV llc.

General Information

RFP Release – March through May (intended) with a 60 day response deadline. UPDATE: RFP release is now anticipated in the May to July timeframe.

Contracting – check the SAM website (link to be received from PCO/Casey Hodson)

General Discussion

General expectations and contract proposal information was presented by the Program Manager (PM). PM reviewed the Performance Work Statement, Sections L&M, pricing and staffing tables, and other draft RFP attachments and answered general questions from the attendees

PWS Review

Configuration Management and distribution of software:

Is the Government willing to consider suggestions and innovative ideas/solutions?

The MPSSF Network SME mentioned that the electronic distribution processes are being actively investigated as a stopgap solution until we establish/achieve a connected environment, or a mostly connected environment. The physical disk distribution process is the current solution but we are including other digital options/methods as we implement more automated digital data transfer methods. PM mentioned the contractor is not expected to identify and implement a new solution. We are asking the CM team to follow the established processes provided/established by the Program Office.

JOMS: PM explained that we realize bidders will not have existing JOMS experience, as JOMS is not yet fully operational, but they will be given an opportunity to develop the necessary experience as JOMS progresses and evolves. The main responsibility of the contractor in reference to JOMS is to follow and support enterprise processes, whether they apply to JMPS or JOMs etc.

Composition of MPC Team and the Agile Release Team (2.11.5.2): The specific MPSSF requirement for 7 personnel on the Agile Software Release Team was confirmed and the need to have a team with a specific skillset was identified by the technical team and Engineer. Sections 2.11.3 and 2.11.4 were also explained.

Equipment: The equipment currently used for the MPSCIII contract will be transferred from the MPSCIII contractor to MPSCIV contractor

Facility/facilities: The prime contractor will assume the existing facility lease from the current MPSCIII contractor (Summit Technologies). The Government will pay/be billed for the lease on a cost-reimbursable basis.

Transition of Activities/workload: The phased transition will within 30 days.

Update: The transition of MPSSF activities will occur within a 30 day window following the award of the MPSSF task order. SSR task orders will end with MPSC III and then be picked up on MPSC IV as they phase out. For example, if a task order on MPSC III ends on 30 June 23, it will be awarded to begin under MPSC IV on 1 Jul 23. It will be the expectation that the MPSC IV contractor will begin providing services on Day One of their awarded task orders, the transition period exists prior to the start of services, as there are no billable transition costs prior to the start date of a task order.

On-Aircraft work: The PM said the contractor(s) would NOT be working with/on the aircraft directly. She explained that the SSRs are typically on-site to maintain the mission planning equipment/systems. It was asked if the funding provided from the MAJCOMS will be explained/reflected to offerors. The specific details of MAJCOM provided funding will not be explained to offerors, other than the notion that MAJCOMs pay for their own requirements and the PM works with MAJCOM to determine what requirements will be placed on each task order.

Task Review Notes/Information with additional details:

*2.3.1.4 – additional system support – noted that additional systems may be added in the future at locations, as identified by the RFS(s) - no questions were asked *2.3.2 – Assault Zone SSR – this designation/category will have a different requirement than standard SSRs, as noted in the PWS *2.4- 2.11 - overview of sections with summaries provided – no specific questions asked

Section L Review

The selection procedures for the MPSCIV contract are very similar to what they were in the MPSCIII contract. Offerors must provide concise information noting any exceptions. Assume that the Government has NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of your previous work history. Documents must be consistent and address the Section L, Section M and PWS information/requirements. Debriefing can be requested after contract award. By offering a proposal bidders agree to the requirements posted with the RFP.

Pricing Clarification: Will MPE Prices be considered (for pricing clarification) if all other factors are equal?

Update: This question was noted in the minutes, but no answer was documented. The question is not clear enough to provide an answer without clarification. If anyone is in need of this question being answered, please follow up with a RFI/Q&A to Casey Hodson.

Data Transfer: Digital data transfer methods and tools, like Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) have been suggested as potential systems for delivering proposal documents. The government has identified that they would research these systems and take them into consideration, but a final position would be identified before RFP release. There is a desire to implement/utilize increasingly digital data transfer methods in the future (to transition away from CD’s and initiate more secure and automated systems with system status tracking/monitoring capabilities). Information was provided in the “chat” screen during the meeting.

UPDATE: Regarding the proposal, the PCO and Program Office have determined that CD/DVDs will be the requested soft copy approach. We realize this may not be ideal for offerors, but it has been determined to be the most beneficial way for the Government to review proposal information and proceed at this time. Regarding, digital data transfer requirements for the MPSC IV scope; details are contained within the draft RFP documents.

Section M

All factors are important. A “technically acceptable” rating is required. We reserve the right to trade off past performance. The Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussion. For details on this, please reference Section L&M.

Data Submission: Documents will be submitted as requested, with hard copies. The PM mentioned that we need hard copies to enable the team to easily cross-reference documents and to facilitate the evaluation process. We understand this may not be ideal for offerors, but after much discussion it was still determined to be a requirement for the Government.

Contract Award Target Date: The PM mentioned the predicted timeline for RFP is early March for proposal receipt and December for award, however timelines may shift to the right, or left as opportunities, issues or delays are encountered during the review and approval phases/processes.

UPDATE: Timeline has indeed shifted to the right, and the RFP in intended to drop in early-mid May, with estimated July date for receipt of proposals.

General Questions/Comments/Notes

The SSF workload will be issued as a main task order, the FMS workload will be identified as a separate task order, as will each SSR and FMS travel task order. Our goal is to align task orders as soon as MPSC IV is awarded, however task orders may join MPSC IV at different intervals as they end on MPSC III.

The Agile Release Team for MPC is the only requirement with a definite amount of staffing attached. For other requirement, it is important that the contractor retain personnel to ensure proper performance and ensure the requirements are satisfied. There may be turnover, but the contractor is always required to provide the services as described in the PWS even during turnover. The question was asked if the contract has a lot of turnover, and it was answered that it is not excessive and is considered normal overall.

The Mission Planning software is primarily delivered via disks but the data transfer processes are transitioning to digital methods and are also using data download capabilities. These details are referenced in the PWS. The Government has more restrictions that must be taken into consideration when transmitting/transporting data than some industry partners are used to. The PWS states where offerors are free to propose their own solution to meet certain requirements and where solutions will be provided. All proposals must be deemed technically acceptable to be awardable.

The MPSSF uses Agile Software Development processes with sprints. The MPSSF Engineer determined the optimal size/skillset requirements of the ART Team based upon years of experience with the team, and the management of the workload/systems/capabilities they support.

None of the current employees belong to Unions.

There is a professional employee compensation plan in the documentation that supports the PWS.

Offerors should ensure they provide information to show how their approach is reasonable and compliant.

The staffing and price tables were explained.

Will the Government provide a historical base so that they can see what was funded previously?

No, the Government will not be providing any historical data. The Government has provided a draft copy of the requirements (locations, # of systems, required support levels (per the PWS) and possible security clearances) as attachments #3 and #4 in the draft RFP, and updated versions of these attachments with current required information will be included in the final RFP release.

Are there any “hot spots” (combat or high risk geographical areas) where we send/position our technical support staff?

Yes, we may require support at any location throughout the world. That is all determined through permanent staffing via a task order, or deployment requests via the Request for Services process.

Will the Government provide information about the sites requiring support?

The Government has provided the location and # of systems, platforms/MDS, mission (operational, test, training) in RFP attachment #3 and #4. Further information is up to the offeror to determine the scope of the work and their individual approach.

Will CMMI be considered as a part of the matrix/evaluation criteria?

The Government team explained that CMMI is not a stated requirement and the evaluation will focus on the stated criteria, found in Section L &M.

Will use of any automated tools be used to evaluate the proposal(s)?

The Government Contracting Officer mentioned that we will use EZSource. Bidders asked about the ability to physically deliver the actual proposal to Hill Air Force Base.

The intent will be, as described in the updated Section L that the PCO will be available for a specific days to physically receive proposals. Security level and Health Protection Level (HPCON) will determine if there will be any changes to that intent. The Contracting Officer asked bidders to submit their questions to him, in writing. Additional information concerning proposal delivery is identified in Section L and the Questions & Answers documents that will be posted to SAM for this effort.

Is the Government interested in hearing about a potential solution that is different than EDR (for deficiency reporting)?

As stated in Section L&M, a contractor is free to propose an alternate solution. It will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in the RFP.

Can the Government please provide the document file type for submission, .doc or .docx?

The Government PM said if we don’t receive docx files our systems will not be able to access documents in the near future if they are not able to be converted to a docx. We will update this is Sections L&M to include a .xxxx format.

Non-Proprietary Questions During Individual Sessions

Do you intend to advocate for MPSSF to host and maintain JOMS services?

The Government PM said the JOMS system is currently evolving and we will support that system as the platforms transition from JMPS to JOMs. She mentioned we will be gradually implementing more automated, real-time monitoring and digital data transfer capabilities with cloud based and edge server capabilities/services.

Are you pushing the transition according to a certain timeline?

The PM said we don’t manage the transition we simply support it. There is an established roadmap. The transition will be phased. The Government PM suggested that offerors may request the roadmap in a formal question and the MPSSF will engage with the program office to see if they will allow the roadmap to be released to industry.

Update: JOMs is important to the future of mission planning and it noted in the PWS as something that will be required to be supported; however as a reminder the Mission Planning Acquisition Program Office (AFLCMC/HBM) is responsible for the fielding of JOMs. It is not a critical piece of the evaluation process since it is not currently operational, and much of the implementation of this system has yet to evolve. We expect the support of the contractor to evolve concerning “how” we provided sustainment support, the basic functions and tasks described in the PWS will remain the same.

Is there a reason this very important area moving from JMPS to JOMS is not addressed in the Technical evaluation criteria?

The Government PM said that we do not anticipate/see that the transition is going to significantly impact our ability to support the mission. The main job will be the same. The offeror asking the question believes that there is risk in transition and they request that the ability to manage the transition should impact the evaluation criteria. It was recommended that the technical evaluation should include the transition from JMPS to JOMs.

The Government PM stated there will be no change to the evaluation criteria. We evaluated the potential transition risk and due to JOMS current evolution it was determined there is not enough information at this time to effectively conduct evaluations with this included in the criteria.

* Note: this discussion was specific to JOMS transition and why it was not included in the evaluation criteria. As previously noted, this system is not operational, and much of the implementation of this system has yet to evolve. We expect the support of the contractor to evolve concerning “how” we provide sustainment support, but the basic functions and tasks described in the PWS will remain the same.

Do you anticipate FMS fluctuations to have a significant impact?

The Government PM said that we contract a specific way to allow the personnel/technical support to fluctuate depending upon the change(s) in mission requirements for the FMS customers. (See Draft RFP Attachment #3 and #4 and you will see we request different information be provided based on the number of cases we place on contract). Also, we cannot tie that to the transition of JOMS.

Do you anticipate operational and technical challenges for the transition to JOMs?

The Government does not currently anticipate significant challenges, however it is not fully developed and challenges may arise.

Are there any previous requirements that will be removed?

Yes, Afghanistan, the training team and CSA requirement. Other requirements may also be removed prior to RFP release, for example locations for ANG have been recently removed. Please verify the locations and system counts when the final RFP is released.

Is there a contract ceiling?

PM said that $600M is the Government cost estimate.

Are there any collective bargaining agreements/Unions?

PM said there are not.

The ability to submit documents electronically utilizing DoD SAFE we requested.

The Government PM said the electronic copy transfer options will be considered but the hard copy documents will still be required.

UPDATE: DoDSAFE is not an acceptable solution for submitting electronic proposals, as is stated when accessing DoDSAFE. After evaluating PIEE as well, the PCO/PM office determined that printed versions will be required for the Hard Copies; and CDs/DVDs will be required for soft copy submissions of the requested proposal documents.

Will the Government consider the “DUE DATE” as the electronic transmission date as a way to decrease risk to the contractor?

The Government PM explained that adherence to the set date allows the evaluations to initiate on the established date. It is vital for the team to be able to evaluate the printed documents and the submission of the full proposal request is a key component affecting the ability to start to conduct the evaluations. The Government upholds the stated due date and will track and record dates that all requested items are received to determine if proposals are received before established deadlines. Offerors should ensure their complete packages/proposals are submitted before the deadline or they run the risk of being not considered further for contract award.

What tool will we use to evaluate proposal?

EZSource is the systematic tool/program that we use to document the results of our evaluations. The evaluation teams will use the criteria explained in the RFP documentation (Section L&M in support of the PWS).

With the transition to JOMS, do you foresee FMS cases being increased/decreased at some of the deployed/OCONUS location over the course of this contract?

FMS cases fluctuate, naturally because of the countless factors that impact nations, their funding and their priorities. We do not know and cannot speculate about the future trends of our partner nations and their desire(s)/need(s) to upgrade their systems.

How will the task orders overlap from one contract to another?

Our goal is to align task orders as soon as MPSC IV is awarded, however task orders may join MPSC IV at different intervals as they end on MPSC III.

UPDATE: The transition of MPSSF activities will occur within a 30 day window following the award of the MPSSF task order. SSR task orders will end with MPSC III and then be picked up on MPSC IV as they are phased out. For example, if a task order on MPSC III ends on 30 June 23, it will be awarded to begin under MPSC IV on 1 Jul 23. It will be the expectation that the MPSC IV contractor will begin providing services on day one of their awarded task orders, the transition period exists prior to the start of services, as there are no billable transition costs prior to the start date of a task order.

What role does the MAJCOM play at the task order level (PWS 1.4.2, 1.4.3)?

In collaboration with the MPSC COR, the MAJCOMs dictate their requirements and provide funding for what they intend to place on contract.

Is the government open to new trouble ticket migration to new software (PWS 2.2.4)?

Offerors can submit their solutions/ideas/suggestions for an improved ticketing and issue tracking process/system(s); all items suggested will only be evaluated if they are requested in one of the plans in the evaluation criteria in Section L&M.

How is software delivered to remote locations?

Both physically and digitally, where possible.

What infrastructure does the USAF employ to distribute software (PWS 2.5)?

Currently, the primary method is hard data transfer (CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray) via manual processes and some digital data transfer. In the future we will use more cloud and edge capabilities and anticipate more automated transfers, more secure networks and more continuous monitoring capabilities.

For MPC is the USAF encountering any user interface challenges? (PWS 2.11)?

A routine amount of challenges is to be expected with any system that has multiple users. None that are concerning.

Have any user stories or studies been completed?

Yes. The IPT completes sprints every 2 weeks, and has been doing so since the beginning on MPSC III.

Can the USAF provide an approximate volume of GFP on which the contractor is responsible of assuming accountability, management and close out?

This information will be provided with the RFP release.

UPDATE: The current GFP list will be provided, note that it may change from now until MPSC IV is awarded. The list that needs to be accounted for during transition will be provided at that time.

Would the government consider combining the staffing table and pricing table so the monthly pricing per location can be easily tied to the numbers of FTEs required?

No, the data will be presented in the formats, quantities and with the allowable contents that have been approved by the Govt. A draft of this information was provided in the draft RFP, and will be included in the final RFP.

UPDATE: The FTEs and pricing are two separate evaluations and therefore will not be tied together. While it is feasible in most instances for the FTEs to correlate to the price, it is not necessary for us to link them.

Suggest USAF use PIEE solution to submit proposal submission https://piee.eb.mil/?

The proposals must be received in the designated format, and must be physically received prior to the established deadlines.

UPDATE: The PCO/PM office has reviewed the PIEE option and has determined CDs/DVDs and hard copies will be in the best interest of the Government at this time. This is still reflected in the Section L&M criteria.

General Note added for clarity following individual sessions:

For the evaluation, it should be expected that staffing and pricing remain consistent throughout each year, and any deviations without a technically acceptable explanation will be at risk of being unacceptable.

*All proprietary questions were answered during the individual break outs and are not listed here.

image1.png