Industry_Day__2_Master_Brief_v1_0.pdf

Space and Missile Systems Center Space and Missile Systems Center

Consolidated Air Force

Satellite Control Network

(AFSCN) Modifications, Maintenance, & Operations

(CAMMO) Industry Day

3 September 2014

Safety & Facilities

Lt. Dan Beckett

SMC/RN

S P A C E A N D M I S S I L E S Y S T E M S C E N T E R

Evacuations

• In the event of an emergency, evacuate out the nearest exit & assemble at the appropriate rally point

– Fire Alarm: Southwest parking lot

– Bomb Threat or Gas Leak: Across Stewart Ave, behind the dental clinic

Evacuations

Restrooms

• The closest restrooms to the conference:

SMC Industry Day

Lt. Dan Beckett

Industry Day Overview

• Opening Comments

• DRFP

• Operations

• Break (room will be cleared)

• Check-in for Classified Briefing

• Space Security Development Team Briefing

• Closing Comments

Industry Day Rules of Engagement

• The briefings presented today contain preliminary, pre-decisional information only

• All information provided is subject to change

• The Government is not currently soliciting proposals

Signing In

• Please ensure that you have signed in with Ms. Vollbracht in the conference room foyer

• During the break, the room will be cleared and all individuals will be required to sign in again for the classified briefing

Questions

• To ensure that information is equally available to all parties, including those who weren’t able to attend, many questions will NOT be accepted during the course of the briefings today

• Examples of questions appropriate to ask during briefing:

– “Can you repeat what you just said?”

– “What does <acronym> stand for?”

• Examples of questions inappropriate to ask during briefing:

– “Can you describe how <technical process> works?”

– “Can you clarify <specific> maintenance process?”

Opening

Comments

Opening Comments

Colonel Jason Sutton

Commander, 50th Network Operations Group

50 Space Wing

Colonel Janet Grondin

Chief, Range and Network Division

Space and Missile Systems Center

CAMMO

Draft RFP

Mr. Michael Hennessy

• Changes and Additions for DRFP

• Overview of Sections L & M

• Proposal Volumes and Organization

• Factors and Subfactors

• Potential Changes or Additions to

Technical Factor

Overview

• Multiple changes since RFI #4 (10 Apr) such as:

– Minor changes/additions to CLIN Structure

– Offerors’ to propose fixed fee percentage for Special Studies and Transition Phase-in CLINs

– Multiple additions to Section J attachments (GFP List, Data Rights, etc.)

– CDRL Exhibit A has been added

– Revisions/restructuring of PWS requirements (Cybersecurity, Facility Lease, EDI, etc.)

– Minor changes to WBS Structure (e.g., WBS 4.3.5 now incorporates PWS 3.7.3.1 Special Studies)

– Number of PIMs reduced in Incentive Plan

– Reduction and Revision of Factors and Subfactors

– Relevancy Assessment Areas and Relevancy Definitions added to Past Performance

• Review Entire DRFP Carefully

Changes and Additions to DRFP

• Proposal Volumes and Organization

• General Organization

– Where possible Sections L & M section numbers are aligned (specifically in Volume II)

• PWS References

– PWS references are provided for each of the instructions in Section L and criteria in Section M

Overview of Section L & M

Volume

ITO

Paragraph Number

Title Electronic

Copies

Hard Copies

Page Limit

I 2.0 Executive Summary 2 2 10

2.4 Attachment E1: Cross Reference Matrix 2 2 Unlimited

II 3.0 Technical

Main Body 2 2 80

Attachment T1: Operations and Maintenance Shift and Schedule Table

2 2 Unlimited

Attachment T2: Configuration Management Plan

2 2 20

Attachment T3: WBS Man-hour Estimate 2 2 Unlimited

Attachment T4: BOEs for WBS Man-hour Estimate

2 2 50

Attachment T5: Transition Phase-in Plan 2 2 35

III 4.0 Past Performance

Main Body 2 2 40

Attachment PP1: Contract Relevancy Matrix 2 2 Unlimited

Attachment PP2: Past Performance Information Forms

2 2 10

Attachment PP3: Subcontractor Consent Letters 2 2 1 for each

Attachment PP4: Client Authorization Letters 2 2 1 for each

IV 5.0 Cost/Price

Main Body 2 2 Unlimited

Attachment PC1: TEP Calculation Table 2 2 Unlimited

Attachment PC2: CLIN Pricing Summary Table 2 2 Unlimited

Attachment PC3: Special Studies Composite Rate Computation Table

2 2 Unlimited

Attachment PC4: FCT Pricing Menu 2 2 Unlimited

Attachment PC5: FCT BOEs 2 2 Unlimited

V 6.0 Contract Documentation N/A

Proposal Volumes and Organization

• Factor 1: Technical Factor

– Three Subfactors

• Operations

• Maintenance and Sustainment

• Program Management

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

Factors and Subfactors

• Cybersecurity

– Possible addition/revision of criteria related to contractor IT systems

• Bases of Estimate (BOE)

– BOEs to support man-hour estimates in the WBS in Annex

C of Section L

– Additional information regarding format and content of BOEs may be added

• Scenario

– A scenario has been prepared and will be included in the

Final RFP submittal

– The draft RFP includes placeholder for scenario

• Section L, paragraph 3.3

• Section M, paragraphs 3.2.1.2 (Operations Subfactor) and

3.2.2.5 (Maintenance and Sustainment Subfactor)

Potential Changes or Additions to

Technical Factor

Past Performance Factor

Price Factor

Contract Volume

Ms. Christina Ming, Contracting Officer

SMC/RNK

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

• Determination of Prospective Contractor

Responsibility

• Areas for Potential Revision for Final RFP

• Key Milestone Dates

Overview

• Recency Assessment

– To be considered recent the effort must be ongoing, or must have been completed within the past five years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Contract submissions that do not meet the recency criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality (Sec M, Para 4.2.2)

• Relevancy Assessment

– The Offeror shall provide specific rationale for each contract's relevancy and categorize into the specific Relevancy Assessment Area used to evaluate the proposal (Sec L, Para 4.5)

– The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent contracts against the Relevancy Criteria in Tables 4-3. No single contract submission needs to meet the definition of “Very Relevant,” “Relevant,” or “Somewhat Relevant” in each Relevancy Assessment Area (Sec M, Para 4.2.3.2)

Factor 2: Past Performance

• Relevancy Determination

– A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the criteria definitions listed in Tables 4-3 of Section M. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated (Sec M, Para 4.2.3.1)

• Quality Assessment

– Will consider the quality of recent, relevant efforts

– Quality of the work performed will be assessed for each Relevancy Assessment Area applicable to that contract.

However, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered

– Consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source

– May result in positive or adverse findings

• Adverse: Defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comment received from sources

• Will consider the number & severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, & the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements (Sec M, 4.2.4)

• Assigning Rating

– More recent and/or more relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Past Performance Evaluation Rating than a less recent and/or less relevant effort (Sec M, Para 4.2.5)

• Special Studies & Factory Compatibility Testing (FCT)

Scenarios

– A “typical” sample to help Offerors determine labor mix and composite rate/menu prices

– Do not submit a full cost proposal

– Do not submit an actual study or report

• Ensure CLIN Summary & TEP are consistent

• Watch for potential mathematical errors caused by rounding/hidden decimals

Factor 3: Price

• TEP Calculation (Sect L, Table 5-2)

Factor 3: Price

• PCO will determine prospective contractor responsibility IAW FAR 9.1

• Reviewing Volume V, Contract Document, Sec J, Attachments:

– Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan

– Small Business Subcontracting Plan

– Public Private Partnership Plan

– Modification Management Plan

– Professional Employee Compensation

• Failure to meet the criteria for responsibility may result in the proposal being removed from consideration

Determination of Prospective Contractor

Responsibility

• Factor 3: Price

– Conduct realism (only on CLINs 1400 & 1401)

– Budget Limitations and Affordability

– CLIN Re-structure:

• Possible changes to comply with FIAR (Financial Improvement and Audit

Readiness)

– See Office of The Assistant Secretary Memorandum “Contractor Logistic Support (CLS)

Element of Expense Investment Code (EEIC) Structure Change Notification” dated 13 Jun 12

– See DoD’s FIAR Homepage: http://comptroller.defense.gov/fiar

• Volume V, Contract Documentation

– Attachment 19, Professional Employee Compensation: Instruction &

Evaluation Language

– Section B, CLINs 1400, 1401, 1500, 1501, & 1502

• At contract award, all CLINs above will be exercised

• However, PoP start date for CLIN 1500, 1501, & 1502 will not begin until day 61 (end of transition)

Areas for Potential Revision to RFP http://comptroller.defense.gov/fiar http://comptroller.defense.gov/fiar http://comptroller.defense.gov/fiar http://comptroller.defense.gov/fiar http://comptroller.defense.gov/fiar

Key Milestones Dates (Projected)

Action Scheduled

Industry Responses to DRFP 8-12 Sep 14

RFP Release to Industry 2 Dec 14

Offeror’s Past Performance Volume 5 Jan 15

Offeror’s Proposal 16 Jan 15

Contract Award 30 Sep 15

Closing

Comments

Mr. Bruno Mediate

SMC/SLX