EWIC Industry Day Contracting.pptx

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 EWIC Industry Day Craig Keelen

AFTC/PZZC

5 February 2020

This tailorable template is to frame discussions for Non-competitive Business Clearances to SAF/AQC at a Business Clearance Session. Some charts and/or bullets may not be applicable to your acquisition and should be deleted.

Expectation is that both the Contracting Officer and Program Manager/requirements owner will present this briefing

Overview Program team Acquisition description Background Source selection procedures Questions

Program Team Contract Specialist: Ms. Julie Maxwell Program Manager: Mr. James Ryder PCO: Mr. Craig Keelen SSA: Col Sean Bradley

Acquisition Description New ID/IQ contract for research and development (R&D) and capability enhancement requirements that will provide for developmental engineering services, including technical support for continued modernization and integration activities within the Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF).

Contractor is required to perform tasks consisting of engineering development, analysis, and integration, program management, technical support, and all other work required to meet the requirements of the order.

Background Contract Type: Single Award, Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), ID/IQ Service or Supply: Service Period of Performance/Ordering Period: 5 years after contract start date with two, 1-Year options Funding Funds will be provided primarily by Research & Development (3600) funds. Funds are also expected from sources including Test Management Center (TRMC) and Central Test and Evaluation Improvement Program (CTEIP).

The EWIC contract will provide necessary services in support of the 412 TW/EWG Improvement and Modernization (I&M) flight for the continued development, enhancement, and integration of resources and capabilities of the electronic warfare (EW) Test and Evaluation (T&E) environment within the Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF). The BAF is host to numerous EW T&E capabilities, including radio frequency (RF) threat signal simulators, communication, navigation and identification (CNI) simulators, and avionics systems simulators used to support various DoD organizations and trusted agencies. The EWIC contract will allow for continued development and integration of test systems within the BAF to enhance capabilities to meet future customer needs. The EWIC contract is needed to continue and expand upon the AWTEC work started under VIEWS I and II to bring completed capabilities into the BAF. The increased ceiling on the EWIC contract is a result of newly defined requirements to enhance the capabilities of the BAF. The contract structure will remain similar to the VIEWS I and II contracts with the exception of moving to a Research and Development (R&D) contract type over the previous services contract due the nature of the AWTEC related work in comparison to DIADS.

Source Selection Evaluation Process STEP 1 - Completed RFP and Team Arrangement Each proposal will be reviewed for consistency, conformance and completeness to instructions provided in Section L. In addition, each offeror’s registration data in the System for Award Management (SAM) will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements in FAR Part 4. Offeror’s must have current registration in SAM to be eligible for award.

If team arrangement exists, the teaming arrangement letter will be reviewed for conformance and completeness provided in Section L and to verify the prime offeror’s compliance with FAR Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements. Offeror’s will not be eligible for award when teaming arrangement documentation is found to be noncompliant.

Source Selection Evaluation Process STEP 2- Technical and Management Evaluation Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the following three subfactors.

Subcontract Management Approach

Adequately demonstrates an effective approach to managing and coordinating subcontractor task efforts including monitoring resources, schedules, security compliance, document control, quality control procedures planning, assigning responsibility, and managing personnel (Subcontracting).

Adequately demonstrates the contractors ability to select, negotiate, and evaluate subcontractors.

Adequately demonstrates knowledge and experience of tried and proven devices/techniques/methods for managing subcontractors and avoids excessive or unnecessary development to accomplish the task descriptions of the SOW at the subcontractor level.

Adequately demonstrates effective procedures for monitoring and controlling costs of subcontractors.

Program Management Approach

Adequately demonstrates an effective approach to managing and coordinating task efforts including monitoring resources, schedules, security compliance, document control, quality control procedures planning, assigning responsibility, and managing personnel (Prime).

Adequately demonstrates knowledge and experience of tried and proven devices/ techniques/methods and avoids excessive or unnecessary development to accomplish the task descriptions of the IDIQ SOW, Attachment 01.

Adequately demonstrates effective procedures for monitoring and controlling costs.

Adequately demonstrates effective procedures for obtaining and retaining personnel.

If a teaming agreement is proposed; adequately demonstrates the benefit provided to the Government through teaming agreements in achieving the requirement and objectives of this effort.

Technical Competence and Personnel Qualifications

Sufficiently proposes personnel and sufficiently proposes set credentials for such personnel for recruitment that possess the required skills, certifications, and security clearances to perform the task descriptions described in the IDIQ SOW, Attachment 01.

Sufficiently maps proposed key personnel, based on the relevant experience and qualifications, to the Task Descriptions described in the IDIQ SOW, Attachment 01.

STEP 2 (Cont) Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating will be used to evaluate the quality of the offeror’s technical solution.

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors The Government will seek recent and relevant performance information based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources in order to determine the offeror’s Performance Confidence, which is comprised of three factors:

Recency Relevancy Quality

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors (Cont) Performance Confidence Assessment Factors Recency Assessment: Recency is based on contracts with a minimum performance of six months completed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation. Only recent efforts will move on to the relevancy determination.

Relevancy Assessment: Relevancy is based on how similar efforts are to the scope and magnitude of the efforts and complexities in this solicitation. The Past Performance Relevancy Rating method will be when evaluating each past performance effort of the offeror.

Quality Assessment: Quality will be based on how well the offeror performed on each recent and relevant effort.

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors (Cont) Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors (Cont) Relevancy Definitions

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors (cont) Past Performance Quality Rating Method

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors (Cont) As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent or ongoing contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence.

STEP 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Factors (cont) Additional Performance Confidence Assessment Information:

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors Proposals will be evaluated based on the following:

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Completeness Reasonableness Unbalanced pricing Realism

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors (Cont) Total Evaluated Price Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices using the sum of the CLINs prices to include the two 1-Year options.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options. The TEP CLINs represent contract performance and consist of the following and include both FAR 52.217-09 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract and FAR 52.217-08 Option to Extend Services clauses.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes. Any calculated adjustments as a result of cost realism will be used solely for determination of realistic cost/pricing; award will be made at the Offeror’s proposed cost/price.

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors (Cont) CLIN Structure CLIN 0001 – Prime Labor – To be proposed CLIN 1001 – Prime Labor (Option Year 1) – To be proposed CLIN 2001 – Prime Labor (Option Year 2) – To be proposed CLIN 0002 – Subcontracts - $27.195M CLIN 1002 – Subcontracts (Option Year 1) - $2.775M CLIN 2002 – Subcontracts (Option Year 2) - $2.220M CLIN 0003 – Other Direct Costs (including material and travel) - $7.705M CLIN 1003 – Other Direct Costs (including material and travel) (Option Year 1) - $925K CLIN 2003 – Other Direct Costs (including material and travel) (Option Year 2) - $780K CLIN 0004 – Data – Not Separately Priced CLIN 1004 – Data – (Option Year 1) - Not Separately Priced CLIN 2004 – Data – (Option Year 2) - Not Separately Priced CLIN 0005 – Contractor Acquired Property - $150K CLIN 1005 – Contractor Acquired Property – (Option Year 1) - $30K CLIN 2005 – Contractor Acquired Property – (Option Year 2) - $20K CLIN 0006 – O&M (3400 funded efforts) - $150K CLIN 1006 – Operations and Maintenance (3400 funded efforts) (Option Year 1) $30K CLIN 2006 – Operations and Maintenance (3400 funded efforts) (Option Year 2) $20K

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors (Cont) Completeness All elements required for the TEP shall be included in the EWIC Cost Model Workbook provided in Section L, Attachment L-06. An offeror whose price is determined to be incomplete will not be considered for award. Completeness will be evaluated based on compliance with instructions provided in Section L.

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors (Cont) Reasonableness The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness; however, a cost analysis will be required to evaluate for unbalanced pricing and cost realism.

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors (Cont) Unbalanced Pricing An offeror whose price is determined to be unbalanced might not receive the award. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost analysis techniques. Should further information to support balanced pricing be necessary, the Government reserves the right to request further information. If the Offeror does not provide justification and substantiation of its proposed costs to enable the Government’s unbalanced pricing analysis (e.g., the Government cannot determine the Offeror’s pricing to be balanced), the Offeror’s proposal may be rejected.

STEP 4 - Cost/Price Factors (Cont) Realism An offeror whose price is determined to be unrealistic might not receive the award. This evaluation will consider the extent to which the proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements; are realistic for the work to be performed; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal, pursuant to FAR 15.404.

When an offer is evaluated as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance, and the Offeror fails to adequately explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the technical subfactor risk rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of technical requirements for the applicable technical subfactors.

Cost/price proposed for CLINs 0001, 1001 and 2001 will be evaluated through a cost realism analysis by calculating a probable cost (PC) (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)), in order to determine they are realistic. This evaluation will include proposed labor rates, direct and indirect rates, use of uncompensated overtime (FAR 37.115-2), and compensation for professional employees, i.e., total compensation plans (FAR 22.1103), and DCAA audit information.

STEP 5 – Integrated Assessment In the last phase of the Source Selection, the SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation The integrated assessment taking into account, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance which when combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

Contract Award Schedule

Question Process

We will accept questions by e-mail until 19 Feb 2020. Answers to all questions will be posted shortly thereafter.

Questions?

image2.jpeg image1.png