MDDC Preproposal Conference Slides.pptx

MISSILE DEFENSE DATA CENTER (MDDC) PROGRAM

Pre-Proposal Conference

8 March 2012

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED – Pre-Decisional Working Papers

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED – Pre-Decisional Working Papers 3/14/2012

Rules of Engagement Responsibility of Contracting Officer is to ensure impartial, fair, and equitable treatment of all contractors Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.303(c) The contracting officer shall—

(1) After release of a solicitation, serve as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective Offerors

(2) After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with Offerors in accordance with 15.306

(3) Award the contract Contact Belinda Williams at belinda.williams@mda.mil or Emily McGee at emily.mcgee@mda.mil if you have any questions

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED – Pre-Decisional Working Papers

Purpose Industry reminders:

Answers to your questions must be staffed to MDA/DA before posting to FedBizOps All communication with respect to the RFP must be through the Procuring Contract Office (PCO)

Provide an overview of the Missile Defense Data Center (MDDC) Request for Proposal (RFP) HQ0147-10-R-0030

Agenda

Acquisition Strategy Ms. Belinda Williams

Acquisition Strategy Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) Full and Open Competition Contract Type IDIQ contract with Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) and Cost CLINs CPIF applies to Labor Material and Travel are cost reimbursable CLINs Contract Structure Five year base ordering period with negotiated ceiling per CLIN Individual task orders issued as requirements are identified Five priced one-year options

Incentives Incentive Fee (Labor CLIN 0001 for base period) Labor is largest cost driver for program Incentive Fee motivates contractor to effectively manage costs Discourage inefficiency and waste

Key Dates

Small Business Mr. Jerrol Sullivan

Small Business Small Business Offerors interested in competing for award of the MDDC contract must submit focused and competitive proposals To make an award, MDA must receive for evaluation proposals that demonstrate the Offerors’ understanding of the requirements and that they have business arrangements in place to successfully meet the requirements and perform the work Read and respond to the instructions in Section L Be sure to clearly explain business arrangements and fully disclose company relationships Submit a compliance plan that clearly explains how the Offeror will comply with limitations on subcontracting (50% rule)

Small Business (cont.)

Be aware, that if the potential winner is a new business concern that has not performed work on a DoD contract, the new business entity will likely need to establish a Taxpayer Identification Number and register in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database before the Contracting Officer can make the award

RFP Overview

MDA/DACT

MDDC Program CLIN Structure

MDDC Program CLIN Structure (cont.)

Task Orders Initial Task Order will be for a Post-Award Conference Additional Task Orders will be awarded as requirements are generated Period of Performance will be dictated by requirements

Basis for Award General Basis for Award Competitive, best value, source selection conducted IAW FAR Part 15.3 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3

Evaluation Factors for Award Evaluation Factors & Sub Factors Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1 – Information Technology Subfactor 2 – Software Subfactor 3 – Mission Operations Subfactor 4 – Telemetry Operations Subfactor 5 – Truth Analysis Subfactor 6 – Library Operations

For Offical Use Only For Offical Use Only

Evaluation Factors & Sub Factors (cont.)

Factor 2: Management Subfactor 1 – Team Subfactor 2 – Management Approach Subfactor 3 – Programmatic Execution Approach Subfactor 4 – Transition Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Cost / Price

Evaluation Factors for Award (cont.)

For Offical Use Only

Evaluation Factors for Award (cont.)

Best Value Color Ratings for Technical & Management Subfactors Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for Past Performance Cost / Price Evaluated (reasonableness and realism) but Not Rated or Color Coded (Technical Factor = Management Factor) > Past Performance Factor Technical Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are of equal importance Management Subfactors 1, 2, 3 and 4 are of equal importance (Technical + Management + Past Performance Factors) > Cost/Price Factor Proposal Risk Assessed at Technical and Management Subfactor Level

For Offical Use Only

2:00 PM CT

2:00 PM CT

2:00 PM CT

2:00 PM CT

2:00 PM CT

2:00 PM CT

Proposal Volume Organization

Proposal Volume Organization (cont.)

Items of Note All primes/subcontractors read Sections A-M, as well as Statement of Work (SOW) Proposal based upon requirements in the SOW addressing the evaluation criteria in Section M Section B, CPIF and Cost Reimbursable CLINs Section H-39, Limitation on Subcontracting 50% of the labor cost must be done by the Small Business Prime Concern. The concern is defined in the FAR Part 19.001

Items of Note (cont.)

Section M-7.0, Major/Critical/Key Subcontractors A major subcontractor/subsidiary is defined as one performing $3M or more each year of the basic and option contract period effort (excluding ODC and Travel) A critical subcontractor/subsidiary is one whose performance on the awarded contract is such that if it fails, could significantly impact program success A key subcontractor is defined as one that is a major or critical subcontractor/subsidiary

Data Rights Pursuant to Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) policy, MDA intends to acquire Unlimited Rights or, at a minimum, Government Purpose Rights to all of the technical data and computer software developed under the resultant contract. Specifically, this policy applies to:

Non-commercial computer software developed and delivered during the contract Non-commercial technical data developed and delivered during the contract Hardware that is not defined as non-commercial technical data, but is developed and delivered during the contract

Data Rights (cont.)

To ensure clarity regarding the Government’s intentions, multiple clauses are included in this RFP that address commercial software, technical data, patents, licenses and royalties Be advised that all commercial software must be specifically approved by the Contracting Officer Potential Offerors need to closely review all of the relevant clauses and their requirements, to include providing the data as per Section H, Clause H-36 entitled: Contractor Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government’s Use, Release, or Disclosure of Non-commercial Technical Data or Computer Software (Dec 2011)

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Responsibility lies with the prime contract Offerors to ensure that both it and its proposed subcontractors are not restricted from participating in this proposed acquisition due to an OCI clause in any Federal Government contract, including, but not limited to, MDA contracts (Section L-1.4) Offerors are advised that any OCI reviews requested after February 24, 2012 and during the proposal response period will be processed as expeditiously as possible; however, the Government cannot guarantee that all responses will be provided prior to proposal due date

Subfactor Ratings Blue-Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional* approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Green-Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow-Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red-Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Purple - Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough** approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Subfactor Ratings (cont.)

Current Rating Definition

Green-Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Updated Rating Definition

* Clarifying definition of “exceptional approach and understanding”: Proposal describes an extraordinary approach that meets all requirements and identifies/acknowledges all major tasks to meet the requirements in great detail demonstrating a very comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the task complexity.

** Clarifying definition of “thorough approach and understanding”: Proposal describes an approach that meets all requirements and identifies / acknowledges all of the major tasks to meet the requirements with significant detail to demonstrate that it has a complete understanding of the task complexity.

Green-Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Proposal Risk Risk will be rated separately from the strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies that determine the Technical/Management Subfactor ratings Assessment of risk will be accomplished at the subfactor level and will not be rolled up to the factor level Considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Proposal Risk (cont) Evaluated using the following ratings:

Cost / Price The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important that cost/price, but cost/price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection decision Will not be rated or color coded Will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistically high or low cost when compared to the Government estimate

Source Selection Activities If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO shall, with the approval of the SSA, establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria The Government does not plan to conduct successive rounds of discussions to give Offerors the opportunity to strengthen weak proposals

Source Selection Activities (cont.)

Final Proposal Revisions Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required The Government may reject unrealistic offers

Reminders The procuring contracting officer (PCO) is the only person authorized to contact or respond to Offerors Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, complete documentation, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the solicitation prior to submission to the contracting officer

Reminders (cont.)

The Final RFP will have precedence over any responses provided during the pre-proposal conference and any Questions/Responses posted to the FBO website. All information to be submitted as part of the proposal evaluation should be submitted based on the information contained in the Final RFP

Volumes I and II

Volume I: Technical Sec L: Subfactor 1 – Information Technology The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, to executing Information Technology Operations across the MDDC Program in the following areas:

Managing the day-to-day activities and processes associated with Information Technology (IT) system and network management operations; the recruitment and staffing of a well trained, knowledgeable workforce; the short- and long-term technical direction planning; and IT inventory and cost management sustainment activities for IT classified and unclassified networks and systems meeting the following requirements:

Manage, administrate and document large network architectures with >100 physical and virtual servers in concurrent use, 250+ users/workstations, and data/file repositories >200 TB that are backed up on a frequent, periodic schedule

Sec L: Subfactor 1 – Information Technology (cont.)

Maintains multiple network access points to include file transfer capabilities to external sites Familiarity with administration and management of network architecture hardware and software including Microsoft Windows Server, Linux distributions, Cisco networking equipment and Cisco IOS, and Storage Array Networks Accrediting classified and unclassified IT networks and systems IAW the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) Developing and managing Information Assurance plans and procedures.

Sec M: Subfactor 1 – Information Technology Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.2, Test Support Systems; SOW Section 4.6, Information Technology Infrastructure; and SOW Section 5, Mission Focus.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to execute Information Technology activities, including:

Sec M: Subfactor 1 – Information Technology Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates knowledge and experience in managing the day to day activities and processes associated with IT system and network management operations; the recruitment and staffing of a well-trained, knowledgeable IT work force; the short- and long-term technical direction planning; and IT inventory and cost management sustainment activities for Information Technology (IT) classified and unclassified networks and systems with the following requirements:

Manage, administrate and document large network architectures with >100 physical and virtual servers in concurrent use, 250+ users/workstations, and data/file repositories >200 TB that are backed up on a frequent, periodic schedule

Sec M: Subfactor 1 – Information Technology Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Maintains multiple network access points to include file transfer capabilities to external sites Familiarity with administration and management of network architecture hardware and software including Microsoft Windows Server, Linux distributions, Cisco networking equipment and Cisco IOS, and Storage Array Networks Offeror demonstrates knowledge to accredit Information Technology classified and unclassified networks and systems IAW the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) Offeror demonstrates the technical competence and approach to develop and manage Information Assurance plans and procedures

Sec L: Subfactor 2 – Software The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, to executing and managing software development activities across the MDDC Program in the following areas:

Execute and manage software development activities commensurate with Software Engineering Institute/Capability Maturity Model Integration (SEI/CMMI) Level 3 requirements; describe knowledge and expertise regarding processes, procedures, and configuration management approach on similar sized activities Design, develop, and implement complex software programs that meet the following requirements:

Sec L: Subfactor 2 – Software (cont.)

Managing and utilizing a codebase >50,000 LOC (lines of code);

Use of complex mathematical constructs (such as: matrix and coordinate transformations, linear interpolation, vector mathematics, quaternions);

Development of graphical user interfaces to support 3D modeling;

Use of authentication and authorization security paradigms;

Interconnectivity and use of database systems within the codebase;

Familiarity and use of link margin analysis/planning toolsets;

Familiarity with and use of:

C#, C++, Adobe CFML (Coldfusion Markup Language), SQL (Structured Query Language);

Microsoft SQL Server;

Windows Authentication/Authorization methods

Sec M: Subfactor 2 – Software Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.2, Test Support Systems; SOW Section 4.5, Software Development; and SOW Section 5, Mission Focus.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to execute Software activities, including:

Sec M: Subfactor 2 – Software Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates the capability to execute and manage Software Development activities necessary to provide software development in support of MDDC Program operations at a level commensurate with Software Engineering Institute/Capability Maturity Model Integration (SEI/CMMI) Level 3; demonstration of knowledge and expertise regarding processes, procedures, and configuration management approach on similar sized activities

Offeror demonstrates technical competence to design, develop, and implement complex software systems with the following requirements:

Managing and utilizing a codebase >50,000 LOC (lines of code);

Use of complex mathematical constructs (such as: matrix and coordinate transformations, linear interpolation, vector mathematics, quaternions);

Development of graphical user interfaces to support 3D modeling;

Use of authentication and authorization security paradigms;

Interconnectivity and use of database systems within the codebase;

Familiarity and use of link margin analysis/planning toolsets;

Familiarity with and use of:

C#, C++, Adobe CFML (Coldfusion Markup Language), SQL (Structured Query Language);

Microsoft SQL Server;

Windows Authentication/Authorization methods

Sec L: Subfactor 3 – Mission Operations The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, in the following areas:

Development/Sustainment of Mission Operations capability either by utilizing existing legacy commercial off the shelf products or development of new capability Acquiring and processing of critical flight test data (telemetry, radar, optical, etc.), recording and distributing in real-time across the MDA or similar communications network Planning and executing comprehensive flight test data architectures and provide real-time/non-real time situational awareness displays at primary and remote execution nodes across the MDA or similar communications network

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Mission Operations Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.2, Test Support Systems and SOW Section 5., Mission Focus.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to execute product development, sustainment and integration, including:

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Mission Operations Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates experience in the design, development/sustainment of flight test execution tools such as a Mission Operations capability utilizing legacy commercial off the shelf products and/or development of new software/hardware. Experience with flight test mission support requirements and establishing program schedules necessary to design and implement development of new capabilities

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Mission Operations Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates experience and the technical competencies to acquire and process critical flight test data (telemetry, radar, optical, etc.), record and distribute in real-time across the MDA or similar communications network. Emphasis is placed on bandwidth management/compression, data tagging to support sensor cueing/pointing for range and mobile sensors at primary and remote execution nodes Offeror demonstrates experience in planning and executing comprehensive flight test data architectures and provide real-time/non-real time situational awareness displays at primary and remote execution nodes to support high-fidelity data driven displays, video relay, mission voice nets and countdown clock displays across the MDA or similar communications network

Sec L: Subfactor 4 – Telemetry Operations The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, in the following areas:

Acquiring telemetry data from multiple sources, decommutate/process telemetry from target and interceptor telemetry streams, record, reduce telemetry to critical key parameters and disseminate real-time across the MDA or similar communications network necessary to support flight test launch operations Development of target health and status displays which support real-time launch authority decisions and range safety assessments

Sec L: Subfactor 4 – Telemetry Operations (cont.)

Operations, identification, reporting and anomaly resolution with Government furnished equipment for global positioning system data supporting truth analysis and range safety solutions Planning and executing large complex flight test architectures using systematic systems engineering processes collecting quantifying MDA BMDS weapon system performance parameters

Sec M: Subfactor 4 – Telemetry Operations Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.2, Test Support Systems and SOW Section 5., Mission Focus.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to execute product development, sustainment and integration, including:

Sec M: Subfactor 4 – Telemetry Operations Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates expertise and experience to acquire telemetry data from multiple sources, decommutate/process telemetry from target and interceptor telemetry streams, record, reduce telemetry to critical key parameters and disseminate real-time across the MDA or similar communications network necessary to support flight test launch operations Offeror demonstrates experience and the technical capability to develop target health and status displays which support real-time launch decision authority and range safety assessment

Sec M: Subfactor 4 – Telemetry Operations Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates the technical capability to operate, indentify, report and resolve anomalies with Government furnished equipment for global positioning system data supporting mission analysis and range safety solutions Offeror demonstrates capability in the planning and execution of complex flight test architectures using a systematic systems engineering process to collect quantifying MDA BMDS weapon system performance parameters

Sec L: Subfactor 5 – Truth Analysis The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, in the following areas:

Development of best estimate trajectories (BETS) for all interceptor and target objects, instrumented and un-instrumented Development of BETS in multiple reference frames and formats Development of infrared and radar frequency phenomenology analysis Identifying, reporting, and resolving anomalies seen in Truth analysis activities

Sec M: Subfactor 5 – Truth Analysis Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.4, Truth Analysis and SOW Section 5., Mission Focus.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to execute Truth Analysis activities, including:

Offeror demonstrates experience and technical capability to develop best estimate trajectories (BETS) for all interceptor and target objects, instrumented or un-instrumented

Sec M: Subfactor 5 – Truth Analysis Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates experience and technical capability to develop BETS in multiple reference frames and formats Offeror demonstrates experience and technical capability to perform both Infrared (IR) and radar frequency phenomenology analysis Offeror demonstrates experience and technical capability to identify, report, and resolve anomalies seen in Truth analysis activities

Sec L: Subfactor 6 – Library Operations The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, to executing Library Operations across the MDDC Program in the following areas:

Manage and operate a technical library with >100,000 different data items in a variety of media types. Provide a table to list/show experience with different media types Distribute data electronically and physically Manage and maintain accountability of data items IAW DoD and MDA security policies and guidance

Sec M: Subfactor 6 – Library Operations Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.1, Library Operations and SOW Section 5., Mission Focus.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to execute Library Operations across the MDDC Program, including:

Offeror demonstrates experience and technical competence to manage and operate a technical library with >100,000 different data items in a variety of media types (i.e.: CD, DVD, tapes, paper, etc.)

Sec M: Subfactor 6 – Library Operations Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates experience and technical competence to distribute data electronically and physically Offeror demonstrates experience and technical competence to maintain accountability of data items IAW DoD and MDA security policies and guidance

Volume II: Management Sec L: Subfactor 1 – Team The Offeror shall describe their management approach, including risk, to provide a Team and framework including subcontractors necessary to successfully execute the MDDC Program SOW and provide flexible, responsive, innovative, and efficient MDDC Program products and operations in the following areas:

Provide a description and organization chart depicting the team and framework, provide a plan to be incorporated into the resultant contract that includes sufficient details for the Government to determine the proposal is compliant with FAR 52.219-14 (prime must perform at least 50% of the effort), subcontractors, lines of authority, and communication process between technical and management that address the MDDC Program SOW holistically

Sec L: Subfactor 1 – Team (cont.)

Provide a table that identifies key positions within the organizational structure that can support the SOW requirements, their planned responsibilities, and detail their applicable SOW experience. Position requirements shall be provided to fulfill this requirement. Offeror shall submit position descriptions and qualification packages for each individual proposed to fill a key position. (The position descriptions and qualification packages count is limited to 3 pages per key position. This does not count against the 50 page limit for the Management section)

Sec M: Subfactor 1 – Team Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Sections 2., Management; SOW Section 3., Mission Assurance; SOW Section 4., Operations and Sustainment; SOW Section 5., Mission Focus; SOW Section 6., Security; and SOW Section 7. Special Provisions.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal clearly identifies a Team and framework including subcontractors necessary to successfully execute the MDDC Program SOW, manage risk and provide flexible, responsive, innovative, and efficient MDDC Program products and operations in the following areas:

Sec M: Subfactor 1 – Team Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates a team and framework including Offeror’s plan for the prime to perform at least 50% of the effort and use of subcontractors that details roles, lines of authority, and the management and technical communication process that addresses the MDDC Program SOW as a whole Offeror describes key positions within the organizational structure that can support the requirements of the SOW, their planned responsibilities, and details their experience most applicable to the SOW

Sec L: Subfactor 2 – Management Approach The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, to organizing resources to most efficiently and effectively manage contract execution and mitigate program risk in the following areas:

Program-wide approach to managing technical, performance, cost, and schedule risk Process and approach to organize, staff, and allocate resources to meet the SOW. Offeror shall describe an approach for personnel recruitment and retention to ensure personnel are in place and trained

Sec L: Subfactor 2 – Management Approach (cont.)

Approach to adding first and second tier subcontractors during the contract performance to meet the SOW Approach to provide a crossed-trained work force for SOW efficiencies Approach to risk management that includes identification, tracking, and mitigation of program risk

Sec L: Subfactor 2 – Management Approach (cont.)

Provide a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and dictionary, which reflects the Offeror’s understanding of the contract effort. The CWBS shall serve as the framework for organizing the MDDC effort to include in-house, inter-divisional, subcontractor, and associate contractor activities. The reference document for developing the WBS and dictionary is MIL-HDBK-881A. The CWBS shall be developed to a depth (level) and breadth sufficient to accurately describe the Offeror's understanding of the effort required as reflected in the SOW. Each element of the CWBS shall include a reference to the primary SOW paragraph or paragraphs. Illustrate how the CWBS will be used to manage the work outlined in the SOW. The top four levels may be placed on contract as the CWBS

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Management Approach Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Sections 2., Management; SOW Section 3., Mission Assurance; SOW Section 4., Operations and Sustainment; SOW Section 5., Mission Focus; SOW Section 6., Security; and SOW Section 7. Special Provisions.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to organize resources to most efficiently and effectively manage contract execution and mitigate program risk in the following areas:

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Management Approach Criteria Requirements:

Offeror demonstrates a program-wide approach to managing technical, performance, cost, and schedule risk Offeror demonstrates a planned process to organize, staff, and allocate resources to meet the SOW. Offeror identifies an approach for recruitment and retention to ensure personnel are in place and trained Offeror demonstrates their approach to provide a crossed-trained work force for SOW efficiencies Offeror demonstrates their approach to adding first and second tier subcontractors during contract performance to meet the SOW

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Management Approach Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates their risk management approach to identify, track, and mitigate program risk Offeror demonstrates their understanding of the scope and interaction of activities within the MDDC Program by providing a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS dictionary that reflect the MDDC program

Sec L: Subfactor 3 – Programmatic Execution Approach The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, to providing a Management Plan/System for effective planning and control of resources, and the process for accounting and collecting costs for the entire contract, separate tasks, and Accounting Classification Reference Number (ACRNs) to accomplish multiple and complex tasks and/or task orders simultaneously

Sec M: Subfactor 3 – Programmatic Execution Approach Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Sections 2, Management; SOW Section 3., Mission Assurance; SOW Section 4., Operations and Sustainment; SOW Section 5., Mission Focus; SOW Section 6., Security; and SOW Section 7. Special Provisions.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s Team has the capability to provide a Management Plan/System for effective planning and control of resources, including risk, and the process for accounting and collecting costs for the entire contract, separate tasks, and ACRNs to accomplish multiple and complex tasks and/or task orders simultaneously

Sec L: Subfactor 4 – Transition The Offeror shall describe their capabilities and approach, including risk, to providing a plan and resources to work with the incumbent contractor(s) during the transition period to maintain all MDDC Program SOW requirements and to complete the transition period within the minimum time and cost in the following areas:

Approach to transition resources and personnel to this contract required to perform the MDDC Program mission and SOW requirements Process to work with the incumbent contractor(s) to smoothly transition the MDDC Program products / operations

Sec L: Subfactor 4 – Transition (cont.)

Provide a realistic schedule, which includes key milestones with metrics to measure progress, to successfully transition all tasks within a designated transition period of no more than 45 days Provide their phase-in schedule that would obtain the appropriate staffing levels, skill mix, expertise, security clearances, and certifications to provide adequate trained, certified, and cleared personnel

Sec M: Subfactor 4 – Transition Criteria Requirements:

This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Sections 2., Management; SOW Section 3., Mission Assurance; SOW Section 4., Operations and Sustainment; SOW Section 5., Mission Focus; SOW Section 6., Security; and SOW Section 7. Special Provisions.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s Team has the capability and an approach, including risk, to provide a plan and resources to work with the incumbent contractor(s) during the transition period to maintain all MDDC Program mission and SOW requirements and to complete the transition period within the minimum time and cost in the following areas:

Sec M: Subfactor 4 – Transition Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates the ability to transition resources and personnel to this contract required to perform the MDDC Program mission and SOW requirements Offeror demonstrates a process to work with the incumbent contractor(s) to smoothly transition the MDDC Program products / operations Offeror demonstrates a realistic schedule, which includes key milestones with metrics to measure progress, to successfully transition all tasks within a designated transition period of no more than 45 days

Sec M: Subfactor 4 – Transition Criteria Requirements: (cont.)

Offeror demonstrates a phase-in schedule that would obtain the appropriate staffing levels, skill mix, expertise, security clearances, and certifications to provide adequate trained, certified, and cleared personnel

Volume III Ms. Emily McGee

Volume III: Past Performance Each Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance history will be evaluated and each Offeror will receive a single Performance Confidence Assessment for the Past Performance Factor using the following ratings:

Volume III: Past Performance (cont.)

Volume III: Past Performance The Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

Table of Contents Summary Page describing the role of the Offeror and each subcontractor and/or teaming partner for which the Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets in accordance with Section L-7.2 Past Performance Information Sheets in accordance with Section J, Attachment 8 to the solicitation (reference Section L-7.2) Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor and/or teaming partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information so the Offeror can respond to such information. A sample letter is in Section J, Attachment 10 Organization Structure Change History

Volume III: Past Performance Past Performance Information Sheets Submit information on contracts you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort This information is required on the Offeror and subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed to perform any of the proposed effort that the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance The Offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) and a minimum of three (3) Performance Information Sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for the prime; and three (3) Performance Information Sheets for each major and/or critical subcontractor/subsidiary

Volume III: Past Performance Relevant Contracts Each relevant contract shall meet the Government’s definition of recency. The Government defines recency as any contract having been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation In determining relevancy, consideration will be given to past performance in providing the program management, mission assurance, operations and sustainment, mission focus and security capabilities and support to other programs that are similar in size and scope to the MDDC Program as described in the SOW This information shall be submitted as part of the Past Performance Information Sheet, Section J, Attachment 8.

Volume III: Past Performance Organizational Structure Change History Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc.

To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment from other sources

Volume III: Past Performance (cont.)

Organizational Structure Change History (cont.)

Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources

Volume III: Past Performance Resolution of Problems Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required

Volume III: Past Performance Questionnaires The Government requests the Offeror send out Past Performance Questionnaires, Section J, Attachment 7, to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Volume The Offeror shall fill in the project and evaluator information on the questionnaire prior to sending it to the POC. Completed questionnaires shall be submitted by the POC directly to the Contracting Officer A cover letter for transmitting the questionnaire to each POC is provided as Section J, Attachment 9 Each of the Offeror's POCs shall e-mail the completed Past Performance Questionnaire to Belinda.williams@mda.mil with a courtesy copy to Sharon.Upton@mda.mil

Volume III: Past Performance Questionnaires Continuation Although an e-mailed Questionnaire is preferable, mailing the Questionnaire(s) to the address listed below is an acceptable alternative method of transmission. If mailing, the cover page or outside envelope, as applicable, must be marked as follows:

Volume III: Past Performance Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form Past performance information concerning key subcontractors or subsidiaries cannot be disclosed to a private party without consent Because the Offeror is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing key subcontractor and/or subsidiary past performance information to the Offeror during exchanges

Volume III: Past Performance (cont.)

Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form (cont.)

In an effort to assist the Past Performance Team in assessing past performance, the Government requires that a Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form for the Release of Past Performance Information (Section J, Attachment 10) be completed by each key subcontractor and/or subsidiary identified in the proposal. A key subcontractor is defined as one that is a major or critical subcontractor/subsidiary. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of Volume III Past Performance (not subject to page count limitation)

Volume IV Mr. Paul O’Donnell

MDA/DACQ

MDDC RFP Section L-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms

MDDC RFP Section L-8

Compliance All Offerors bear full responsibility for complying with the solicitation requirements in their entirety Failure to comply may result in adverse assessment and may reduce or eliminate chances for selection Offerors shall provide data that is consistent with data contained in other proposal volumes

MDDC RFP Section L-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms Subcontractors/Teammates & IWTAs/Subsidiaries Major Subcontractor - Performing $3M or more per year (excluding ODC &Travel) Major Subs shall follow the same RFP Requirements as the Prime Offeror Subcontractor Proprietary Data:

Prime Offeror must include summary level cost data for all Major Subcontractors Prime shall ensure major Subs submit proposals by solicitation closing date Major Subs may submit un-sanitized cost volumes in sealed envelope to Prime

MDDC RFP Section L-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms Offeror’s Business Systems Cost Volume must contain a summary description of:

Estimating System Purchasing System Accounting System State whether Business Systems have been reviewed by the Government and documentation of approval or any cited deficiencies/weaknesses Accounting System must be adequate for award of a cost-reimbursable contract If the Offeror does not have an approved accounting system, we will send the RFP Attachment 14 Accounting System Preaward Survey Checklist to the cognizant DCAA for a pre-award survey review

Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist – Pg 1

Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist – Pg 2

MDDC RFP Section L-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms Cost Proposal Exhibits B1 – Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLR) B2 – Minor Subcontractor FBLRs B3 – Composite Team FBLRs B4 – CLIN Pricing B5 – Overhead / Indirect Rates B6 – G&A B7 – Direct Productive Labor Hours (DPLHs)

B1 – Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLR)

B2 – Minor Subcontractor FBLRs

B3 – Composite Team FBLRs

B4 – CLIN Pricing

B4 – CLIN Pricing (cont.)

B4 – CLIN Pricing (cont.)

B5 – Overhead / Indirect Rates

B6 – G&A

B7 – Direct Productive Labor Hours (DPLHs)

MDDC RFP Section L-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms Cost Proposal Exhibit Format Shall be submitted in one Excel 2007 workbook/file; no “pdf” documents All links, formats and formulas intact Final monetary extensions shall be expressed in whole dollars The workbook shall not be locked/protected or secured by passwords No macros, hidden cells, or pivot tables

MDDC RFP Section L-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms Basis of Estimate Support (BOE) Explain in detail all pricing & estimating techniques Provide BOE support for all projections, rates, ratios, percentages, and factors Include narrative explaining judgmental elements of cost projections and fee policies Ensure that cost estimates are consistent with technical & management proposals

MDDC RFP Section M-8

MDDC RFP Section M-8 Volume IV: Cost/Price and Contract Forms Cost/Price will be assessed in accordance with:

Affordability Unaffordable proposals may be eliminated from consideration Price Reasonableness Determined by competition Cost Realism Proposed cost are realistic for the work performed Clear understanding of the requirements Consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's technical and management volumes

Submit Written Questions

ABS

image2.png image3.emf image4.emf image5.png image6.png image7.emf image8.emf image9.emf image10.emf image11.emf image12.emf image13.emf image14.emf image1.emf