Industry Day Meeting Minutes.pdf

Meeting Minutes for MPSCIV Industry Day 13-14 Apr 2021

POC/Facilitator: Christianna McElheny Site: Virtual Dial-In Commercial Number: 301-909-7356 Dial-In DSN Number: 312-885-7356 Access Code: 247310822

DCS Screen sharing with audio: https://conference.apps.mil/webconf/MPSC-IV DCS direct dial-in: (410) 874-6300 pin 416 995 252

Agenda:

Day 1 (13 April 2021) – DCS/Telecon

• 0930 – 1000: Welcome/Introduction

• 1000 – 1100: MPSC IV Overview

• 1100 – 1115: Break

• 1115 – 1200: Questions & Answers Session

• 1200 – 1300: Lunch

• 1300 – 1400: Follow-up discussion

• 1400 – 1530: One-on-one sessions

Welcome/Introduction:

MPSSF Team: Christi McElheny, Mandy Medina-Harris, Phillip MacLeod, Brent Schrock, Casey Hodson, Marshall Neilson, Christian LeDuc MAJCOM: Chris Watkins AMC: Todd Herzog Small Business Office: Alicia Caldwell Goal: Share as much information as possible, answer questions

Introductions: (See Industry Day Attendee/Interested Party List)

Slides:

A list of the participating companies will be provided in the future. If you do NOT want to be included on the list of companies notify Casey Hodson.

This is a pre-acquisition Industry Day session. Information provided is for market research purposes.

Participation is voluntary. We will host a second industry day after the draft RFP is released, later this summer. We prefer that questions are provided in writing, but other questions will be accepted. Please stay on “mute” unless speaking. If you have questions that are not discussed during the general overview feel free to present those questions during the one-on-one sessions. If we do not need to use the follow-up discussion block/times we will end the session early.

Our bottom line (up front) seeks to ensure that understand our timeline and strategy. We hope you have had the opportunity to review our work statement. We will conduct a robust risk assessment as we proceed down our timeline. The present PWS (in draft state) is approximately a 92% solution. We will conduct a deeper dive during the next industry day event.

Ground Rules: It will be difficult to acknowledge each speaker. If you have a question please indicate your desire to speak in the chat feature. That will mitigate overlaps. For those who have submitted https://conference.apps.mil/webconf/MPSC-IV questions in writing we will address those questions during our one-on-one session(s). We will not discuss and specific design issues in general forum. We may or may not implement suggestions presented in this forum. We will not discuss any of our classified workload, or details of that specific work/requirement.

We need to determine if we have enough small businesses bidding on this effort. The PRIMES must be able to perform 51% of the work on their own, without relying upon their subcontractor. Our lifecycle cost estimate is may or may not be expected to be higher than the existing annual workload.

MPSSF 101: a mission planning system support facility run out of Hill AFB, with exception of MAJCOM partners. Most of us are teleworking at the moment. Purpose and spectrum support were explained (in a slideshow). There is some crossover between mission planning and mission execution. We are an automated, computerized system using digitized data allowing aircrews to use data to plan actual missions (using hardware/data/software). We provide support for complex operations, day-to-day training and missions. Diagrams were shown (targeting, route planning, mission materials, fly the plan).

This is an iterative process where lessons are learned and incorporated into the system. We have a variety of data and components that are coupled and integrated into our system then exported into data devices/systems. We don’t currently support Army/Navy or SOF. A MP Environment (requirements based piece of information including locations/platforms/missions/HW/SW and versions/equipment).

Complete MPE Focus = Mission Accomplishment. The MPE(s) are officially approved and MPE letters specify the correct configuration(s) of every platform that is supported. Todd mentioned they also use workstation towers/desktops. The systems are primarily computer based. Non-MPEs (ancillary or old MPEs) are also supported. There is some flexibility in the systems – we have a +/- 20% flexibility with the same supporting price structure.

Our customers: we list F-22 and F-35 in case they ever use our systems, we would like to be able to include them in our contract. All other platforms that we support were listed/presented. The categories listed were fighters, bombers, weapons, FMS, MAF/Helos, C2, ISR and Trainer. We anticipate that PFPS systems will primarily be phased out by the time MPSCIV is awarded. We are the sustainment piece of the contract managed through Hanscom, our acquisition program office. We also support Joint Precision Airdrop System (JPADS). We also have our MAF elements. JOMS is also new and will soon be part of MPSCIV. We are trying to support the evolution of JOMS in the future and we anticipate more remote types of support in the future – using JOMS. We have some verbiage in the PWS noting that the future contractor must be able to adapt and support cloud based computing, that was not a component in MPSCIII, the current contract. The MP Enterprise has sites at Hanscom (Acquisition)/Eglin (Development/Test)/Hill (Sustainment).

MPSSF Team: Personnel/Contract team demographics data was presented.

MPSSF Taskings: total sustainment for mission planning systems – SW development/MX is handled via different vehicles. We provide 24/7 support for customers, peacetime & contingency support, FMS support, HW/SW support, real-time planning, cloud computing expertise – new element in MPSCIV.

MPSSF Tasks/Operations Support: SSRs – refer to the documentation for specific information. The SSRs are considered the first tier of support and the MPSSF also has Subject Matter Experts to provide more extensive technical support (technical documentation/distribution/help desk). We currently support 30+ countries and 40+ FMS cases.

Security: we have SCI and SAP clearances and support as well. Our geographically disbursed employees will be considered experts supporting the fielded systems. Our Task Orders may ramp up quickly. With this Services contract we expect support on Day 1. We do not want to leave any of our customers without support. Once a TO is in place we expect services.

Additional types of support: Technical Publications/Configuration Management/Hardware Support/SW & Engineering/Mission Planning Central (one-stop-shop & tool for mission planning information), Software Security Team (patches/Cyber/TCNOs)/Enterprise Integration (SEIC) – feedback loop and coordination of enterprise and location

Note: we are not expecting our SSRs to be Mission Planners. Their job is to keep the systems functioning at sites. The support is funded at different levels ranging from Basic to Full support.

Cloud Computing: Migration to JOMS/Cloud Computing SME

Current (MPSCIII) Contracting Information:

*IDIQ, 5-year Period of Performance (POP) ends Aug 2022+12 mo/6 mo extension option (into 2024), Single Prime Contractor

MPSCIV:

*Single award IDIQ, FFP & Cost Reimbursable no Fee

*Performance Based Services Acquisition

*10-year Period of Performance (5 year base + option years)

*NAICS Code 541513

*Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Prime

Provision(s) to Be Aware Of (refer to slides for full list):

*Online Reps & Certs (FAR 4.12)

*Wide Area Workload with electronic payments

*Contractor Performance outside of US (DFARS 225.74)

*Adequate Accounting Service

Estimated Milestones (all dates are subject to change):

Acquisition Strategy Panel 4/28/21

Release Final RFP 8/15/21

Proposal Due 10/15/21

Anticipated Award June 2022?

MPSC Data Security:

To mitigate potential contractor complaints pertaining to unfair advantage

After Industry Day closes – all questions will need to be presented to the 2 Contracting Officers: Casey Hodson (801) 586-2144 and Marshall Neilson (801) 586-3809

Q/A Session:

Start with questions given in writing. Then we will move to open QA session.

Does the Government intend to release current drafts to accommodate the draft PWS given to industry?

Did not release draft L&M. We do have a draft in work. We are open to feedback before we finalize.

Does the Govt also intend to release L&M section requirements?

We intend to release it when we release the draft RFP.

Can the Govt please discuss the Acquisition Schedule stability and factors that may impact the due date?

The only thing(s) that may impact our schedule are delays in events/approvals that are requirements for approval. We are dedicating our team effort to the release of the RFP and the completion of all the prerequisites. We anticipate a 60-day window for responses. There is a lot of time along the process in the next few months for the companies to prepare their responses.

Will scope of help desk expand over time? Help desk solutions? What other applications/knowledge-based management solution(s) are being considered? Has the Govt implemented a no-code low-code environment?

Our help desk system is relatively unsophisticated. It works for us and we have some thoughts that may help us to ensure the capability to provide 24-hour support. The move to the new facility in the future will allow us to run a more robust 24/7 support. We do not field a lot of troubleshooting calls because our SSRs are the first line of defense. We track and measure incoming calls/issues/resolutions. We do not expect the scope of the help desk to increase over time. We are mostly a services solution – people providing IT support. As long as the proposed solution meets our requirement (as stated) that is what we will be seeking/evaluating. Our current help desk connects users with an actual person who will troubleshoot their problem(s). We do track the calls from call to resolution. We do not expect the scope of the help desk to expand over time. We are not using a complex low-code no-code solution right now.

Please provide guidance/explain OCONUS support.

For the most part we have SSRs permanently station at OCONUS sites. We may have requests for temporary or deployment support. We pay for cost-reimbursable expenses, not labor, for SSR travel.

Example provided: SSR TDY to Crete – MPSSF would pay travel, not manpower hourly cost. If there is a deployment request or a unique request for travel that will be discussed/negotiated. The government determines that the SSR estimate will be estimated and established. Explain “geographically separated.”

This list will be provided in the future and flexibility will be identified in the requirements – allowing for increasing number of sites, as needed. If we put something on a Task Order we intend that the position will be permanent/expected at that site. The number of personnel will not be specified but the “on site” presence at the specific location will be a requirement of the contract. If we have deployment requests or special requests the Government will pay for it use a cost-reimbursable CLIN. If it is due to contractor (quitting/firing) then the contractor will be responsible for backfilling. We do not pay costs for travel associated with the service, that is included in the monthly rate, we travel costs only if it is Government directed.

Geographically separated – CONUS and OCONUS. List of locations will be released with RFP. Will have flexibility to meet needs as the arise.

Can the Govt provide a list of locations and length of stay for FMS?

We will provide a list of locations (permanent) – the contractor will determine the number of personnel to satisfy the stated level of support. We will ask (with the RFP) for the number of FTE (full-time equivalent personnel) to ensure that you understand the magnitude of work related to the requirement.

Over the past year, how have your SSRs been affected by the pandemic and the restriction on in-person work on government sites?

If there was an SSR located at a base they were able to keep in contact/get permission from the local unit/commander to allow them access to update the systems and then leave the site (temporary visits).

Many perform their local tasks, then remain available locally, or some had to quarantine. There were very few complaints about lack of service during COVID. The contractor was still obligated to provide support and work through new limitations of the pandemic.

Is this going to be an LPTA or Best Value type solicitation?

This will not be LPTA. Price Performance Trade Off ideally.

If Govt has "near final" L & M sections developed already, request you release these now so teams can be properly formed based upon the current eval criteria. We totally realize changes can/will occur (and that is ok) since they are still in "draft". If you will hold the L & M until the full draft RFP is released, what is the established date for the draft RFP release? (it is not shown on slide 39).

We hope to release it by early June 2021, but we must brief the ASP and complete some other tasks before we draft the L&M (best case scenario May).

Knowledge based solution = knowledge-based articles, Tier Zero support. Also includes self-service.

We do not have tier zero support. We do not have anything that is self-service. Unsure if we will be getting that capability. We have MPC to get answers for questions. There are other resources out there (MPC). If that does not work, they can call the help desk to get a live person. It is not an automated service help desk.

Does follow-on also include self-service?

We anticipate Tier 1 – calling into the SSR and SME support. We do not anticipate self-help beyond the current access to MPC Central. We don’t have a self-service help desk solution. We like to personalize our services and have a live person providing technical support.

Christi, do you want to mention about the FMS specific travel requirements?

Many times, we have requests for in-country travel/support at OCONUS sites. We separate our trips and our FMS support by country. Our contractor provides estimates and we reimburse travel cost(s). No real risk to contractor as the Government will reimburse travel.

The RFI requested industry to provide a “description of similar service offered to the government and to commercial customers for the past three years”, does this mean the government will limit Past Performance from offerors to also be within the last 3 years on the final RFP?

The RFI requests industry to provide past performance from the last 3 years. Previously offers have suggested 5 year evaluation period. We have not determined the evaluation period we will analyze…yet.

Curious if the contractor is maintaining any technical agreements with the state department. Longer lead time items. Helpful to understand the process.

We have Letters of Agreement/Letters of Offer & Acceptance (LOA) with the countries. There are some items that must be worked/resolved/accomplished in coordination with the State Department. The contractor will be responsible for procuring passports and addressing issues related to country clearances and items not managed with the State Department. We have agreements with every country. Contractor is required to meet ITARS functions. The FMS branch manages it and will work with Brent, our Government person. Contractor may have to work with the state department.

On a similar thought, will the contract include TESA and SOFA language?

We don’t put TESA and SOFA language in the contract, but applicable clauses will be listed. It is part of our ability to assess if the contractor is capable. Will likely show up in L&M. Not in PWS itself, but Government is concerned about contractors ability to meet this requirement.

How often do the releases come out from Hanscom?

We are on a variety of schedules right now. They do not come out too often. We have different fielding schedules. We are trying to get them out quicker on an agile schedule. Cadence is on every three months. But does not mean the MAJCOM will field that release. AMC – 6-month cycle for fielding as a minimum for fielding and updating to the MPE software. Platform specific, multiple products being fielded. AMC not platform specific, ACC is platform specific. ACC, AMC, NGA, GSC, Reserves for major commands.

Can you include a copy of the lease we will assume so we can assess costs?

Govt will most likely not release the lease, but will likely release cost information. Upfront costs would be released. Govt will review if more information will be released. Location will have a transferrable lease. Contractor will assume lease upon contract award. Current contractor will sign over lease to new contractor. Previously Government would give space. Now contractor leased space reimbursed by the Govt. Would be required to assume lease from current contractor upon reward. Lease is billable to the contract.

Can you provide FTE information at locations?

We will only be able to provide general information because we will not release existing proprietary data. We will have matrices that will ask for price estimates and manning/MPE(s)/Non-MPE(s) and the L&M will seek your technical solution information. We will not provide any specific information. We will not provide current FTE counts at locations because that is something that is proprietary, and each contractor must assess the workload based upon their own networking abilities and tasks. There are many elements used to determine rate(s) and each contractor will determine their own service support posture. We do not want to dictate the FTEs. We did not provide that information with the MPSCIII contract and we will not provide it with this contract.

Or maybe similar to a travel line item/ add in a lease line item of what is the general cost / that would be helpful.

Travel and materials would bill the contract monthly to be reimbursed. We expect contractors to have cash flow to run the business. Millions of dollars to float in order to meet requirements. Time lag for reimbursement.

For planning and budgeting that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Certain items we do not dictate. We can give some historical data if it is not proprietary. It would be an estimate.

Will any other Cloud Platforms (like AWS) be used in the future?

We retain the right to evolve and use different platforms during the system evolution, as necessary, and anticipate that the technical cloud support will not necessarily be limited to one singular platform.

Any questions would be addressed to the three POCs in the slides?

Provide all questions to Casey and Marshall. They will send those to Christi who will cover them with the Program Team.

Note: we are in the process of physically moving our building. There will be a note in the RFP that mentions the assumption of the facility lease. The lease transfer will most likely require a lease deposit.

The facility will be building 1575 (near the West base entrance). This facility solution has already been established, but you will be required to assume the lease. We will not provide a copy of the current lease, but we will provide the information related to the “assumption” of the lease. We expect the contractor to be able to provide some cash flow for an effort of this magnitude. Cost reimbursable CLIN efforts will be billed to the government the following month – we expect the contractor to have cash and cash flow capabilities. This may be millions of dollars per month (example: manpower/outlay). We may be able to share historical data – only if allowed by the contracting officer – even so, that would only be an estimate.

If you have additional questions, or our team did not sufficiently answer your questions contact our Contracting officers. If there is no further need for follow-up discussions, we can close the meeting.

Marshall and Casey will gather any additional questions.

END OF Q&A.

MPSCIV Industry Day One-on-One Sessions

4/13/2021

Summary/Questions:

How do we envision support on the cloud in a hosted environment?

we are not sure how that will look – and how it will operate in the future (we presently use disk delivery method). Some data resides on MP Central – our goal is to have data available on a digital platform/Digital Depot and we are trying to get the data pull capability on the cloud.

Is there a requirement for DevSecOps software development process?

Yes

If so, how will DevSecOps be integrated across the enterprise?

We will have to circle back with experts at Hanscom for DevSecOps.

Is there a timeline for the migration?

The Data Depot is already in existence. We are performing field testing and will implement as soon as possible.

How do you envision supporting the Air National Guard with this contract?

We support the ANG the same way as our active duty. They receive their systems from MAJCOM, they do not purchase their own equipment. We support them just as any other user. Biggest customer due to the locations. ACC largest customer by MAJCOM, but ANG largest user by cost and location.

If an RFP has a description/recommendation for implementing the cloud computing transition would that be welcome?

Yes. That would be appreciated.

Section 2.1 Identifies the need for a cloud computing SME. Do we know the “tools” that will be used during the transition?

We plan to use the Data Depot & EASE/SADUS/IL5 & 6, etc.

How do you anticipate manpower savings/efficiencies in the transition from manpower support to cloud-based data access?

The Government will recognize efficiencies in the proposed solutions to be presented.

What is our biggest “pain point?”

Cloud computing and agile software development.

Will the government mention the number of FTEs at the sites?

No. we will not. Each bidder will submit their proposed solution based upon the services needed at each site.

What is your biggest concern?

The cloud computing is a new element. Otherwise – previously – performance in the field and the customer’s perception of support in the field/at their site. We pride ourselves on providing great service as a whole. Making sure we have qualified personnel and a company that knows what they are doing, is flexible, and has technically proficient employees and knows what they are doing – once those elements are in place the hurdles resolve themselves.

Many times, the issues are culturally driven – are you finding political buy-in for the migration to cloud?

The MAJCOM definitely supports this effort and so does the Program Office. At the end of the day the users care if they can access their information on site, we don’t anticipate a lot of pushback on whatever tool we’re using. There often seems to be disconnect between the MAJCOMS and their units.

Does the Govt see this as a spiral approach (ACC leads and the others fall in line afterward)? Is this a potential spiral effort the contractor can propose with innovation suggestions?

The training (specifically) is not managed by MPSSF. Do we think we have the ability/contract structure that allows for training innovation? The Govt is not changing the base requirement. There may be some manpower savings/efficiencies. We anticipate evaluating all options and innovative solutions and acknowledge as the workload is digitized manpower may decrease.

Question about the price performance tradeoff – anticipate proposing innovations that have more than price as a potential innovative alternative(s) such as optional CLIN structure. In addition, may provide suggestion(s)/considerations and provide sample innovations that will not necessarily innovate price, but could be added as an option after award. Hoping to share innovation(s) and trade-off(s).

One of the govt concerns is the definition of value elements without disclosing their own innovative solutions. Basically, the government can accept feedback and will not provide proprietary information to the other bidders. Anything that is provided to the govt evaluation team may be shared – they will consider innovations that they could potentially share that will not be proprietary.

Asked for verification of a Small Business set-aside. What are the program and contract viewpoints on Joint Venture(s)/JVs?

The government has not determined, and we will need to do some more research and discuss the matter with our contracting officer before a determination is made. We are trying to target true small businesses.

Have you considered or is there anything to prevent you from changing the NAICS code?

Govt does not have any reason not to consider changing the NAICS code.

Potential offeror comment: From a cost perspective. A smaller definition of the work being done, would require a larger company to come in and front for a smaller company. When you go into a multiple company environment you stack companies.

*Government response – We can see the benefit of having a single company, but have not had issues with a prime and sub so far. We do not want a prime overly reliant on a large sub. We do not want to exclude companies of having a sub/prime approach. We did have a protest for ostensible sub-contracting on MPSCII, but it was not upheld. We do have capable SB’s that can do this, with or without a large company.

MPSCIV Industry Day One-on-One Sessions

4/14/2021

How do you manage the workload (today) from the MAJCOM through deployment/initiation of work to the aircraft?

We have a variety of processes established (per # of systems and SSR services assignment at the location), the MPE is updated to retain a current configuration. We hire people who work at the sites.

The enterprise has a variety of processes but I will have to get back to you with the details. The cloud computing effort is new.

Do you use any task management software to track processes from end to end? Is it mainly software or person to person communications?

The enterprise has documented processes for a variety of things, we are not heavy in the software development side. We provide the workforce that is collocated with our customers. The contractor manages the on-site personnel support. They also manage a help desk. The MPC team uses Agile SW processes. The help desk is a 24/7 capability, and a person will always answer the phone. Our facility access isn’t generally an issue, and we can respond during the normal work week, but we have the capability to open the current facility during the evenings/weekends. Most of the customers have an SSR on site.

The SSR’s are the initial point of contact?

Yes. They answer the majority of the questions.

What is the core function/what processes are closer to the core workload? Is the scope of the work larger than uploading mission plans?

The scope of the work is much larger, we manage support, deficiency identification and resolution, software reproduction and distribution also management of the MP hardware. Our team coordinates with the Software Control Center, manage technical documentation, hardware acquisition, field support and system installation/testing on site. MPE letters/software patching and testing, updates of MP systems. The SSRs are the system support IT POCs. The SSRs are the first tier of support for Mission Planning units all over the world.

Cloud and legacy software/systems and access are a concern. The access to data will change over time and workflow process management may be automated in the future.

With this contract with the forward front line SSR, we CCDC, we call them FSRs for the army, are these people typically veterans and retired veterans?

Operational experience is not required. We determined that it was not necessary, they should be more IT savvy. It is not something that we are looking for or put any sort of preference towards.

It is key for the Army that they have the military experience. They like someone who can communicate with the air crew.

We understand that, but we prioritize providing the service.

Are the SSRs in the “ready room” with the wings/aviators? Are they on site during a “big mission?”

They are not required to be on site during flying operations. They can be their actual physical presence is determined and rules of engagement are determined in advance. They are available to support if a need arises.

The discussion was heavy on the “support” with software specifically noted. Is there a system team requirement that is included?

SEIC is a contractor at Eglin who is the integrator. We support the fielded product/units/sustainment in the filed. The SSRs, air crew and help desk can be used to identify and report deficiencies (initiate DRs).

Where is the feedback/user experience on the priority list?

*Technical difficulties resulted in intermittent audio*

Using a sub for worldwide support, can you give me feedback on if they would be looked at for the past performance for the world wide support? Is there anything I should be aware of if I am relying on this?

We will need to circle back to this. We were asked about this yesterday. Last time we didn’t have this issue, but it seems we are getting questions about this now. I will have to reach back to the SB office and see what the rules are for this. We do recognize a lot of people will be partnering. We will have to get an answer on how sub-contractor past performance will be evaluated.

I see what you guys want to have a set aside and it is very important. This is a very serious contract and needs to be managed very seriously. I am interested to see how a JV works with the SB office.

We do have small business that were able to get this contract before. They had sub-contractors who were big businesses, but they were not joint ventures.

End of Industry Day for MPSC-IV

*Nothing follows*