Kirtland_Pre_Proposal_Conference_Minutes_(8_Aug_14).docx

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE INSTALLATION CONTRACTING AGENCY

8 Aug 14

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Pre-Proposal Conference / Site Visit Meeting Minutes, Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) Helicopter Maintenance (MX) Services Re-competition

1. A Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit for the Kirtland AFB Helicopter MX acquisition was held on 5 Aug 14 in the 58 TRS Conference Room at Kirtland AFB, NM. The purpose of the event was to provide industry an opportunity to enhance its understanding of the requirement and the acquisition. The event commenced at approximately 0830 hours (MDT).

2. The following is a list of the attendees:

3. The meeting minutes paragraph numbering system is structured to augment the Pre-Proposal Conference presentation slide numbers. The meeting minutes are not intended to capture all conversation, rather to augment and highlight pertinent information discussed during the briefing. The briefing slides can be found at Attachment 1 to this document.

a. Slide 1: Capt. Corrigan opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and addressing the purpose of the Pre Proposal Conference and Site Visit, followed by introductions of the Government representatives.

b. Slide 2: Capt. Corrigan stated one-on-one sessions were limited to those firms that requested a session in accordance with the invitation instructions. Facility and transportation time constraints did not allow equal opportunity for those firms that did not request a one-on-one session.

c. Slide 3: Capt. Corrigan notified attendees the Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on Friday, 1 Aug 14. He indicated that no significant changes were made from the draft RFP that industry had previously provided questions and comments on. The Government posted responses to the draft RFP questions on 31 Jul 14. The Government’s responses explain all changes made to the RFP as a result of industry questions. Capt Corrigan also provided instructions for submitting questions throughout the briefing, site visit, and after the conference.

d. Slide 4: Capt. Corrigan emphasized the importance and Government focus to maintain procurement integrity.

e. Slide 21: Mr. Kochart presented the PWS requirements, to include Helicopter Maintenance, Electronic Tool (E-Tool) Support, Air Crew Services, Quality Control and Contract Oversight, and lastly the Services Summary.

f. Slide 23: Mr. Kochart stated the amount of E-Tools could potentially increase to approximately 300 to include 2 (two) master E-Tools. He continued with explaining that E-Tools are commercial off the shelf and the only unique attribute is the software for the digital technical orders.

g. Slide 24: Mr. Kochart mentioned the RFP requires aircrew services for 6 (six) UH-1N, 12 (twelve) HH-60G, and 7 (seven) CV-22. He noted that CV-22 Functional Check Flight services (FCF) will be fully contracted.

h. Slide 25: Mr. Kochart indicated the requirement for a quality control plan as a contract deliverable after award. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) personnel assigned to the 58 SOW will oversee the service provider (SP); however, he emphasized that SPs would be directly responsible for their own quality control.

i. Slides 26-27: Mr. Kochart discussed performance thresholds for aircraft availability, maintenance non-deliveries, foreign object damage, and E-Tool availability. These can be found in the PWS paragraph 3.2.

j. Slide 28: Mr. Kochart highlighted the 30 day mobilization period, anticipated to occur 1 Mar 15 - 31 Mar 15 with full performance beginning 1 Apr 15. He emphasized the awardee is required to be ready for full performance at the end of the mobilization period.

k. Slide 31: Capt Corrigan began the RFP portion of the brief with the estimated timeline for contract award leading up to contract performance. He caveated the timeline as estimates that the Government is striving to achieve.

l. Slide 32: Capt Corrigan briefed the acquisition approach of Performance/Price Trade-off (PPT) with a 5% limited trade-off capability. He explained the Government’s willingness to trade-up for a higher past performance rating is limited based on the current fiscal environment.

m. Slides 33: Capt Corrigan described basis of award in detail. He explained the difference between the lowest overall priced offeror and the lowest priced offeror that is “technically acceptable”, and emphasized with this approach it is possible that some proposals may not be evaluated.

n. Slides 39: Capt Corrigan detailed past performance recency and relevancy criteria. He pointed out the differences between the relevancy definitions relative to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the Kirtland Helicopter MX requirement (essentially the same, similar, some, and little or none).

o. Slide 40: Capt Corrigan stated offerors will be assigned a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. He noted the RFP indicates the Government will not award to an offeror with a “Limited” or “No Confidence” rating.

p. Slide 41: Capt Corrigan emphasized the importance of offerors detailing the steps taken to identify sources and opportunities for small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions. He continued, should such sources and/or opportunities not exist, the proposal should adequately justify that conclusion.

q. Slide 42: Capt Corrigan indicated that Large Business offerors are required to submit a subcontracting plan. The subcontracting plan will be evaluated as part of an offeror’s responsibility determination and must be found acceptable prior to award. Capt Corrigan also noted the inclusion of a performance incentive plan. He stated the plan and its calculator were provided with the draft RFP and is currently listed as RFP Attachments 10 and 11, respectively.

r. Slide 44: Following the briefing, a question and answer session was held where the following question was addressed:

Question: Have there been any problems encountered with the acquisition?

Answer: Capt. Corrigan explained there had been some issues that led to delays. He stated that many contracting and program management personnel are working multiple source selections, leading to work prioritization based on need date. Additionally, there are legal concerns regarding the CV-22 FCF contracted services. It is for this reason the Government lists CV-22 support as “options” for all periods of performance. The Government anticipates exercising CV-22 “option” CLINs at contract award; however, this approach allows the Government to continue forward progress while maintaining flexibility to adjust to any determination. Finally, listing CV-22 CLINs as “options” serves to identify to industry this contracted function may change or be eliminated and industry should consider pricing as severable; however, pricing CV-22 as severable is a business decision that offerors make.

s. Slide 49: Capt Corrigan closed the briefing by emphasizing the importance of clear, accurate, and complete proposals. He reiterated the Government’s intent to award without discussions and the possibility that some proposals may not be evaluated. He finished by stating that offerors should start with their best and bring their “A-game.”

5. Additional questions were presented and answered during the site visit and one-on-one sessions. The Government will provide those questions and official responses on a separate notice posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website, www.fbo.gov. All parties are reminded that the RFP (as amended) takes precedence.

6. The pre-proposal conference/site visit concluded at 1325 hours (MDT).

Erik Villarreal Contract Specialist/Recorder

338 SCONS/PKC

Date:

MICHAEL E. CORRIGAN, CAPT, USAF

Contracting Officer

338 SCONS/PKC

Date:

List of Attachments

1. Industry Day Briefing Slides image1.png