TH-57 Pre-Solicitation Conf_20 Mar 2012.pptx

TH-57

Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) N00019-10-R-0097

Naval Undergraduate Flight Training Systems Pre-Solicitation Conference and Site Visit

20 March 2012 Whiting Field, FL

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Opening Remarks CDR Dave Padula TH-57 Program Manager

Agenda and Ground Rules

Noelle Reimers Procuring Contracting Officer

(PCO)

Agenda

0800-0830 Sign In

Agenda (continued)

1030-1045 Break

1050-1215 Site Visit

1215-1315 Lunch Break

1315 to One-on-One Meetings Closing

Welcome & Ground Rules All attendees must sign-in

Please silence cell phones and pagers

No recording

This is an Informational Briefing only

Submit questions in writing on question submittal forms provided at the sign-in table.

Disclaimer The remarks today of Government officials involved in the TH-57 Contractor Logistics Support procurement should not be considered a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the program.

The information shared today reflects current Government intentions and is subject to change based on a variety of circumstances, including internal and external comments.

The formal solicitation, when issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements.

Procurement Strategy Overview

NAVAIR Solicitation Website Federal Business Opportunities:

https://www.fbo.gov

ALL solicitation-related information will be posted to the FedBizOpps website. This includes, but is not limited to:

Synopsis and Sources Sought Draft RFP, Including All Contract Sections (A Through M), Exhibits, and Attachments Industry Day Brief Listing of Industry Day Attendees Industry Questions and Answers Final RFP RFP Amendments

For clarity, the first line of text will reflect the REVISION NUMBER of the posting.

Questions and Answers Industry comments/questions are solicited to assist with the preparation of an RFP which allows for maximum competition.

Industry comments/questions should include:

A clear statement of what is recommended or proposed The NAVAIR document reference that the comment addresses Justification for the recommendation

Any recommended changes to the RFP cannot be submitted as proprietary information. The Government retains the right to incorporate submitted information into this acquisition.

Questions and Answers Today, questions should be submitted to the PCO in writing on the forms provided. Questions may be submitted during any break or at One-on-One meetings.

After today, questions should be submitted to the PCO, NLT 10:00 EDT, 26 March 2012, via Christa McCarthy at the following email address: christa.mccarthy@navy.mil

All questions and answers will be posted on the FedBizOpps website (www.fbo.gov).

Be sure to include the information requested on the previous slide when sending in questions – a clear statement of what is recommended or proposed , relevant documents, justification for the recommendation.

Re-compete for TH-57 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services and maintenance The period of performance covers a one-year base period and four one-year options. The base period consists of a one-month transition period and eleven months of full-performance.

Competitive award to “best value”, “D” type contract Hybrid: Indefinite Delivery Requirements contract with Firm Fixed-Price, Labor Hour, and Cost Reimbursable line items FFP: 43.5% (Fixed Maintenance and Flight Hour maintenance) LH: 9.3% (Conditional Maintenance) Cost Reimbursable: 47.2% (Material/Subcontractor) Full and Open Competition

Acquisition Strategy Current contract: N00019-05-D-0023

Acquisition Strategy (cont.)

Ability to select aircraft quantities for base and each option period Fixed maintenance for selected quantities (Variable pricing)

Incentive and disincentive Performance Measurement Framework (Performance, Sustainment, Quality, and Safety) (H-1; CLIN XX16) Approximately $750,000 incentive and disincentive amount available per performance period

Adjustment for Payment of Aircraft not Received (H-2; CLIN 0X01)

Section B – Supplies or Services Fixed-Price Line Items:

XX02 Satellite Support for NAS Patuxent River

XX03 Additional One Aircraft for One Day

XX04 Scheduled Depot - Aircraft Condition Inspection (ACI)

Section B – Supplies or Services (cont.)

Fixed-Price Line Items (continued):

XX06 Flight Hour Generated Maintenance

XX16 Performance Measurement Framework Incentive

0019 Transition Phase-In

Section B – Supplies or Services (cont.)

Labor Hour Line Items:

XX09 Off-Site Emergency Repair Services (Contractor)

XX10 Engineering and Technical Services

XX11 Modifications – Development

XX17 Modifications – Production

Section B – Supplies or Services (cont.)

Cost Reimbursable Line Items:

XX13 Off-Site Emergency Repair Services (Subcontractor)

XX14 Travel and Per Diem

Other Solicitation Clauses G-3 Invoicing Instructions for Cost Reimbursable Items Applicable to CLINs XX12 Material and Subcontractor Labor, XX13 Off-Site Emergency Repair Services (Subcontractor), and XX14 Travel and Per Diem Markup/burden rates lines capped at proposed percentages H-2 Adjustment for Payment of Aircraft not Received Applicable to CLINs XX01 Fixed Maintenance for NAS Whiting Field H-3 Flight Hour Generated Maintenance Ordering Applicable to CLINs XX06 Flight Hour Generated Maintenance If actual FHs flown during an order’s PoP deviates from the number of FHs set forth in the order, a deductive change to the number of FHs ordered will be applied IAW FAR 52.243-1, Changes Fixed-Price

Other Solicitation Clauses cont.

FAR 52.244-2, Consent to Subcontract Prior approval required for material purchases over $5,000 DFARS/NAVAIR O&A Clause Current contract has a CNATRA unique clause Government may include portions of successful proposal in contract e.g. Quality Control Plan, proposed special clauses Streamlining requested Model Contract Documents required

Program Overview

CDR Padula TH-57 Program Manager

TH-57 Contract Requirement Purpose The TH-57 is the Navy’s basic helicopter for undergraduate pilot training. A commercial contractor provides services and materials for O and D levels of maintenance. The contractor also provides services such as: maintenance management, material management and engineering support. The Contractor repair facilities are certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 145. Replacement parts and life-limited components are procured via FAA certified sources.

The purpose of this acquisition is to provide all maintenance and logistics support and materials required to support and maintain the TH-57 fleet.

Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) uses the TH-57 to train all future Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard rotary wing aviators TH-57B/C aircraft are commercial derivative Bell 206 helicopters purchased by the Navy in the mid 1980’s as the advanced helicopter training platform CNATRA has 44 TH-57B used to train basic helicopter flying and 75 TH-57C used for advanced instrument training Training Air Wing FIVE and all squadrons are based out of NAS Whiting Field, Milton, FL Over 600 Student Naval Aviators train in the TH-57 every year

TH-57 Background

Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Services CLS contract provides all maintenance and logistics support required to maintain TH-57 airframe and engines

Contractor required to use FAA certified repair facilities

Contractor responsible for engineering support services and supply chain management

Current incumbent L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC

Contract Improvements Incorporated a Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) to incentivize or decrement the Contractor based on performance Potential incentive/decrement of up to $750K per quarter

Increased number of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) components associated with Aircraft Conditional Inspection (ACI) Based upon historical data

Standardized Performance Work Statement across PMA Format & language

Performance Measurement Framework Incentive (PMFI)

Executive Metrics

Measures

If the Contractor exceeds Contract Minimums for all three areas of the PMF during a performance period, the Contractor is eligible to earn a monetary incentive beyond the Contractor’s proposed costs, up to $750,000 per quarter, under the Performance Measurement Framework Incentive CLIN.

Maximum annual incentive payment is maximum of $3 million.

PMFI = [(0.30)PM + (0.30)QM + (0.20)SM + (0.20)UM] x $750,000

PMFI

PM

Performance (20%)

Aircraft Not Available Ratio (ANAR)

Training Mission Completion Rate (TMCR)

QM

Quality (30%)

Cure Notice Corrective Action Requests (CARCURE)

SM

Safety (30%)

Maintenance Related Mishaps (MHMR)

Maintenance Related Hazard Reports (HRMR)

Aircraft Released “Not” Safe For Flight (SFFR)

Uncorrected Corrective Action Requests (CARREP)

UM

Sustainment (20%)

Standard Deviation of total airframe flight hours (STDV)

Critical/Major Corrective Action Requests (CARCRIT)(CARMAJ)

Contract Minimum Thresholds Performance Metric (PM) Aircraft Not Available Ratio (ANAR) less than 1.0 Training Mission Completion Rate (TMCR) equal to or greater than 0.98 (Maintenance Related)

Quality Metric (QM) Cure Notice Corrective Action Requests (CARCURE) equal to 0 Critical Corrective Action Requests (CARCRIT) equal to 0 Repeated or Uncorrected Corrective Action Requests (CARREP) equal to 0 Major Corrective Action Requests (CARMAJ) less than 5

Safety Metric (SM) Maintenance related Mishaps (MHMR) equal to 0 Not “Safe For Flight” Released (SFFR) aircraft equal to 0 Government initiated Maintenance Related Hazard Reports (HRMR) less than 2

Sustainment Metric (UM) Through airframe management, improve the standard deviation of total airframe flight hours (B/C) as compared to previous reporting period

PMF Incentive/Decrement Calculation

CLIN Requirements 19 Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) for flight line operations, organizational maintenance, depot maintenance, and supply chain support

CLINS are made up of Firm Fixed-Price Cost Reimbursable Labor Hour

See Section C-2 of the RFP for applicable PWS references

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX01 – Fixed Maintenance for NAS Whiting Field

FFP CLIN with 5 SLINs of which only one will be exercised per Period of Performance 78 a/c 83 a/c 88 a/c 93 a/c 96 a/c

Covers all contractor management and organizational maintenance costs that occur independent to flight hours flown

CLIN Requirements

CLIN XX02 - SATELLITE SITE SUPPORT FOR NAS PATUXENT RIVER, MD.

FFP CLIN

Covers administrative functions associated with the material support of two TH-57 a/c located at NAS Patuxent River

CLIN Requirements

CLIN XX03 - ADDITIONAL AIRCRAFT PER DAY

Allows the Government to purchase one additional aircraft for one day

CLIN Requirements

CLIN XX04 – Scheduled Depot – Aircraft Conditional Inspection (ACI)

Covers the ACI for one aircraft and the first 250 hours of corrective maintenance resulting from the ACI.

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX05 – Unscheduled Depot

FFP CLIN with 15 SLINS

To firm fix price common, unscheduled repairs

Examples include, but not limited to:

Engine Overhaul Cabin Roof Replacement Lower Forward/Aft Shell Replacement Combination of airframe replacements

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX06 – Flight Hour Generated Maintenance

FFP CLIN per Flight Hour

Covers all organizational maintenance and management expenses associated with flying the aircraft.

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX07 – On-Site Conditional Maintenance

LH CLIN with 2 SLINs

For all non-routine conditional maintenance for the airframe and engine that the contractor chooses to perform at NAS Whiting Field or depot facility, respectively

Examples of non-routine conditional maintenance include, but not limited to:

Repairs due to crash damage Repairs due to over-limit conditions Repairs due to sudden stoppage Repairs due to fire or uncontrollable acts of nature

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX08 – Depot Conditional Maintenance

LH CLIN with 2 SLINs For all non-routine conditional maintenance for the airframe and engine that the contractor chooses to perform at NAS Whiting Field or depot facility, respectively Examples of non-routine conditional maintenance include, but not limited to:

Repairs due to crash damage Repairs due to over-limit conditions Repairs due to sudden stoppage Repairs due to fire or uncontrollable acts of nature

The Government has estimated 65,000 Labor Hours on CLIN XX08 to allow the prime contractor to perform its own Depot Conditional Maintenance if it chooses. If so chosen, the estimated quantity of CLIN XX12 will be decremented by the extended cost (number of Labor Hours * unit price) outsourced to the Subcontractor.

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX09 – Off-Site Emergency Repair Services

LH CLIN

To support the Contractor in recovery of downed aircraft and perform associated off-site maintenance

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX10 – Engineering and Technical Services

LH CLIN

To support the IPT with engineering investigations, specification/modification development, and technical studies

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX11 – Modifications – Development

LH CLIN

Limited to 2,000 hours for total fleet modification effort

To assist the IPT in developing minor modifications to the fleet

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX12 – Material and Sub-Contractor Labor

COST REIMBURSABLE CLIN

Covers purchasing of material and repair of GFE for the aircraft and associated subcontractor labor The Government has estimated 65,000 Labor Hours on CLIN XX08 to allow the prime contractor to perform its own Depot Conditional Maintenance if it chooses. If so chosen, the estimated quantity of CLIN XX12 will be decremented by the extended cost (number of Labor Hours * unit price) outsourced to the Subcontractor.

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX13 – Off-Site Emergency Repair (Sub-Contractor)

COST REIMBURSABLE CLIN

To support third party vendor recovery of downed aircraft and associated off-site maintenance

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX14– Travel and Per Diem

COST REIMBURSABLE CLIN

To cover Contractor travel costs for work associated with the contract

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX15 – Technical Data

NSP

Covers all technical data required by the Government IAW Exhibit A

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX16 – Performance Measurement Framework Incentive

FFP CLIN with 4 SLINs

Rewards/decrements the Contractor, as specified in Section H, for exceeding/not meeting Government’s requirements

Options executed quarterly

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX17 – Modifications – Production

LH CLIN

Limited to 2,000 hours for total fleet modification effort

To support minor modifications to the aircraft

CLIN Requirements CLIN XX18 – Weekend/Holiday Flight Operations Per Day

FFP CLIN with 2 SLINS 50 a/c 93 a/c

Allows the Government to fly a flight schedule, with associated quantity of aircraft, on a day not usually designated as a work day (e.g. weekend day, federal holiday)

The Government may exercise these SLINs to fly on a weekend day or Federal holiday. The number of aircraft, 50 and 93, identify the quantity of aircraft that can be flown for that day.

CLIN Requirements CLIN 0019 – Transition Phase-In

Covers contractor management and organizational expenses associated with the 30 day transition period

Source Selection Overview

Tom Popp Source Selection Office

Source Selection Objectives Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered.

Obtain through use of a comprehensive evaluation process, providing fair and consistent evaluation of proposals.

Generic Source Selection Process

Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach Acquisition Strategy/Plan

SSP

Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry

SOO

P-Spec Draft RFPs One-on-ones Industry Days Tech. Library

Receive Proposals Compare Proposals Discussions w/ Offerors (ENs) Complete Discussions

Evaluate Proposals Competitive Range (or SSA Selects Source) M&M Appr

Exp Past Perf Price Evaluate FPRs Request Final Proposal Revision (FPRs)

Debrief Contract

SSAC

SSA

SSAC

SSA

SSAC

SSA

SSA

SSAC

SSAC/L&M

The Source Selection Process

Formal

RFP

Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review Select Source

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC Advisors SSEB Advisors

SSEB

PAST

PERFORMANCE

SSAC Members

ASSISTANT CHAIR

PRICE

MANAGEMENT &

MAINTENANCE

EXPERIENCE

PCO

Source Selection Organization

Sections L and M Understanding and following Sections L&M are the keys to developing a good proposal; a mutually beneficial goal for award

Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP:

Tells Offerors what to put in the proposal

Evaluation Criteria – Section M of the RFP:

Identifies what will be evaluated

Highlights of the Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- General - The Government expects to select one Offeror for the award on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered.

The proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost/price.

Intend on awarding without discussions … Award based on initial proposals can happen if the Government receives offers that conform with the solicitation and provide the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered.

Don't assume you can improve your position during discussions, there may not be discussions.

However, …

* Draft RFP Page 229

...the Government Reserves the Right to Conduct Discussions

Still, don't assume you can improve your position because you may not be included in the Competitive Range Those included in the Competitive Range will enter into Discussions Evaluation Notices (ENs) As a minimum, notification of deficiencies, uncertainties and significant weaknesses Ask for additional information

Proposal change pages where needed Helps to easily identify changes Minimizes work for the Final Proposal Revision (FPR)

* Draft RFP Page 229

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

(Confidence Assessment Rating)

MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE APPROACH

(M&M Appr Rating and M&M Appr Risk Rating)

Key:

> (more important) = (equal);

Price ($$$) Draft Evaluation Criteria

PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Performance Confidence Assessment Rating)

Proposal Content & Volumes *Draft RFP Pages 188-189 ** (Attachments PP-01 and PP-02 of this RFP do not count toward the suggested page count of Volume 3, Past Performance.)

*** Completed EXP-01 spreadsheet does not count toward the suggested page count

Proposal Content & Volumes Management & Maintenance Annexes should be used to provide supporting data. Supporting data should be only referenced in Management & Maintenance Volume(s).

Annexes do not have page limitations and do not count toward suggested page counts All changes to terms and conditions, exceptions or deviations must be addressed in Volume 6 with streamlining recommendations in Volumes 7A and 7B.

* Draft RFP Pages 188

Volume 1 – Executive Summary**

i. Offeror Summary Table; also include:

Offeror Representation and Information Government Agency Information (DCMA, DCAA, Gov’t Paying Office System Compliances

ii. Management and Maintenance Approach Summary

iii. Past Performance Summary

iv. Corporate Experience Summary

v. Terms and Conditions, Exceptions or Deviations

vi. Streamlining Suggestions

** No Price Information

* Draft RFP Pages 192-193

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Specific, Management & Maintenance - The Government will assess the Offeror’s Management and Maintenance Approach Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors approach.

Assessed:

Management Control Approach Performance Measurement Framework Metrics* Obsolescence Management Subcontractor Management Transition Plan Management Information System* On-Site Maintenance Off-Site Maintenance Quality Assurance/Safety Aircraft Modification* Engineering Support Small Business Subcontracting Plan Manning Management and Support Approach

* Planned Deletion from Draft

Management & Maintenance Factor; Volume 2.0

Management & Maintenance Evaluation Flow

Section L Paragraphs:

*Draft RFP Pages 195-198 ** Planned Deletion from Draft

Management & Maintenance Factor; Volume 2.0

Management & Maintenance Evaluation Flow

Section L Paragraphs:

*Draft RFP Pages 199-204

Management & Maintenance

- Cross Reference Matrix Provided in Section L as guidance to Offerors

Road map to RFP and proposal

Shows relationship between the proposal instructions paragraphs and RFP requirements

Use as is or revise as needed to better relate your understanding of the program and guide the Government through your proposal

Provide in Management and Maintenance Volume and Corporate Experience Volume

* Draft RFP Pages 190

Draft Section L Cross Reference Matrix

Draft Section L Cross Reference Matrix (cont.)

Draft Section L Cross Reference Matrix (cont.)

Section L Management & Maintenance Volume- General Guidance - Throughout the Management & Maintenance Volume identify any capability, approach or feature that is being proposed as Exceeding a requirement (or provides enhancement) with respect to performance or operational benefits Reducing risk inherent in the program

Explain the benefits to the Government in technical terms and the degree of impact it will have to performance, operations and/or risk Appreciably exceeding requirements that are expressed as a minimum or threshold requirement can potentially produce performance or operational benefits Beyond the point where there is performance or operational benefit, there may be risk reduction benefits

* Draft RFP Page 195

Section L Management & Maintenance Volume (cont.)- General Guidance A proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the program can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government

Offerors are advised that any offer to exceed a requirement or to provide a feature with performance and/or operational benefits may be included in the resulting Contract within the proposed price.

* Draft RFP Page 195

M&M App Rating (Compliance) Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable M&M App Risk Rating High Moderate Low Management & Maintenance Evaluation Grading - Qualitative

- RISK -

Assessment of likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance Assessment Of Management & Maintenance Proposals

- COMPLIANCE -

Assessment of the Offeror’s solution for meeting requirements Potential Strengths, Uncertainties, Potential Risk Reducers, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

Strengths and Uncertainties Risk Reducers and Significant Weaknesses Deficiencies

- Review for accuracy and “common threads”

- Assess type of and degree of benefit/impact Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range

We provide two rating, a compliance rating and a risk assessment for each criterion/element.

The compliance rating is a determination if the reqmts within the area of the evaluation will be met.

The risk assessment is the likelihood that the reqmts will be met within the period of contract performance.

Management & Maintenance Strength Strength Definition: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Affects Management & Maintenance Rating (Compliance) Provides appreciable performance or operational benefits to the Government Each strength may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the rating differently Used to determine adequacy of approach and understanding of requirement Strengths without a deficiency or uncertainty indicates a thorough (Good Rating) or exceptional understanding and approach (Outstanding Rating) Section M: “The degree of benefit to the Government associated with a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional.”

No strengths, deficiencies or uncertainties indicate an adequate approach and understanding (Acceptable Rating)

* Draft RFP Page 230

Management & Maintenance Strength (cont.)

Strength Examples Exceeds minimum requirement with appreciable benefit to the Government Approach contains a feature that enhances operational or other program/product capability with appreciable benefits to the Government (Aspect of a proposal that has merit.)

Management & Maintenance Uncertainty Uncertainty Definition: An aspect of the proposal that affects the Government’s ability to determine if a requirement will be met.

Affects Management & Maintenance Rating (Compliance) Proposal is not adequate to allow a determination as to whether or not a requirement can be met and as such also does not demonstrate an adequate approach Results in no higher than a Marginal Rating

Uncertainties Examples Critical information is missing to enable the Government to determine if the requirement will or can be met Inconsistencies in the proposal brings into question what is being proposed

Management & Maintenance Deficiency Deficiency Definition: “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Affects the Management & Maintenance Rating (compliance) or both the Management & Maintenance Rating and the Management & Maintenance Risk Rating Results in an Unacceptable Rating and makes the proposal unawardable Section M: “An "Unacceptable" Rating or a "High" Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition”

* Draft RFP Pages 230

Management & Maintenance Deficiency (cont.)

Deficiency Examples Proposal states exception or deviation Approach is assessed to be unable to meet a requirement Gross lack of information resulting in the failure to clearly and positively address major part of the Management & Maintenance factor Combination of weaknesses that raise the risk of performance to an unacceptable level Requirements can only be accomplished by impacting Government operations, capability or resources beyond what is allowed/normal for this effort or system The approach relies on Government resources or operations not identified as available in order to comply with the requirement

Management & Maintenance

- Rating Definitions -

Management & Maintenance Ratings: The rating assignments reflect the Government's assessment of the offeror’s Management & Maintenance solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

* Draft RFP Page 232

Management & Maintenance Risk Reducer Risk Reducer Definition: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Affects Management & Maintenance Risk Rating Provides appreciable risk reducing benefits to the Government that may mitigates weaknesses or further reduces the risk to performance Each risk reducer may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the risk rating differently Used to assess the risk associated with the proposed approach

Risk Reducer Examples Reduces proposal risk by providing more than sufficient resources in order to respond to unknown conditions/situations Reduces proposal risk by providing resources/capabilities that are in-place and ready to be used Reduces proposal risk by providing plans that reduce/mitigates risks inherent in the proposed approach and program Reduces proposal risk by providing performance margin

Management & Maintenance Significant Weakness Significant Weakness Definition: A “Significant Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Affects Management & Maintenance Risk Rating Provides appreciable increases in risk to the Government Used to assess the risk associated with the proposed approach Each significant weakness may provide different degrees of impact, thereby affecting the risk rating differently based on the likelihood of occurrence and the consequences An “Unacceptable” Rating or a “High” Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Significant Weakness Examples Marginal resources or capability to accomplish the effort Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the Offeror’s full control Approaches that rely heavily on a single action or resource (aka single point failure) Untested/unproven approaches Lacks substantiation or full description of the approach Lacks information to assess risk

* Draft RFP Pages 230

Management & Maintenance

- Proposal Risk Definitions - Management & Maintenance Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

* Draft RFP Page 233

Experience vs. Past Performance Experience – What you have done “I’ve repaired 100 leaky boats in the past month.”

Past Performance – How well you have done “Ninety leaked!”

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable) its principal and critical subcontractors and Joint Venture/Single Legal Entity (JV/SLE) team members’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements in each of the following areas:

Meeting technical requirements Meeting schedule requirements Controlling contract cost, and Managing the contracted effort on similar programs Meeting Small Business participation and subcontracting goals

Demonstrated systemic improvement Consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Specific, Past Performance -

Look Back

Look Forward

Past Performance -Evaluation Concept- How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS, Questionnaires Determine Relevancy / Recency Assess each contract referenced Assess each relevant contract found through an independent Government search Roll up each relevant reference assessed into an overall Offeror assessment Based on Offeror’s assessment (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program?

Final product is a determination of the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for the TH-57 Contract

Past Performance Proposal Identify contracts containing efforts similar to the TH-57 effort For Prime, Principal Subcontractors, Critical Subcontractors and JV/SLE team members All contracts submitted for Experience should also be submitted for Past Performance or an explanation of why not Performance within 5 years of proposal due date Relate to same plant, division or cost center where you propose to accomplish work Provide agreements between you and your subs/team members to allow us to coordinate past performance issues Provide past performance information, at least 3 weeks prior to proposal due date Contract data, Attachment L-3 PP02 Summary of Relevant Past Performance Contract Data (see Section L, Part B, Para 3.2) on a CD-ROM, and one original and three paper copies Offeror Summary Table providing prime and subcontractor/team member roles and responsibilities (see Section L, Part B, Para 1.0i) on a CD-ROM, and one original and three paper copies

* Draft RFP starts on page 205

Relevant efforts are those which have a similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to the RFP requirements and occurred within the applicable time span The question to ask is, “Will the Contractor’s performance associated with this reference have a bearing on the future performance of the proposed contract?”

Contracts that are Not Relevant are not utilized in the assessment

Confidence Assessment is influenced by the likelihood of future reoccurrence and associated consequences

Provide a comparative analysis between past reference and the RFP coupled with the proposed approach; focus on key or critical tasks Similarity, complexity, scope, dollar value, contract type, Place of Performance (CAGE Code/DUNS), proposed roles (prime, subcontractor, assigned work) Recency (within the past 5 years from proposal submittal); more recent is more relevant Relevancy in the Past Performance Assessment

PPI Sources:

Offerors’ Proposals

PPIRS

Questionnaires Phone Interviews

DACO/DCMA

Other Past Performance Information

Past Performance Information

Past Performance Questionnaires

Past Performance Questionnaires (Section L Past Performance Attachment (L-2)) Send to contacts within 2 weeks from receipt of the RFP where CPAR data is not available Remove RFP number from Questionnaires prior to sending out

Request responses back to TH-57 POC within two weeks of receipt

Identify in Attachment L-3 when and where the questionnaires were sent

DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on Questionnaires; The Government will perform all follow-up actions Ensure that all points of contacts (POC’s) are current *Draft RFP Page 205

Section L Past Performance Volume Relevant Contract Data (Attachment L-3)

(Include Cage and DUNs)

Proposed for TH-57 Past relevant contracts for the proposed Prime (e.g. P1) and proposed Subcontractor (e.g. S1)

Place of Performance Contract of the prime Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference

(See Note 1 below)

Section L Past Performance Volume Relevant Contract Data (Con’t) Role on contract referenced past contract Ensure all contact info is current!!

Short summary of what is presented in paragraph 3.3.1 and identify as VR or SR

Contract Relevancy Provide a concise assessment of the degree of relevancy for referenced contract and identify it as Very Relevant (VR) or Somewhat Relevant (SR) Very Relevant (VR) – Present/past efforts involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant (SR) - Present/past efforts involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The contract relevancy assessment should be relative to the prime’s, principal/critical subcontractor’s, or JV/SLE team member’s proposed role/responsibility versus relative to the whole solicitation.

Contracts assessed by the Government to involve little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/ or complexities that this solicitation requires, will be assessed as Not Relevant.

Provide information that demonstrates the level of performance obtained Where available, provide quantifiable measures/trends to demonstrate past performance

Demonstrated Systemic Improvement - Information as it relates to preventing recurrence of past problems Identification of the root cause of problem Corrective action plan that systemically addresses the past problem How and when the plan was implemented Documented timeframe to demonstrated corrective action was implemented and successful Performance data, preferably through Government records, to show performance improvements demonstrated systemic improvement Bottom-line: Demonstrate that the problem will not reoccur or the extent that the likelihood of reoccurrence is reduced

Award Fee If you are aware that this data may contradict either a CPAR or questionnaire, please provide an explanation in this section Small Business Concerns Provide copies of three final or most recent individual subcontracting reports from the electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) (formerly the SF 294s) for the three most relevant contracts Provide current contact information (e.g. POC’s) Past Performance (cont.)

* Draft RFP Page 209

Paragraph 3.2 – Summary of Contract data in Attachment L-3 Separate Tab for each contract (e.g. ABC Company Past Contract XXX P1)

Paragraph 3.3 – Detailed Information provided for each contract, organized by contract ABC Company Past Contract XXX P1 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 ABC Company Contract XXX Pn

3.3.1 ….

RX Sub Company Past Contract XXX S1

3.3.1 ….

ST Sub Company Past Contract XXX Sn

3.3.1 ….

Past Performance Proposal Format

* Draft RFP Page 205-209

Confidence Assessment Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

Evaluation Grading - Qualitative

Past Performance Analysis of Findings as related to Future Performance Trends Relevancy of finding /likelihood that findings are a predictor of similar performance Extent to which demonstrated systemic improvement reduces the likelihood of a negative finding from re-occurring Impact: Consequences/severity of poor performance and Benefits of good performance Significant Positive and Negative Findings Positive and Negative Findings Performance Confidence Assessment Assessment Of Relevant Past Performance

We provide two rating, a compliance rating and a risk assessment for each criterion/element.

The compliance rating is a determination if the reqmts within the area of the evaluation will be met.

The risk assessment is the likelihood that the reqmts will be met within the period of contract performance.

- Confidence Assessment Definitions -

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement.

* Draft RFP Page 233

Evaluate the Offeror’s, which includes its principal and critical subcontractors; and JV/SLE team members’ demonstrated relevant experience on the basis of its breadth, depth, recency, and similarity to the work required to meet the program objectives.

Areas to be evaluated will include:

1) Management, including Program Management and Subcontractor Management

2) Aircraft Maintenance and Flight Operations for TH-57 or similar type aircraft

3) Depot Level work

4) Organizational/Intermediate Level Aircraft Modifications*

5) Engineering Efforts

6) Government Property Management.

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Corporate Experience –

Corporate Experience Experience shall only relate to “corporate” experience that an entity has gained through contracted work (or documented work effort) Experience of personnel will not be considered for the Corporate Experience evaluation Show similar Corporate Experience for entities that Have a defined role and responsibility for the program From the same physical location as the proposing organizations (Cage Code and DUNS #) Relate only to the type of work which the Offeror is proposed to perform

Corporate Experience Table

* Draft RFP Page 211

Corporate Experience For the contract referenced, specify whether the entity (in Column A) worked as a Prime, Sub, or Team Member Specify the physical location of the proposed entity Corporate Experience should be relative to proposed roles and responsibilities (as specified in the Executive Summary Offeror Summary Table) In the description of roles and responsibilities column, for each P1 to Pn, S1 to Sn, and/or T1 to Tn provide a brief summary between Offerors Corporate Experience and the PWS for the Experience requested in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5.

Assessment Of Corporate Experience (Gap Analysis) Significant Positive and Negative Findings Corporate Experience Evaluation Grading

- Qualitative -

Positive and Negative Findings Experience Analysis of Findings as related to Future Performance Impact caused by experience gaps; criticality, percentage of time, mitigating approaches Confidence Assessment

Confidence Assessment Rating Substantial Satisfactory Limited No Confidence

Corporate Experience

- Confidence Definitions -

Corporate Experience Confidence Assessment Rating: Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s previous experience.

* Draft RFP Page 233

Each Price proposal shall be evaluated to determine if it is:

Complete, consistent and reasonable with respect to the Offeror’s approach Reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements Contains no material imbalances

The evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the options. The total evaluated price is the sum of the Base Period CLINs and all corresponding Option CLINs/SLINs.

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Price -

* Draft RFP Page 231

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance - Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks Demonstrate sufficient resources to meet the requirements Support your statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate that you have a valid and practical solution for all requirements

Substantiate, don't simply make claims Give us a reason to believe you; provide information to allow an independent assessment

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance - Structure your proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions Be consistent from Volume to Volume Provide clear and concise descriptions Drawings & diagrams complement narrative, but don't replace it Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs Is it clear?

Is it well organized?

Be attentive to all parts of the RFP Requirements, PBWSs Terms and Conditions Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions

A Cross Reference Matrix can be a good proposal development tool

Make appropriate trade-offs to provide the very best value that you can offer Pointing out strengths, risk reducers and associated benefits Addressing risks with mitigating approaches Showing proper balance between cost and Management & Maintenance benefits Proposal Preparation

- Guidance -

Typical Proposal…