E-6B_Pre-Prop_Conf_Brief_2014_8_14_-_Santized.pdf

AIR-4.10E

E-6B Pre-Solicitation Conference

19 August 2014

Distribution Statement A – Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited, as submitted under NAVAIR Public Release Authorization 2014-720.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Day’s Events

• Check In 0800 - 0830

• Pre-Solicitation Briefing 0830 - 1200

• Lunch 1200 - 1300

• Tour of Tinker E-6B facilities 1300 - 1500

• Submit Questions & Adjourn 1500 - 1545

RFP SECTIONS L&M

RFP SECTIONS A-K

Agenda

REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Adam Caudle

PCO

Purpose

• To ensure a common understanding of the

– Government’s Requirements

– Proposal Instructions

• Collect questions regarding RFP N00019-14-R-

GROUND RULES

• All attendees must sign-in

• Silence cell phones and other devices

• No recordings of any kind

• Questions submitted during brief

– Draft questions using the form provided

– Place form in drop-off location with designated

Government person

– All questions and answers will be posted at https://www.fbo.gov/

DISCLAIMER

• Nothing discussed here, unless it appears in the

RFP or an amendment to the RFP, will change the terms and conditions.

• All amendments to this solicitation will be posted at https://www.fbo.gov/

COMMUNICATIONS

• ALL industry communication for RFP N00019-

14-R-1007 will come through the PCO and/or

Contract Specialist.

• NAVAIR’s points of contact are:

– Adam Caudle, Contracting Officer

(301) 757-7062, adam.caudle@navy.mil

– Kerry Harding, Contract Specialist

(301) 342-4426, kerry.harding@navy.mil

RFP SECTIONS L&M

Agenda

RFP SECTIONS A-K

REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

Mr. Steve Bowman

E-6B DAPML

Overview

• Mission

• People

• Future

• Logistics Support

Program Objectives

• Approach: Performance Based Services

– Reduction in Total Program Support Cost

– Complies with existing Fleet & Engineering Support

– Conform to O-to-D (WRA) maintenance concept

– Support for Maintenance and Mission Systems Trainers

– Support for Systems Integration Lab (PAX)

• Looking for “Industry’s Best Practices” that will meet the objectives of the CLS contract requirements

Program Objectives (cont.)

• Contract Structure

– ILS (manpower)

• Will be FFP

– Repair of Repairables / Replenishment of Consumables

• Cost Reimbursable

• Requirements will be provided in RFP

– Performance Work Statement (PWS)

– Metrics

– Inventory

• Learning curve associated with startup

– Cost and Schedule

• Transition from existing supply management database

– Cost and schedule

• Multiple Baseline Configuration Support

– Cost and schedule

– Legacy hardware / software

– Modifications / software / Block / IPBE

Program Risk Areas

Performance Work Statement

1.0 Scope

1.4 System Support Performance Factors

2.0 CLS Administration and Management Requirements

2.1 Personnel

3.0 Supply Support Requirements

3.3 Procurement of Spares, Repair Parts and Other Services

3.4 Repair of Repairables

Boeing Repair Data License

4.0 Support Equipment Management

5.0 Packaging, Handling, Storage & Transportation

6.0 Contractor Data Collection And Reporting

Performance Work Statement

Annex 1 Management of Government Furnished Facilities And Property

Annex 2 Personnel Qualifications

Annex 3 Environmental Protection And Hazardous Material/Waste

Management

Annex 4 Automated Database Processing System And LAN/WAN Support

Annex 5 Contractor Meeting Requirements

Annex 6 Government Facilities

Summary

• CLS program provides total supply support services

– The CLS contract is the E-6B “NAVSUP”

• Implementing Performance Based Services

– Employing the tenants of PBL

RFP SECTIONS L&M

Agenda

RFP SECTIONS A-K

RFP Strategy/Structure

• Competition: Full and Open, award to “Best Value Offeror”

• Contract: Hybrid type contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursable (CR) line items

• 1 Month transition

• 12 month base and 4 one year options

• 1 six month extension of services

Section B – Supplies or Services

CLIN Description Contract

TYPE

0x01 CLS/ILS FFP

0x02 Data NSP

0x03 Boeing Repair Data License FFP

0x04 Operational RoR COST

0x05 Depot RoR COST

0x06 MILSTRIP Spare Part COST

0x07 Aircraft Parts Modification COST

0x08 Spare Parts COST

0x09 Additional Support Services COST

0x10 Shipping COST

0011 Transition Period FFP

Section C, Descriptions and Specifications

• Item 0009 and Option Items 0109, 0209, 0309, 0409 and

0509 – The contractor may be required to provide additional support services in accordance with paragraph 3.3.4 of the

PWS (RFP Attachment 1).

Section F – Deliveries or Performance

• 5252.247-9521 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE (NAVAIR)

(OCT 2005)

– The services to be performed herein shall be performed at Tinker

Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Travis AFB, California; and Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland.

Section G – Contract Administration Data

MATERIAL HANDLING MAXIMUM Table G-1

CLINs 0X04, 0X05, 0X06, 0X07, 0X08, 0X09 and 0X10: The allowable indirect cost rates for the Cost Reimbursement (No Fee) CLINs shall be capped at the below percentage(s) proposed and shall not be exceeded on submittal of invoices or vouchers.

Contractor shall enter rates proposed. See Section L, Part B, paragraph

5.2.3(c) NOTE: Maximum material handling shall not exceed 5%.

Section I – Contract Clauses

• 52.217-8 Option To Extend Services (Nov 1999)

– Extend services up to 6 months

• 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR

2000)

– (a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 days provided, that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 60 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

– (b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

– (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 5 years and 6 months.

15 Minute Break

RFP SECTIONS L&M

Agenda

Mr. Alan Goldberg

SSEB CHAIR

* Draft RFP Page

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

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC Advisors

SSEB Advisors

SSEB

PAST

PERFORMANCE

SSAC Members

ASSISTANT CHAIR

COST/PRICE TECHNICAL PCO

Source Selection Organization

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

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)

Corp Exp

Past Perf

Technical

Cost/

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

Select Source

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 Factors and Criteria – Section M of the RFP:

– Identifies what will be evaluated

– Identifies relative order of importance of factors

– Identifies emphasis areas

Proposals should use the same paragraph format as provided in Section L

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.

• Offerors are advised that proposals 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 price.

Section M

Evaluation Factors – General (cont.)

• The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible

Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered.

• Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a past performance, corporate experience, technical, and price standpoint.

• The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Section M

Evaluation Factors – General (cont.)

If the Government Conducts Discussions & Requests Proposal Revisions:

• Those Offerors included in the Competitive Range will enter into Discussions

– Written (Evaluation Notices (ENs)) and Oral Discussions

• 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)

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

(Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating)

TECHNICAL

(Technical

Compliance Rating and

Technical Risk Rating)

Key: > more important) = equal;

PRICE ($$$)

E-6B Evaluation Factors

PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating)

All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important, than Price.

Total Evaluated

Price = sum of all CLINs, where CR

CLINs = Gov estimate + proposed material handling (NTE

5%)

Proposal Content and Volumes

Volume I Executive Summary

Volume II Past Performance

Volume III Corporate Experience

Volume IV Technical

Volume V Cost/Price

Volume VI Contract Administration

Att L-1 Executive Summary Tables

Att L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire

Att L-3 PP Contract Data

Att L-5 Small Business Goals

Att L-6 Cost/Price Attachment

Executive Summary

• Provide an overview of the Offeror’s entire proposal, excluding

Cost/Price

– Salient points contained in each of the proposal volumes and highlight significant features of the proposal

• Provide Offeror Summary Table of prime, subcontractor (identify principal subcontractors) and JV team members Place of

Performance, CAGE, Work Description and % of total proposed cost/price

ES-1 Offeror Summary Table

Offeror: Wizard Logistics

Contractor Name Place of Performance CAGE

Codes

Work Description Relevant

Entity?

Y/N

% of

FFP

CLINs

Wizard Logistics Topeka, KS 123456 CLS Y 64%

Cupboard Packing Kansas City, MO 654321 Shipping Y 35%

Quick Repair Corp. Oklahoma City, OK 456881 RoR N 1%

Total Proposed FFP CLIN price (must add up to 100%) 100%

Sample Offeror Summary Table

• The term “entity” refers to: prime contractor, JV, JV team members, any subcontractor, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate

• The term “relevant entity” refers to: The prime and any other entity proposed to perform at least 30% of the proposed Firm Fixed Price CLINs

– Ensure that percentages identified are supported by the Cost/Price proposal

– Relevant entities other than the prime are also referred to as principal subcontractors and other principal entities

• Only relevant entities will be considered in the Corporate Experience and the

Past Performance evaluations

Sample Relevant Contract Summary Table

Include a short description of work performed as part of the Contract Title

Offeror:

Contractor Name Contract

Reference Contract Number

Contract

Type Contract Title

P1

P2

Pn

C1

C2

Cn

T1

T2

T3

T4

Tn

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

Sn

ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary Table

Subcontractor N

JV team member A (where applicable)

Subcontractor A

Subcontractor B

Prime or Joint Venture Company

Corporate Parent, Division, Subsidiary, or Affiliate (where applicable)

JV team member N (where applicable)

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

AND

PAST PERFORMANCE

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!”

Contract Relevancy

• Contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet any of the conditions below will be assessed as Not Relevant:

– Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

– Contracts from not relevant entities;

– Contracts from an entity that does not have any work that match with the entity’s role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

– Contracts from a different physical location (e.g., with different CAGE code) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

– Contracts that involve little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/or complexities required by this solicitation;

– Contracts, or those portions of the contract, whose performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date. (If only a portion of a contract is older than 5 years, then only that portion is not relevant for reasons of recency); or

– Any work that does not include performing supply chain management (such as inventory control, material forecasting, or warehousing).

• In Annex A, Offerors should provide two electronic copies of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statements (SOW/PWS) from each of the referenced contracts identified in Table ES-2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Look Back Look Forward

Past Perf Evaluation Concept

• How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

– Review Offerors Past

Record, e.g., CPARS

– Determine Relevancy / Recency

• Assess each Contact Referenced

• Roll up each reference assessment 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 the Past

Performance

Confidence

Assessment

Section M

Past Performance Evaluation

• Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned

• Government will evaluate demonstrated past performance in each of the following areas:

– Meeting Technical Requirements

– Meeting Schedule Requirements

– Controlling Contract Cost

– Managing the Contracted Effort

– Small Business Utilization

• Relevancy and recency of the contract and past performance information, source of information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered

Primary PPI Sources:

Offerors’ Proposals

PPIRS

Questionnaires

Phone Interviews

DACO/DCMA

Other

Past

Performance

Information

Past Performance Information

Section L

Past Performance Outline

• Section L Paragraphs

– 2.0 General

– 2.1 Authorization Letter(s)

• Between the Prime Offeror and its subs/team members to allow Government to coordinate past performance issues with the Prime

– 2.2 Relevant Contract Data

• Relate the same contracts identified in ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary

Table (Attachment (L-1)) and those submitted for Corporate Experience

• Submit Past Performance Contract Data, Table PP-1, Attachment L-3 (see Section L, Part B, Para 2.2)

– 2.3 Evaluation

• Relevancy

• Past Performance Informationelate to same cont

– Technical Performance

– Schedule Performance

– Cost Performance

– Management Performance

– Small Business Utilization

• Demonstrated Systemic Improvement

Section L Past Performance Volume

Past Performance Contract Data

Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data

Contractor Name

Offeror’s proposed Prime or Subcontractor

2 Contract Reference Past relevant contracts for the proposed Prime

(e.g. P1) and proposed Subcontractor (e.g. S1)

3 Title of Contract Contract of the prime

4 Contract Number

5 Contract Type

Relevant Delivery/Task Order Numbers (if applicable)

7 Subcontract Number/PO Number

Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference

Identify the Subcontract Number/PO Number for the prime contract and identify prime’s name

8 Procuring agency Related to the prime contract

9 Description of product or service

10 Period of performance

11 Cage Code: XXXXX

12 DUNs #: XX-XXX-XXXX

13 Dollar value of contract

Section L Past Performance Volume

Past Performance Contract Data (cont.)

Table PP-1Past Performance Contract Data

14 Acquisition Phase(s) of Contract

Brief Work Description and/or Program Responsibility for this past contract

Role on referenced past contract

16 Date of last CPARs

17 Date past performance questionnaires were sent

Points of Contact who can validate performance on the contract referenced in Cell 6 (item number 4) or specific delivery order or task order number referenced in Cell C8above listed contract (item number 6)

19 Gov’t PCO or Commercial Purchasing Agent: phone/email:

20 Gov’t ACO: phone/email:

21 Gov’t COR or Commercial Program Manager: phone/email:

22 Other phone/email:

Ensure all contact info is current!

Past Performance Proposal Format

• Paragraph 2.3 – Detailed Information provided for each contract, organized by contract

– ABC Company Past Contract XXX P1

• 2.3 a

• 2.3 b

• 2.3 c

– ABC Company Contract XXX Pn

• 2.3 a ….

– RX Sub Company Past Contract XXX S1

• 2.3 a ….

– ST Sub Company Past Contract XXX Sn

• 2.3 a ….

* Draft RFP Page

Past Performance Questionnaires

• Past Performance Questionnaires

– Attachment to Section L (Section L, Attachment L-2, PPQ)

– Send to contacts within 2 weeks from release date of the RFP where CPAR data is not available

– Remove RFP number from questionnaires prior to sending out

• Request responses back to POC identified within the RFP within two weeks of receipt

• Identify in Attachment L-3, Table PP-1, Past Performance Contract Data, 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

Relevancy in the

Past Performance Assessment

• The relevancy of the finding, as well as its associated consequence will be used to determine the Performance Confidence Level Rating

• Based on Relevant Contracts, the Performance Confidence

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

– The more relevant the finding, the more likely it will be a predictor of future performance

• Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity … and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance

– More recent is more relevant

– The more a task is performed in the future, the more likely the associated past performance of that task will impact future performance

– Not withstanding adverse past performance, the degree to which positive past performance is a predictor of future performance will determine whether the Performance Confidence Assessment rises to the level of Substantial

Relevancy in the

Past Performance Assessment (cont.)

• Provide a comparative analysis between past reference and the

RFP coupled with the proposed approach

– Similarity is the extent to which the Offeror’s referenced contracts/past performance relate to the specific tasks required by this solicitation as proposed

Complexity:

• Attributes of the work being performed such as type of effort, end product, frequency such as turn-around-time or delivery rate, number of sites, skills, processes, contract type, etc

Scope:

• SOW/SOO/

PWS Tasks and extent to which all are fully performed

Magnitude:

• Dollar Value

Similarity of past

Contract/past performance finding compared to future effort as proposed

Past Performance Assessment:

Similarity Comparative Analysis

Extent to which the past performance is a predictor of future performance

Past Performance Information

• 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

Confidence Assessment Rating

Substantial Confidence

Satisfactory Confidence

Limited Confidence

No Confidence

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

Past Performance

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

Positive and Negative Findings

Performance Areas and Confidence

Assessments

Assessment Of Relevant Past Performance

Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the

Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Corporate Experience Evaluation Concept

• Corporate Experience (CE) is considered one of the good indicators of future performance

– Like Past Performance, Performance Confidence is assessed, but unlike Past performance, there is not a neutral/unknown rating

– Levels of Confidence

• Substantial

• Satisfactory

• Limited

• None

• CE is a capability that an Offeror either has or does not have

• The only bad experience is no or very limited experience

– Lack of experience can negatively affect the Government’s confidence

• Experience shall only relate to “corporate” experience that an entity has gained through contracted work

• Experience of personnel will not be considered for the CE evaluation

• Demonstrated corporate experience will be evaluated on the extent to which it can be leveraged to successfully perform efforts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity as those under this solicitation

• The evaluation will include an assessment of demonstrated corporate experience related to performing supply chain management (such as inventory control, material forecasting, or warehousing) for the following elements:

– 1) Supply Support in a DoD environment PWS 2.1, 2.5, & 3.0

– 2) Experience with the 4790.2 NAMP PWS 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 & 4.3

– 3) Managing subcontractors on relevant contracts PWS 3.2.12

Section M Corporate Experience

• The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its relevant entities’ demonstrated relevant experience on the basis of its breadth, depth, and recency

– Breadth is the degree to which the Offeror has performed or managed all tasks of a solicitation

– Depth is the extent to which each activity/task of the effort was performed (e.g. frequency, amount of time, etc.)

– Recency: Within 5 years from the proposal due date, where more recent is more relevant

– Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity … and a measure of the likelihood that the corporate experience is an indicator of future performance

– Similarity is the extent to which the Offeror’s referenced contracts/corporate experience relate to the specific tasks required by this solicitation as proposed

Corporate Experience Evaluation

Complexity:

• Attributes of the work being performed such as type of effort, end product, frequency such as turn-around-time or delivery rate, number of sites, skills, processes, contract type, etc

Scope:

• SOW/SOO/

PWS Tasks and extent to which all are fully performed

Magnitude:

• Dollar Value

Similarity of past

Contract/corporate experience finding compared to future effort as proposed

Corporate Experience Assessment:

Similarity Comparative Analysis

Supports extent of breadth determination and may also provide insight into depth

Section L

Corporate Experience Outline

• Section L Paragraphs

– 3.0 General

– 3.1 Evaluation Area Summary Table

– 3.2 Evaluation Elements

– 3.2.1 Supply Support in a DoD environment

– 3.2.2 Experience with the 4790.2 NAMP

– 3.2.3 Managing subcontractors on relevant contracts

– 3.3 Corporate Experience Summary Table

– 3.4 Contract Comparative Analysis

Table CE-1

Evaluation Area Summary

Identify which contracts provided experience related to the element

Offeror:

Wizard Logistics

Entity Contract Number

3.2.1 Supply Support

in a DoD environment

3.2.2 Experience with the

4790.2 NAMP

3.2.3 Managing subcontractors on

relevant contracts

P1 (Prime, contract #1) Xyz X X X

P2 (Prime, contract #2) abc X X

S1 (Principal Sub, contract #1)

Def X X

S2 (Principal Sub, contract #2) tuv X X

X

Tn (Team member #n)

Ghi X

Table CE-2

Corporate Experience Summary

• This table provides for the collection of factual data

Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary

Offeror:

Contract

Reference

Contract

Number /

Name / Type

Place of

Performance

Cage Code associated with

Physical Location

Brief Description of Roles and Responsibilities Product /

Type of

Effort /

Task

Prime, Sub, or

JV Team

Member

Completion

Date

# of

Relevant

Years

Prime Contractor (or JV

Team Name)

Prime

P1

Pn

JV Team Member (XYZ

Corporation)

JV Team

Member

T1

Tn

Principal Subcontractor

(XYZ Corporation)

Principal Sub

S1

Table CE-3 Contract Comparative Analysis by Evaluation Area

• This table provides a summary of the detailed Comparative Analysis between previous corporate experience and that required to perform the future contract

– Relate breadth, depth, recency and similarity of corporate experience gained through each contract and the aggregate of contracts

Table CE-3 Contract Comparative Analysis by Evaluation Area

Offeror Offeror Name

Evaluation Element 3.2.1 Supply Support in a DoD environment

Contract

Reference

Contract

Number

Comparative Analysis Summary

P1

Pn

C1

Cn

T1

Tn

S1

Sn

NOTE: Also fill out tables

3.2.2 and 3.2.3

• Detailed comparative analysis between the proposed roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary Table) and the corporate experience requested in Section L, Part B, Paragraphs 3.2.1 through 3.2.3

• Submit/identify those relevant portions of the awarded contracts SOO/SOW/PWS documents, which relate to this solicitation’s PWS requirements in Annex A

• Provide a cross reference (see Table L-4, CE-3) between the corporate experience evaluation elements and paragraph numbers within the relevant portions of the final versions of the SOO/SOW/PWSs, identifying specific tasks

• Specifically, describe the breadth of experience gained from each contract and the aggregate of contracts

• For each element, provide descriptions and substantiating information that demonstrates their accomplishment during the performance of the identified contract

• Summarize the comparative analysis provided, using CE-3 tables 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3, Contract Comparative Analysis by Evaluation Area.

Section L - Corporate Experience/Contract Comparative Analysis

Gap Analysis

Task/Work 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

Contracts

P1 X X X

P2 X X X

Tn X X

S1 X X

S2 X X

• Limited breadth of experience for each contract

• Overall could be limited or full breadth of experience

• Depth is also analyzed and could result in a gap

Gap

• S1 Contract Indicates full breadth of experience and overall if that subcontractor performs 100% of the

3.2.1 effort

– Otherwise Overall could be limited breadth of experience

• Depth is also analyzed and could result in gap

Not performing the 3.2.3 effort

Overall experience gap or none of the breadth of experience

• Provided for illustration purposes

Confidence Assessment Rating

Substantial Confidence

Satisfactory Confidence

Limited Confidence

No Confidence

Corporate Experience

Evaluation Grading

Assess Impact of Gaps

Gap Analysis

Assessment Of Corporate Experience

Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range

Assess Overall Performance

Performance Confidence Assessment

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the

Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

15 Minute Break

TECHNICAL

Section M

Technical Evaluation

• The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and risk associated with the Offeror’s approach.

• The Technical Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations.

• The Technical risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

• A Technical Factor rating of “Unacceptable” or “High” risk may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition

Technical 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

Technical Factor

Volume 4.0

4.1 System Support Performance Factors

4.2 Automated Database System

4.3 Organization

4.4 Staffing Plan

4.5 Personnel Process

4.6 Key Personnel

4.7 Transition Phase-In Plan

4.8 Support Equipment Maintenance and Training

4.9 Small Business Management

4.10 Boeing Data License Letter of Intent

Evaluation Flow Section L

ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS NOT INDICATED OR IMPLIED

Technical Rating (Compliance)

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Technical Risk Rating

High

Moderate

Low

- RISK -

Assessment of likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Assessment Of Technical Proposals

- COMPLIANCE -

Assessment of the Offeror’s solution for meeting requirements

Potential Strengths, Uncertainties, Potential Risk Reducers, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

Strengths, Uncertainties Risk Reducers and Significant Weaknesses Deficiencies

- Review for accuracy and “common threads”

- Assess type of and degree of impact

Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range

Tech. Evaluation Grading - Qualitative

Technical 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

• Affects Technical 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

– Offeror must be willing to incorporate into the contract

* Draft RFP Pages

91 & 95

Technical Strength

• 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

– 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 no additional performance or operational benefit, risk reduction may be assessed.

– Additionally, a proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the Government can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government.

• Strength Example

– Exceeds minimum requirement with appreciable benefit to the Government

– An offer such as a capability, service, data beyond that which is required; enhancing operational or performance to the benefit of the Government pertaining to the objectives of this solicitation

Technical Uncertainty

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

• Affects Technical 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 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

Technical 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 Technical Rating (compliance) or both the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating (due to a combination of significant weaknesses)

– Results in an Unacceptable Rating and makes the proposal unawardable

• Section M: Failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information may be assessed as a significant weakness or multiple significant weaknesses. A combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level may be considered a deficiency.

• Section M: A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

* Draft RFP Pages 91

& 95

Technical 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 Technical factor

– Combination of weaknesses that raise the risk of performance to an unacceptable level

– The approach relies on Government resources or on requiring changes in operations not identified as available/allowed in order to comply with the requirement

Technical Compliance Ratings

Blue

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength 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.

Technical 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

• Affects Technical Risk Rating

– Provides appreciable risk reducing benefits to the Government that may mitigate weaknesses or further reduce 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

Technical Risk Reducer (cont.)

• 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

– Reduces proposal risk of meeting a requirement or an objective by exceeding them

Technical Significant Weakness

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

• Affects Technical Risk Rating

– Provides an appreciable increase 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

– Inconsistencies between the Technical and Price proposal may be assessed as proposal risk under this factor.

Technical Significant Weakness (cont.)

• 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

Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

COST/PRICE

• Sum of Base Period and Option Period CLINSs

– The Total Estimated Amount for FFP CLINs 0X01, 0X03 and 0011 is defined as the sum of all the CLIN’s proposed.

– The Total Estimated Amount for the COST CLINS 0X04 - 0X10 is defined as the Government Estimated Amount identified in Price

Attachment L-6 (Price Matrix), plus any proposed mark-ups or burdens not to exceed 5%.

– The solicitation/contract contains the clause FAR 52.217-8, Option to

Extend Services. The Government will calculate the price of this Option

(CLINs 0501-0510) in the Total Evaluated Price by taking the

Government’s Total Evaluated Price for the 4th Option period (CLINs

04XX), and dividing this value by “2”.

Total Evaluated Price

• Section M, 2.4

– The proposed total evaluated price will be evaluated for reasonableness.

– Inconsistencies related to staffing between the Technical and Price proposals may be assessed as a proposal risk under the Technical evaluation.

• Section L, 5.2.3

– Show traceability with the CLINs, the PWS, proposed effort, proposed manning levels, and the prices/costs. Refer to specific sections in the technical volume as needed to illustrate the consistency between the

Price and Technical Volumes.

Price Evaluation

Section L

Cost Attachment L-6

CLS Services CR CLINs

TY$K

Base Year

FY16

CLINs

Government

Estimated

Amount

Material

Handling

(burden) %

Total - Offeror

Proposed

Estimated

Amount

Example: 1% (one percent) input as the number 1 $ 100.00 1.00% $ 101.00

CLIN 0X04: Operational Spares $ 23,600.31 0.00% $ 23,600.31

CLIN 0X05: Depot Spares $ 10,165.55 0.00% $ 10,165.55

CLIN 0X06: MILSTRIP Spares $ 2,219.21 0.00% $ 2,219.21

CLIN 0X07: APN-5 Spares $ 3,219.83 0.00% $ 3,219.83

CLIN 0X08: APN-6 Spares $ 3,219.83 0.00% $ 3,219.83

CLIN 0X09: Additional Support Services $ 410.40 0.00% $ 410.40

CLIN 0X10: Shipping $ 1,100.79 0.00% $ 1,100.79

Total $ 43,935.91 $ 43,935.91

NOTE: Entire table is not shown

Does not allow greater than 5%

PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT

GUIDANCE

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 – (cont.)

• 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?

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance – (cont.)

• Be attentive to all parts of the RFP

– Requirements, PWS

– 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 risk reducers and associated benefits

– Addressing risks with mitigating approaches

– Showing proper balance between cost and technical benefits

Typical Proposal Shortfalls

• Proposal Instructions are not followed

– Information not provided in the way it was requested

– Too little information

– Too much information

• Statements in the proposal are not well supported

• Proposals are not well organized

– Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information

Typical Proposal Shortfalls (cont.)

• Past Performance POCs are not current

• CAGE Codes references do not match

• Deficiencies - preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance

– Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements

• Not signing SF-33

Source Selection Summary

• The Source Selection process will assure that your proposal will receive a fair and consistent evaluation and selection

• Sections L&M are intended to help you provide us with your best value solution and instruct you in preparing a proposal that will facilitate our evaluation

Bottom-Line

• Propose your best value solution, making the non-Price and Price Trade-Offs that are in the best interest of the Government

• Propose a realistic proposal with a high performing team, providing an executable contract that is likely to perform as proposed

• Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution and contract performance plan

Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Backup Slides

Backup Slides

Section L

Technical Evaluation

4.1 System Support Performance Factors

For each item from PWS paragraph 1.4.1 to 1.4.8 inclusive, including sub-paragraphs, describe the approach and procedures to be implemented to accomplish the requirements set forth in the PWS

4.2 Automated Database System

Demonstrate the ability of the proposed software to meet the detailed requirements identified in Annex 4 of RFP Att (1).

The Government reserves the right to request a physical demonstration of the Offeror’s proposed

Automated Data Processing (ADP) system

Section L

Technical Evaluation

4.3 Organization

• Include an organization chart showing interfaces, locations and lines of communication between the prime contractor, the Government and any principal subcontractors proposed

4.4 Staffing Plan

• The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan table, as Annex B, by geographical location. Provide analysis to support proposed staffing levels. The staffing plan table shall include the position title, labor category, staffing level, certification / licensing / security clearance needed, and applicable PWS reference paragraph. For each CLS geographic site, include number of shifts and personnel per shift in each functional area / work center.

Section L

Technical Evaluation

4.5 Personnel Process

• Describe the processes used in hiring, recruiting and retaining personnel.

4.6 Key Personnel

• Resumes: The Offeror shall include resumes in Annex C for each person the Offeror will employ to fill the specific Program Manager and Supply Response Center (SRC) Managers key personnel positions.

• Letters of Intent: The Offeror shall include, in Annex C, written and signed letters of intent for employment from each proposed key personnel individual.

Section L

Technical Evaluation

4.7 Transition Phase-In Plan

• The Offeror shall submit a detailed Phase-In plan as Annex D that will ensure a smooth transition to full performance within 30 days after contract award. The plan will be incorporated into the contract at contract award.

4.8 Support Equipment (SE) Maintenance and

Training

• The Offeror shall provide its approach to perform SE maintenance and training of user personnel

Section L

Technical Evaluation

4.9 Small Business Management

• Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy

• Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan

4.10 Boeing Data License Letter of Intent

• The Offeror must provide a written and signed letter of intent from Boeing stating that The Boeing Company will authorize the release of its data to the Offeror and its subcontractors. A proposal not containing this letter will be considered a deficiency under the Technical Factor, making it ineligible for award.