C-26_UC-35_pre-solic_brief_25June2015.pptx

UC-35 & C-26 CLS Pre-Solicitation Conference NAVAIR Public Release 2015-xxx

Further dissemination only as directed by the Tactical Airlift Program Office (PMA-207), Patuxent River MD 20670, (June 2015), or higher DoD authority.

DRAFT Solicitation N00019-15-R-0089 DRAFT Solicitation N00019-15-R-0106

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

AIR-4.0E

Source Selection Office

Agenda

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Ground Rules All attendees must sign-in

Silence all electronic devices

No recording devices allowed

Meeting is unclassified

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Questions/Communications

Any additional questions/communications shall be submitted, in writing, to the Contracting Office:

UC-35: Deborah Karstens and Phil Smith Deborah.karstens@navy.mil / Phillip.smith@navy.mil Include solicitation number N00019-15-R-0106 in Subject Line of all communications

C-26: Randy Utz and Phil Smith Randy.utz@navy.mil / Phillip.smith@navy.mil Include solicitation number N00019-15-R-0089 in Subject Line of all communications

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Disclaimer Statement Today’s remarks by Government officials are not a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the projects or of future contract awards.

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 solicitations are the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Feedback Industry feedback has resulted in valuable input during the solicitation development phase Additional feedback from industry is welcomed after today’s conference Industry feedback shall be received, in writing prior to noon 12 July 2015 in order to be considered during solicitation finalization The Government requests that questions or input are focused on clarification of the draft solicitation to enhance the quality of offers Feedback should not be submitted with proprietary information, or with limited or restricted rights assertions Questions or requests for clarification will be handled per FAR 15.201(f)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

(f) General information about agency mission needs and future requirements may be disclosed at any time. After release of the solicitation, the contracting officer must be the focal point of any exchange with potential offerors. When specific information about a proposed acquisition that would be necessary for the preparation of proposals is disclosed to one or more potential offerors, that information must be made available to the public as soon as practicable, but no later than the next general release of information, in order to avoid creating an unfair competitive advantage. Information provided to a potential offeror in response to its request must not be disclosed if doing so would reveal the potential offeror’s confidential business strategy, and is protected under 3.104 or subpart 24.2. When conducting a presolicitation or preproposal conference, materials distributed at the conference should be made available to all potential offerors, upon request.

Information to be Posted The Government intends to post an attendee list for today’s events Please contact Deborah Karstens or Randy Utz to opt out if you don’t want info shared

The Government intends to post today’s Pre-solicitation Conference brief on FedBizOpps

The Government may post a summary of Government responses to Industry Feedback (received by COB 12 July 2015) upon release of the Formal Solicitation

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Opening Remarks Mr. Doug Dawson

PMA-207

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

PMA-207 Org Chart

= EOB

= NWCF

LEGEND

= MIL

Tier 0 - PM Principal Deputy PM CAPT Padula Program Manager Doug Dawson Tier I - DPMs

IPTL Legacy C/KC-130T Richard Stowell (PMA2072B)

DPM C/KC-130

Tom Benedik (PMA2072) LtCol Kirby Puckett

IPTL FMS

Michael Barton, (PMA2072C) IPTL Japan KC-130F/R Tina Tate (PMA207C3) IPTL Kuwait KC-130J Amanda Wood (PMA207C2)

IPTL KC-130J

Lynda Frattone (PMA2072A) IPTL Sustainment Paul Green (PMA2072A4) IPTL Airframe Tiffany Lukasewicz (PMA2072A3) IPTL Mission Systems Brian Foy (PMA2072A2) IPTL Weapons Vacant (PMA2072A1)

Tier III IPTLs

AOU

Steve Madden (PMA2072B1) Fleet Support Team C-130 FST Lead Paul Fitzgerald IPTL Chile KC-130R Shaun Quinn (PMA207C4) IPTL Philippines Tony Lotierzo (PMA207C5) Tier II IPTLs

DPM VR/OSA

CDR Warren Crouch(PMA2071)

IPTL Medium Lift Donna Elliott (PMA2071A) IPTL Utility Lift Mel Blade (PMA2071B) IPTL Executive Lift Gary Horsey (PMA2071C)

Jim Thompson

IPTL Range Support Aircraft Jamie Grubb (PMA2071D)

Program Office Competency Roles

APM BFM

Judy Polca (AIR7.8)

APM CON

Mark Krukar (AIR2.3.5)

APM CNSL

Tom Florip (AIR11.0) Class Desk CDR Brian Hawkins

APME

Larry Smith (AIR4.1)

OPS

Ron Crittenden/(PMA207OPS)

PSM

David Wood (AIR6.6)

AM

Curt Sproul/ (PMA207ACQ)

CM/DM

Dave Adams/(PMA207CM/DM)

APM T&E

Victor DiSanto (AIR5.1)

APMC

Amy King

DAPM BFM

CDR Kris Doran Billy Watts

APML

CDR Martin Rumrill Christine Patke LCDR Jason McCord Tiffany Lukasewicz USMCR Sustainment Krista Hunt (PMA2072B2) USNR Sustainment Christine Patke (PMA2072B3)

Tier III IPTLs

Program Development Vacant (AIR-1.4)

IPTL Commercial Modification and Sustaiment Vacant (PMA2071E)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Pre-Solicitation Conference Goals Increase industry’s understanding of PMA-207 and the pending requirements for UC-35 and C-26 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services.

Afford industry an opportunity to provide feedback and to ask questions regarding the Government’s contemplated requirements.

Provide basic contractual information including the cognizant Contracts personnel, the types of support services being contemplated and an estimated timeline should solicitations be released and contracts awarded.

Increase competition and teaming/subcontracting opportunities amongst capable and/or interested service providers

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 CLS Program Overview Mr. Gary Horsey

UC-35 IPTL

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 Background UC-35C/D : Is a derivative of the Cessna Model 560 (Ultra/Encore) aircraft, is the replacement for the T-39. The aircraft was built by Cessna Aircraft Company and is a multipurpose low-wing, twin engine business jet with a pod-mounted engine on each side of the aft fuselage. The UC-35 fleet provides transportation of high priority passengers and cargo with time, place or mission sensitive requirements.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Services Requirements This contract is for performance-based Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for the 12 UC-35C/D US Marine Corps (USMC) aircraft. This CLS contract includes maintenance, repair, engineering and technical services, aircraft upgrade and modifications, and integrated logistics support services to the UC-35C/D Program.

Aircraft Models 2 UC-35C models and 10 UC-35D models

Base Site Operations (BSO) 5 permanent sites

1 Long-Term deployment Doha, Qatar

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 Base Sites

Andrews

Miramar

Futenma

166767

166713

New Orleans Cherry Point

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

N00019-15-R-0106 UC-35 PWS

General Scope Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for site support The UC-35C Cessna Citation Model 560 Ultra and the UC-35D Cessna Citation Model 560 Encore are commercial, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type-certified aircraft. The UC-35C/D’s mission is to provide time-sensitive movement of personnel and cargo, as well as limited medical evacuation.

The Contractor is responsible for facilities, labor, services, equipment, tools, parts, materials, and consumables not explicitly stated as Government Furnished Property (GFP) to perform the work requirements of this contract.

The Contractor shall obtain proprietary data license with Cessna and Pratt and Whitney The Contractor shall obtain FAA Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Part 145 Certifications, for maintenance of Cessna 560 or similar aircraft.

Modifications The UC-35D are currently on contract for Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) CNS/ATM Block II and III upgrades

New Site Activation There may be a need to activate or deactivate supplementary sites and to deactivate BSO’s.

Strategies that optimize total system availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

C-26 CLS Program Overview Ms. Judy Polca

C-26 IPTL

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

C-26 CLS

General Scope Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for site support The C-26 aircraft manufactured by Fairchild Industries as Metroliner SA-227 Series, are Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type-certified aircraft. The C-26 is a high-performance, fixed-wing, pressurized, twin-engine turboprops that accommodate a pilot, co-pilot, 19 passengers, cargo or a combination of passengers and cargo.

The Contractor is responsible for facilities, labor, services, equipment, tools, parts, materials, and consumables not explicitly stated as Government Furnished Property (GFP) to perform the work requirements of this contract.

Modifications CNS/ATM - Block II New Site Activation Patuxent River will be a new site for one aircraft Strategies that optimize total system availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

C-26 Background Background C-26 (Qty 8): a derivative of the Fairchild Model 227 aircraft. The aircraft was built by Fairchild Aircraft Inc. (M7 Aerospace) and is a multipurpose low-wing, twin engine business turboprop plane with an engine on each wing. The C-26 fleet provides transportation of high priority passengers and cargo with time, place or mission sensitive requirements. The RC/EC-26 aircraft perform range control.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

C-26 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Services Requirements Site Operations This contract is for performance-based Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for the eight (8) C-26 aircraft. This CLS contract includes maintenance, repair, engineering and technical services, aircraft upgrade and modifications, and integrated logistics support services to the C-26 Program.

Aircraft Models and Sites 5 C-26D (2 Sigonella, 2 Naples and 1 Pax River) 2 RC-26 (Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF))

1 EC-26 (PMRF)

C-26 has released a draft PWS but has not yet released a Draft RFP. The Government anticipates that the C-26 solicitation will be similar to the UC-35 solicitation. Industry is reminded to monitor FedBizOpps for updates in regards to the C-26 solicitation.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Small Business Overview Mr. Ken Carkhuff Office of Small Business Programs

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Prepare Our People for the Future Commander’s Guidance Initiatives Integrated Warfighting Capability (IWC) Cost-Wise Readiness Cyber Awareness & Capability Rapid Response (AIRWorks) Best Practices NAVAIR’s Additive Manufacturing Capability Business of the Business Full Asset Accountability lead capability integrator / LVC simulation / rapid response resilient networks & platforms / cyber awareness / skills & capabilities rapid prototyping / experimentation / low-volume production rapid production & fielding / lighter, stronger parts simplify work / reduce manual transactions / improve decision support balanced investments / reduce sustainment costs implement / capture & communicate / replicate physical & financial accountability of all property future skills / training / collaboration tools

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Background: This Commander’s Guidance Update identifies the Command-level actions we will take in the next 12 months to advance progress toward our Long-Range Strategic priorities: People, IWC and Affordability. The Guidance includes nine initiatives, each with lead/supporting roles and supporting actions.

Talking Points:

The budget challenges of FY13-FY14 tested us, but we set priorities, executed our programs, and minimized disruption to the Fleet. In, FY15-16 we expect a small decline in funding – with steady workload. This continued pressure will drive us to create new and better ways to deliver capability at reduced cost.

The 2014 Guidance builds on the considerable progress we’ve made on our three Strategic Priorities (People, IWC, and Affordability); and moves us forward through nine Command-wide initiatives.

We will implement these nine initiatives through collaboration and innovation, enabling us to deliver maximum capability and speed for every dollar invested.

Small Business 101 It’s the policy of the government to provide “maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to small business…concerns. Such concerns shall also have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate as subcontractors…” FAR 19.201(a) Small Business Programs Small Businesses (SB) Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Businesses

In accordance with FAR Part 19, there are set-aside and sole source opportunities.

Consult with your Small Business Professional

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

WOSB NEW POLICY COMING OUT….CHECK COI FOR INFO

Council Objectives Improve workforce awareness and initiate manager, supervisor and team lead accountability for NAVAIR small business contract participation.

Improve opportunities for small business participation as prime and subcontractors in NAVAIR contracts.

Institutionalize a culture that leverages and values small business participation in NAVAIR contract awards.

Provide guidance, resourcing and barrier removal for established teams (Performance Analysis, Process and Communication).

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Sources of Information Conferences, trade shows Government databases Industry Days Pre-solicitation conferences Large businesses who may have experience with similar requirements The Internet Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) Optional Federal Supply Schedule vehicles; OSD policy encourages use Several set-aside exclusively for SB; primarily for IT-related products & services FPDS-NG: https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng_cms/ Seaport-e: http://www.seaport.navy.mil/default.aspx SBIR Database: www.dodsbir.net Search engines to find small businesses, i.e.:

System for Award Management: https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/#1 SBA Dynamic Small Business Search: http://web.sba.gov/pro-net/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm Center for Veterans Enterprise Vendor Information Pages (VIP): www.vetbiz.gov Sources for market research information are numerous.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 CLS Procurement Overview Ms. Deborah Karstens Contract Specialists

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 Planned Milestones The following milestones are anticipated:

UC-35 CLS N00019-15-R-0106

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Re-compete for UC-35 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services and maintenance

The period of performance covers a 3 year ordering period

This includes a 60 day transition phase-in period prior to the start of the full performance of the base year

Competitively award “best value” Indefinite Delivery Requirements contract

100% Small Business set-aside, NAICS 488190

Government intends to award on initial offers, but reserves the right to conduct discussions

UC-35 Procurement Overview

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

UC-35 Procurement Overview Site Operations on a firm-fixed monthly price covering Depot-level maintenance of airframes, engines, accessories, and logistics support

Depot maintenance such as inspections, engine overhauls, and strip & paint on a firm-fixed price basis

Travel and Material on a cost reimbursable basis

Over and Above items for efforts that cannot be predicted at time of contract award O&A Labor on a fixed hourly rate O&A Material on a cost reimbursable basis

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

C-26 Planned Milestones The following milestones are anticipated:

C-26 CLS N00019-15-R-0089

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Source Selection Overview Mr. Phillip Smith

PCO

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

* Draft RFP Page 90 Source Selection Objectives Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered

Obtain the best value using a comprehensive evaluation process

Use of the evaluation process provides a fair and consistent evaluation of proposals

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Sections L and M Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP:

Identifies what to put in the proposal and in what format Understanding and following the Proposal Instructions in Section L will ensure that Offerors develop a good proposal

Evaluation Factors for Award – Section M of the RFP:

Identifies what will be evaluated Understanding the importance of each factor is key

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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors – General The Government expects to select one Offeror for award on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered

The proposal that meets solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award

The Government may determine that award to a higher priced Offeror is more beneficial to the Government The perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional price

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Tradeoff Evaluation Process

Evaluation Factors E v a l u a t i o n

Strengths Risk Reducers Uncertainties Deficiencies Sig. Weaknesses PP Confidence Price, etc.

Initial Evaluation Debrief Offeror Proposals

Initial Evaluation Briefing

Discussions

Competitive Range Determination Discussions Final Proposal ENs

Final Evaluation

Revise Strengths Risk Reducers Uncertainties Deficiencies Sig. Weaknesses PP Confidence Price, etc.

Award

Final Evaluation Briefing Best Value Decision

ENs

Pre-FPR Briefing Award Without Discussions?

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

This chart depicts the evaluation process, how it flows, and what you will be doing at each stage of the process At the initial evaluation, your source selection team will recommend award without discussions, or the need to engage in discussions with offerors, based on your review of their proposals If you recommend discussions, you can also recommend a “competitive range”. Establishing the competitive range allows you to eliminate offerors who are not the most highly rated and do not have a reasonable chance of getting the award.

If you go into discussions, your job will be to thoroughly discuss your evaluation with each offeror in the competitive range.

After you finish discussions, the Contracting Officer will ask each offeror for a final proposal revision You will evaluate the final revisions and summarize your recommendations for the SSA The SSA will then make an award decision After the SSA makes the award decision, you will participate in debriefings to offerors if necessary

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions… The Government may award based on initial proposals if . . .

the Government receives a proposal that conforms with the requirements of the solicitation the proposal provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered.

Offerors are advised to provide the best proposal possible since discussions may not be conducted

However, …

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

...the Government Reserves the Right to Conduct Discussions The Government may establish a Competitive Range with the most highly rated proposals

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)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section L Technical Volume (cont.)

- General Guidance - Explain any proposed benefits to the Government in technical terms and demonstrate 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 no additional performance or operational benefit, risk reduction benefits may exist

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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section L Technical Volume

- General Guidance - The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors approach

Throughout the Technical Volume identify any capability, approach or feature that is being proposed as:

Exceeding a requirement (or providing merit) with respect to performance or operational benefits Reducing risk inherent in the program

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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 PWS 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 Technical Volume

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section M Proposed Evaluation Criteria

PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Performance Confidence Assessment Rating)

PRICE ($$$)

TECHNICAL

(Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating) All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important, than Price.

Key:

> (more important)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Rating (Compliance) Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable Technical Risk Rating High Moderate Low Technical Evaluation Assessment

- 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 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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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.

TECHNICAL

- Evaluation Rating Definitions -

Technical Compliance Ratings: The Technical rating assignments reflect the Government's assessment of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk 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.

TECHNICAL

- Risk Rating Definitions -

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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 occurring again Impact: Consequences / severity of poor performance Benefits of good performance Positive and Negative Findings Positive and Negative Findings Performance Confidence Assessment Assessment Of Relevant Past Performance Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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.

Past Performance

- Confidence Definitions -

For the Past Performance factor, the 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.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

The Total Evaluated Price is the sum of:

All CLINs, FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, Any adjustment in accordance with FAR 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preferences for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, and Costs to the Government except where equal across Offerors.

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Price -

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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, do not simply make claims Provide enough information to allow an independent assessment

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Making claims such as "we understand, we are committed, we are capable, our experience ensures, we comply” Show how experience is applied, results and benefits, prove the level of capability, and provide the basis and substantiating data Give us a reason to have confidence you can perform the requirements you

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance - Structure your proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions

Be consistent from Volume to Volume

Provide clear and concise descriptions Drawings and diagrams complement narrative, but do not replace it

Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs Is it clear?

Is it well organized?

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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 Point out strengths and risk reducers and the associated benefits Address any known or anticipated risks with mitigating approaches Show proper balance between Price and Technical benefits Proposal Preparation

- Guidance -

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Typical Proposal Shortfalls Proposals are not well organized / information is not provided in the way it was requested Proposal does not follow Proposal Instructions structure Makes the evaluator hunt for the information

Too little information / lack of substantiation – statements or claims in the proposal are not well supported

Too much information (e.g., marketing material)

Past Performance POCs are not current

CAGE Codes/DUNS references do not match

Deficiencies - preclude award Information provided does not support claims of compliance Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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 provide you with instructions to prepare a proposal that will facilitate our evaluation

Keys to Developing a Good Proposal Understand the solicitation requirements Understanding the Evaluation Criteria will help you know where to place emphasis in your proposal Follow the Proposal Instructions – Provide material where requested, e.g., keep Past Performance material out of the Technical Volume

Ensure that your proposal:

Helps the evaluator evaluate – do not make us have to guess or search for answers Follows the exact numerical outline provided by Section L Provides substantiation for what you propose – demonstrate that you can perform the work

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Propose your best value solution, making the Technical and Price Trade-Offs that are in the best interest of the Government Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution and contract performance plan Bottom-Line

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Evaluation Mr. Scott VanHorn

PMA207

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Factor, Volume 3.0 Technical Evaluation Flow Section L Paragraphs:

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.1 Transition Phase-In (PWS 4.0)

Pictorial version: Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) Detailed Timeline of Critical Tasks Ramp-up Site Manning Full Performance

Supporting information, as necessary

Technical Evaluation Flow

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.2 Experience Summary

Demonstrate the degree to which previous experience is similar to this solicitation, particularly performing a/c maintenance & flight ops On similar Commercial Derivative Aircraft In an OCONUS / CONUS environment At multiple sites Describe experience in Program and Subcontractor Management Of multi-site CLS Acting as Prime Contractor For Similar type of work, scope of effort and complexity Describe any long-term agreements with proposed principal subcontractors Reference ONLY the contracts submitted for Past Performance evaluation to demonstrate experience. At a minimum…

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.2 Experience Summary (continued)

…populate Attachment L-5, Experience Summary (Volume 3)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.3 Staffing and Manning Approach

Staffing and Manning Manning Chart – position, labor category, number of personnel Manning Distribution –by department. Identify all indirect labor classifications, titles, responsibilities. Essential Job Positions (Appendix F): Project Manager; Contract Manager; Maintenance Manager; Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) Manager; Quality Assurance Manager; Avionics Specialist.

Personnel - hire, recruit, and retain personnel.

Training - provide certification and skill levels

Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) Personnel Training and Qualification Training Certification Parts Pool

Supporting Multiple Detachments Maintenance support of the detachment Supply and logistics support Support equipment

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.4 Maintenance and Maintenance Management

Maintenance Management Approach How does the maintenance organization will control the scheduled and unscheduled maintenance to meet the performance standards in the PWS.

Aircraft Maintenance Approach Processes/procedures, used in performing organizational/depot level maintenance on aircraft, components, and associated support equipment; ensure current technical data is used.

Engine Management Approach Scheduled/unscheduled engine maintenance to meet availability described in PWS Section 12.0, and on-wing inspection. Engines configuration control.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.5 Depot Maintenance Facility

Demonstrate that the proposed depot maintenance facility is an FAA certified repair facility and maintains one of the following certificates:

FAA FAR 14 CFR Part 145 Airframe 4 Repair Station Air Agency Certificate; or

FAA FAR 14 CFR Part 145 Limited Rating Certificate for any model of Cessna 560.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.6 Web-Based Information System

Describe the process to provide the Government with real-time aircraft and engine maintenance data.

Describe the scheduled and unscheduled maintenance process to ensure WIS meets requirements as described in PWS Section 3.16.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.7 Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy

Describe approach to identifying SB Concerns Describe extent of participation with detailed description of supplies and services for each SB Concern subcategory Provide documentation regarding enforcement commitment to utilize each of SB Concern.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

3.8 Subcontract Management Strategy

Provide its subcontract management strategy for assembling teams, selecting subcontractors, maintaining subcontractor relationships, communicating information to the subcontractor, managing subcontractor performance, and problem resolution.

Process that will be used to determine the complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform; and

Process that will be used to ensure maximum practicable participation of small businesses for each delivery order/task order.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Mr. Curt Sproul

PMA207

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

-Evaluation Concept-

Look Back

Look Forward

Assess each contract referenced Determine Relevancy/ Recency How well did the Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS, Questionnaires 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, how do we think they will perform on the program?

Final Product is the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

PPI Sources:

Offerors’ Proposals

PPIRS

Questionnaires Phone Interviews

DCMA

Other Past Performance Information

Past Performance Information

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Contract Relevancy/Recency 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 Complexity (attributes of the work being performed), magnitude (dollar value), scope (PWS tasks), contract type, CAGE Code/DUNS, proposed roles (prime, subcontractor, assigned work) Recency: within the past 5 years from proposal release date; more recent is more relevant 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 team member’s proposed role/responsibility versus relative to the whole solicitation Contracts POP must be within 5 years of proposal release date

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Contract Relevancy/Recency (cont) Not Relevant (NR) contracts are characterized by any of the following:

Performance is older than 5 years from the proposal release date A different physical location (e.g., with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in the roles and responsibility table An entity that does not have a defined proposed role and responsibility Encompasses little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation

Contracts or the portions of their performance that are Not Relevant are not utilized in the assessment

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Proposal Identify contracts containing efforts similar to the UC-35 CLS effort, as applicable For Prime, Principal Subcontractors, and Joint Venture team members All contracts submitted for Past Performance should also be submitted for Experience Referenced contracts shall relate to same plant, division, or cost center where you propose to accomplish the work Provide agreements between you and your subcontractors/team members to allow us to discuss their past performance issues with you (the prime) Provide past performance information, at least 2 weeks prior to proposal due date

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Questionnaires Past Performance Questionnaires Send to contacts within 2 weeks from release of the RFP where Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data is not available Remove RFP number from Questionnaires prior to sending out

Provide instructions to each recipient of the questionnaire to provide a response back to the UC-35 POC within 2 weeks of receipt

Identify in Past Performance Contract Data when and to whom the questionnaires were sent Ensure that all points of contact are current

DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on Questionnaires. The Government will perform all follow-up actions.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Evaluation Past Performance Information: the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors and Joint Venture (JV) 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 Managing the contracted effort on similar programs Meeting Small Business participation and subcontracting goals

Demonstrated systemic improvement - next

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Evaluation 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

Demonstrate that the problem will not reoccur or the extent that the likelihood of reoccurrence is reduced

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Price Mr. Randy Utz

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Price Evaluation Criteria

The Total Evaluated Price is the sum of:

All Section B CLINs, FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, any adjustment in accordance with FAR 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preferences for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, and Costs to the Government except where equal across Offerors.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Price - General Guidelines

SMOOTH EVALUATION DEPENDS ON:

Labor classifications cross-referencing to the Department of Labor (DOL) wage determination classifications Percentage breakdown of the Contractor indirect costs and burdens added to the Government estimates for all Cost Reimbursable CLINs in Section B Price Matrix of the proposal Within all Excel spreadsheets, use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and do not use output type “value only” cells (“hard-coded” numbers)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Closing Remarks Mr. Phillip Smith

PCO

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Notifications and Information:

Federal Business Opportunities:

https://www.fbo.gov

All information related to solicitations N00019-15-R-0106 and N00019-15-R-0089 will be posted to the FedBizOpps website.

This brief will be posted to FedBizOpps The USN intends to post the names of all the companies attending the Pre-Solicitation Conference for networking / subcontracting opportunities If companies do not wish to have their names released or have any additional questions please contact Deborah Karstens or Randy Utz A summary of Industry questions/feedback with Government responses received by COB 12 July 2015 is intended to be posted to FBO upon release of the Formal Solicitations.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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

Questions and Answers Submit all questions in writing to the registration table

Any additional questions may be submitted through 12 July 2015

Submit UC-35 questions to:

Contract Specialist, Deborah Karstens (Deborah.karstens@navy.mil) and PCO, Phil Smith (phillip.smith@navy.mil) All emails shall include RFP Number N00019-15-R-0106 in the subject line

Submit C-26 questions to:

Contract Specialist, Randy Utz (Randy.Utz@navy.mil) and PCO, Phil Smith (phillip.smith@navy.mil) All emails shall include RFP Number N00019-15-R-0089 in the subject line

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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.

Questions?

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document image8.png image11.emf image12.jpeg image13.jpeg image14.jpg image22.png image23.png image15.png…