NW_IDIQ_Industry_Day_Brief_Final_1_Aug_2016.pdf

For Official Use Only 1

Aircraft Carrier Maintenance

Northwest CVN 68 and 78 Class Private Sector Maintenance Industry Day

For Official Use Only

Industry Day Team

PEO Aircraft Carriers, In-Service Aircraft Carriers (PMS312) o Michael Cornwell, Deputy Program Manager o Carl Zeigler, West Coast CVN Platform Manager o Dana Pennell, Acquisition & Contracts Manager

HQ NAVSEA Contracts, Fleet Support Contract Division (SEA 024) o Forrest Tucker, Branch Head, Submarine, CVN, and LCS Repair Support o Michaella Easley, Procuring Contracting Officer, Carrier Ship Repair

Ground Rules

• The purpose of this Industry Day is to improve Industry’s understanding of the PEO Carriers' acquisition priorities of In-Service Aircraft Carrier Maintenance, Repair, and Modernization Contracting Strategy. PEO Carriers desires to collaborate with Industry to gain feedback on how to best meet our acquisition priorities. This briefing discusses the program’s current thinking, strategy, and intent for the best contracting approach and may change based on feedback and other inputs.

• Separate one on one sessions will be conducted upon request.

Questions will be treated as “Bidder’s Questions” and all answers will be made publicly available.

Agenda

• PMS 312: Aircraft Carrier Program Office

• CVN Private Sector Maintenance

• Highlights for CVN Private Sector Maintenance Contract

Requirements

• Northwest CVN Private Sector Maintenance Solicitation

• Responding to the Requests for Proposals

For Official Use Only 5

In-Service Aircraft Carriers

Provide Class Maintenance, Fleet Modernization and Life Cycle Management of the Aircraft Carrier Fleet in support of the Naval Aviation

Enterprise and Naval, Joint and Coalition Force Operations

In-Service Sustainment for CVN 68 and CVN 78 Class

“Aircraft Carrier Readiness is our Mission”

For Official Use Only 6

In-Service Aircraft Carriers Focus

Operational Availability (Ao) o On-time completion of CNO availabilities (#1 Priority!)

o Ready for Tasking – Equipment

Capability o Providing the right capability (at the right cost) o Air Wing Integration o System/Component Strategies o Training

Cost o Providing the right operational capability o Reducing Total Ownership Costs (TOC)

Sustainment Manning Processes … etc

CVN Private Sector Maintenance

Northwest CVN Multi-Ship Multi-Option (MSMO)

• General Information

– Period of Performance: 13 Mar 2019 through 12 Mar 2024

• CLIN Structure CLINs for IAPA (Inter-availability Planning) each FY

CLINs to Accomplish Continuous Maintenance Work on Puget Sound- Homeported CVNs between CNO Availabilities

CLIN to Accomplish Continuous Maintenance Work on Puget Sound-Visiting CVN 68 Class CVNs between CNO Availabilities

CLIN to Accomplish Emergent Work on all CVN Classes between CNO Availabilities

CLINs for PIO, CDRLs, and PTD

For Official Use Only 8

• CLIN Structure (continued)

CLIN for Accomplishment of each Puget Sound-Homeported CVN Planned Incremental Availability (PIA)

CLIN for Accomplishment of each Puget Sound-Homeported CVN Dry- Docking Planned Incremental Availability (DPIA)

CLINs for Advanced Execution Planning of each CNO-Scheduled PIA or DPIA for Puget Sound-Homeported CVNs during remainder of Contract Period of Performance after Base Award

CVN Private Sector Maintenance (continued)

For Official Use Only 9

Puget Sound Homeported CVNs

CVNs Homeported in Puget Sound, WA USS Nimitz (CVN 68)

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)

For Official Use Only 10

• Private Sector Maintenance non-nuclear work to supplement Public Shipyard work during PIA/DPIA at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS&IMF)

• Unique relationship between the Contractor and Naval Supervising Activity (NSA)

• Dry-docking Planned Incremental Availability (DPIA)

– Notional 16 Months

– Includes corrective/emergent maintenance and modernization

– Performed at PSNS&IMF

• Planned Incremental Availability (PIA)

– Notional 6 Months

– Includes corrective/emergent maintenance and Modernization

– Performed at PSNS&IMF

Incremental and Continuous Maintenance Plan and Surge Work

For Official Use Only 11

• Continuous Incremental Availability (CIA)

– Notional 45 Days

– Includes corrective/emergent maintenance

– Performed at PSNS&IMF

– Inter-Availability Planning and Administration (IAPA)

• Continuous Incremental Availability (CIA)

– Includes corrective/emergent maintenance

• Continuous Maintenance Availability/Window of Opportunity

(WOO)

– Schedule between at sea underway periods

– Includes corrective/emergent maintenance

– Performed at PSNS&IMF

Incremental and Continuous Maintenance Plan and Surge Work (continued)

NAVSEA 02

Contracting Process

Objective

• High level overview of the contracting process

• Plan to shift from MSMO construct to a contracting approach yet to be determined. Multiple single award contract options are being considered.

• Information presented is representative of the “planned” acquisition

• Released solicitation will govern the terms and conditions of the competitive process

Northwest CVN PSM Solicitation

• Five year period of performance from contract award

• Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF)/Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF)

Contract type with option to utilize FFP efforts

• 40% small business participation

• CLINs will reflect specific work to be performed

• Full and open competition

• Best Value Source Selection

• Intend to award on basis of initial proposals

• Pre-priced Work Items

• Direct labor rates will be capped for all five years

• Indirect labor rates will be capped for the first three years

Contract Fee Structure

*Phase II: Small Business Subcontracting/Small Business Subcontracting

Extent to which the contractor meets or does not meet the 40% Small Business Subcontracting requirement as stipulated in the contract; if not met, the amount of total incentive fee calculated will be set forth in the contract.

Award Fee and Incentive Fee Award Fee (CPAF) 4.0% Incentive Fee (CPIF) 7.0% Max Fee

Management Technical Target Cost

Target Schedule

Incentive Cost

4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 1.0% 11.0%

For Official Use Only 16

• Synopsis 1st Quarter GFY 18

• Peer Review 1st Quarter GFY 18

• Solicitation Issuance date 2nd Quarter GFY 18

• Proposal submission date 60 days after RFP release

• Technical Evaluation 4th Quarter GFY 18

• Cost Evaluation 4th Quarter GFY 18

• Brief evaluation results to Source

Selection Advisory Council 4th Quarter GFY 18

• Source Selection Authority selects source 1st Quarter GFY 19

• Peer Review 2nd Quarter GFY 19

• Contract Award 2nd Quarter GFY 19

Source Selection Evaluation Milestones

For Official Use Only 17

• Technical (Non-Cost)

– Technical Capability Category

• Management Approach

• Technical Approach

• Resource Capabilities

– Past Performance Category

• Relevancy

• Confidence Assessment

– Technical-Quality of Product

– Schedule

– Management

– Cost Control

• Cost

– Notional work package will be evaluated that represents the work to be performed

Evaluation Factors

For Official Use Only 18

• Technical Capability is more important than Past Performance

– Within Technical Capability, the factors are in descending order of importance: Management Approach, Technical Approach and Resource Capability

• Past Performance is more important than Cost

– Past Performance Category based on the following factors, which are equal in importance: Relevance and Performance Confidence Assessment.

– Within Performance Confidence Assessment, the sub-factors: Technical, Schedule, Management, and Cost Control, are equal in importance

• Cost is the least important Evaluation Category

– Cost Proposal that is unrealistic, unreasonable or unbalanced may be rejected

The importance of Cost as an Evaluation Category will increase as the differences in the Non-Cost Categories among competing proposals decreases

Relative Order of Importance

For Official Use Only 19

• How well the proposal response meets the requirements of the solicitation

• Submit proposals that are complete, clear and consistent in all respects

• Should state brief statement of facts

• Inconsistencies are viewed as weaknesses

• Should stand on its own merits

– Do not assume evaluation team possesses any pre-existing knowledge about your company or its unique business practices

– Technical evaluation team instructed not to include any information or previous knowledge about your organization

• Technical evaluation strictly addresses the merits of each proposal as it relates to the evaluation criteria

Technical Proposal Evaluation

For Official Use Only 20

• Proposals should be organized in accordance with solicitation requirements

• Be judicious in use of inter-document cross-references

– Avoid multiple layers of references from one to section in the document to another

– Cross-referenced matrices can be disorienting and don’t always present a clear picture of what the Offeror is attempting to demonstrate

• Proofread the Proposal

• Unnecessarily complicated, confusing or incomplete proposals makes the review process more time consuming

• Ensure continuity between Technical and Cost Proposals

Technical Proposal Quality

For Official Use Only 20

• Cost realism analysis – FAR 15.305(a)(1)

• Failure to provide the required cost information may render the proposal non-responsive

• Ensure consistency between the Cost and Technical proposals

– Cost proposal needs to represent the technical solution provided in the Offeror’s Technical proposal

– Issues such as work allocation between the Offeror and teaming partners should align in the Cost and Technical proposals

– Inconsistency between the Cost and Technical Volumes will result in an adjustment to the Offeror’s proposed cost

Cost Proposals

For Official Use Only 22

• Historical Actual Experience (actual rates, actual hours, actual material costs to complete the work)

• Binding agreements, which are relevant to the notional work as well as future expected work (Labor Purchase Agreements with subcontractors, Teaming Agreements, etc.)

• Government Audits or Negotiated Agreements with the Government such as Forward Pricing Rate Agreements

• Detailed, auditable engineering or mathematical explanations (when historical experience isn’t available or when future experience is expected to diverge significantly from historical experience)

– These explanations should ideally be based on cost estimating relationships, with all assumptions and supporting data provided

Cost Proposals: Compelling Evidence

For Official Use Only 23

• Information supporting Labor Hour and Material Deviations needs to be:

– Sufficiently related to the work item

– Supported by compelling evidence

• If using historical actuals to support a deviation, provide the previously accomplished work item’s complete cost return data. Don’t “cherry pick information”

• If a new, innovative solution is proposed to justify a deviation, provide compelling evidence of why the innovation should be accepted.

• Subcontractor quotes alone do not support a proposed deviation; they are generally not binding or enforceable

Cost Proposals: Labor Hour and Material Deviations

For Official Use Only 24

• Use templates and ensure all cost data spreadsheets strictly adhere to Section L requirements

• Free of mathematical and formula errors

• To the greatest extent possible, do not include hard entered data with no traceability to formulas

• Efficiency of the cost evaluation is directly related to cost spreadsheet quality

Cost Proposals: Section L Exhibits

For Official Use Only 25

• Allocated across Government fiscal year in accordance with the schedule of maintenance actions

• Escalated based on indices provided in section L of the RFP, unless otherwise justified

• Supported by compelling evidence (Ideally historical actual rates)

• Describe how composite rates are developed

• Fixed price subcontractor quotes must be supported with compelling evidence of their ability to be binding during the execution of the work to be accepted.

• Auditable projected volume of business assumptions

Cost Proposals: Labor Rates

For Official Use Only 26

• Although Cost is the least important of the factors, it still plays a key role in our decision making – especially when differences in Non- Cost categories decrease

• A “slightly” higher technically ranked proposal will not out weigh a significantly higher evaluated cost

• In the past, NAVSEA has unseated incumbents based upon competitive pricing

In order to conduct an efficient source selection process, please ensure to provide any and all back-up data for ALL costs. The more supporting data you provide, the more likely the Government can award based on initial proposals. It will also make the cost analysis process FASTER, leading to an earlier decision!

Why is Cost Important?

For Official Use Only 27

• NAVSEA will post this Industry Day presentation and Q&A sheets on the FEDBIZOPPS website

• Industry is invited to provide the Navy comments, concerns or questions. All inquiries shall be directed to Michaella Easley, Contracting Officer, and John E. Anderson, Contract Specialist, at Michaella.Easley@navy.mil and John.Anderson6@navy.mil

• Questions will be treated as “Bidder’s Questions” and all answers will be made publicly available via FEDBIZOPPS website (www.fbo.gov)

• To ensure the Navy is able to adequately consider Industry’s feedback in the upcoming solicitations, it is requested they be submitted no later than 1400 EST on 18 August 2016.

Highlighted Questions

This concludes the end of the presentation.

Thank you