ESU_Industry_Day_Brief_(FINAL).pdf

For Official Use Only 1

Aircraft Carrier Maintenance

Elevator Support Unit (ESU) Contract

Industry Day

For Official Use Only

Industry Day Team

PEO Aircraft Carriers, In-Service Aircraft Carriers (PMS 312) o Brian Szczygiel, Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) Principal Assistant

Program Manager (PAPM) o LCDR Joshua Lusk, Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH) Principal

Assistant Program Manager (PAPM) 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 Sonya Diaz DeLeon, Contracting Specialist, Carrier Ship Repair

Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center o James Craig, Elevator Support Unit Program Manager

Commander, Naval Air Forces Pacific (CNAP) o Dale Cloutier, Elevator Support Unit Program Manager

Ground Rules

• The purpose of this Industry Day is to improve Industry’s understanding of the PEO Carriers' Elevator Support Unit (ESU) efforts essential in executing professional systems/equipment maintenance supporting both repairs and maintenance training (Find, Fix, and Train) for Ship’s Force equipment operators and maintenance technicians for

CVN 68 Class and CVN 78 Class Aircraft Carriers. 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

• Highlights for ESU Contract Requirements

• ESU Solicitation

• Contracting Process

• Responding to the Requests for Proposals

Elevator Support Unit Contract

• General Information

– Anticipated Period of Performance: 31 Jan 2020 to 30 Jan 2025

• Notional CLIN Structure

CLIN for Base Year Ordering Period

CLIN for Second Year Effort (Ordering Period 1)

CLIN for Third Year Effort (Ordering Period 2)

CLIN for Fourth Year Effort (Ordering Period 3)

CLIN for Fifth Year Effort (Ordering Period 4)

For Official Use Only 6

Homeported CVNs

CVNs Homeported in San Diego, CA

USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)

CVNs Homeported in Norfolk, VA

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)

USS George Washington (CVN 73)

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)

USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)

CVNs Homeported in Bremerton, WA

USS Nimitz (CVN 68)

CVNs Homeported in Yokosuka, JP

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

Work will also be accomplished at other locations, including but not limited to Norfolk

Naval Shipyard (NNSY), Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility

(PSNS&IMF)

For Official Use Only 7

• Provide engineering services, maintenance and operator training, technical and repair support to accomplish specific requirements in support of:

– maintenance and planning for the overhaul, modernization and repair of shipboard elevators, cargo handling equipment and associated systems

• Perform, assist, or provide technical guidance in the performance of fault identification and assist Ship’s Force with physical repairs or authorized modifications of the types of elevator and associated system equipment

• It is expected that the labor force for this contract will be performing on board US Naval vessels located around the world (see previous slide)

• Provide engineering, technical and logistic support to Ship’s Force in identification and correction of material condition discrepancies to assure that elevators are in safe and proper operating condition

ESU Solicitation

For Official Use Only 8

• Update and maintain configuration database systems, develop and update on board training curriculum, and conduct instruction on

Atlantic and Pacific fleet Aircraft Carrier

• Provide teams of knowledgeable elevator technicians consisting of hull, mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical technicians familiar with overall fleet maintenance philosophies, logistical specialists familiar with:

– Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (COMNAVSEASYSCOM)

Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) procedures and functions of the ship’s

Logistics Support Center (LSC), Maintenance Support Center (MSCs), and automated data processing (ADP) specialists familiar with fleet database management systems

• Perform inspections, examinations and analyses in order to provide guidance in the areas of maintenance, planning and repair on elevator machinery and supporting systems

ESU Solicitation (continued)

For Official Use Only 9

• Develop and provide qualified elevator and associated systems training teams who will provide formal on-board operator and maintenance training to Ship’s Force

• Update and maintain technical accuracy and integrity of developed equipment/system-specific computer based training (CBT) curriculum

• Complement classroom instruction with shipboard “hands on” instruction and on-the-job training (OJT) through the application of current maintenance techniques and practices on actual equipment

ESU Solicitation (continued)

NAVSEA 02

Contracting Process

Objective

• High level overview of the contracting process

• Information presented is representative of the “planned” requirement

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

ESU Solicitation

• Five year period of performance from contract award

• Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)/Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF)

Contract type

• 30% small business participation

• CLINs will reflect work to be performed

• Full and open competition

• Best Value Source Selection

• Intend to award on basis of initial proposals

Contract Fee Structure

Incentive Fee

Incentive Fee (CPIF)

4.0%

Base Fee

5.0%

Max Fee

9.0%

*Phase II: Small Business Subcontracting/Small Business

Subcontracting

Extent to which the contractor meets or does not meet the 30%

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.

For Official Use Only 14

• Synopsis 2nd Quarter GFY 19

• Peer Review 4th Quarter GFY 19

• Solicitation Issuance date 4th Quarter GFY 19

• Proposal submission date 60 days after RFP release

• Technical Evaluation 1st Quarter GFY 20

• Cost Evaluation 1st Quarter GFY 20

• Brief evaluation results to Source

Selection Advisory Council 1st Quarter GFY 20

• Source Selection Authority selects source 2nd Quarter GFY 20

• Peer Review 2nd Quarter GFY 20

• Contract Award 2nd Quarter GFY 20

Source Selection

Evaluation Milestones

For Official Use Only 15

• 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 16

• 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 17

• 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 the evaluation team possesses any pre-existing knowledge about your company or its unique business practices

– Technical evaluation team is 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 18

• 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 19

• 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

• Direct labor rates will be capped for all five years

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

Cost Proposals

For Official Use Only 20

• 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 21

• 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 22

• 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 23

• 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 24

• 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 25

• NAVSEA will post this Industry Day presentation and Questions on the FEDBIZOPPS website

• Industry is invited to provide the Navy comments, concerns or questions. All inquiries shall be directed to Forrest Tucker, Contracting Officer, and Sonya Diaz-DeLeon, Contract Specialist, at forrest.tucker@navy.mil and sonya.diazdeleon@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 15 May 2019.

Highlighted Questions mailto:forrest.tucker@navy.mil mailto:sonya.diazdeleon@navy.mil http://www.fbo.gov/

This concludes the end of the presentation.

Thank you