CEMAT_Industry_Day_Brief.pdf

For Official Use Only 1

Aircraft Carrier Maintenance

Carrier Engineering Maintenance Assist Team (CEMAT)

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 Schneider, CEMAT Program Manager

Commander, Naval Air Forces Pacific (CNAP) o David Klein, Naval Engineering Programs Manager

Ground Rules

• The purpose of this Industry Day is to improve Industry’s understanding of the Carrier Engineering Maintenance Assist Team (CEMAT) 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/CVN 78 Class Aircraft Carriers and Pacific Fleet surface ships. 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 CEMAT Contract Requirements

• CEMAT Solicitation

• Contracting Process

• Responding to the Requests for Proposals

CEMAT Contract

• General Information

– Anticipated Period of Performance: 30 May 2020 to 29 May 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

Distribution of Work

Locations, percentages of work anticipated to be performed on Aircraft Carriers, and facility requirement:

Norfolk, VA 30% Facilities Required*

San Diego, CA 35% Facilities Required*

Bremerton, WA 15% Facilities Required

Newport News, VA 5% Facilities Required

(Admin & Liaison Office)

Everett, WA 5% Facilities Required

Yokosuka, Japan 10% Facilities Required

(Admin & Liaison Office)

* Minimum 2,000 Sq. Ft. at each facility; must be cleared for confidential work; must have a minimum 2 cu. Ft. storage space for confidential storage

For Official Use Only 7

Distribution of Work (continued)

Locations, percentages of work anticipated to be performed on Surface Ships, and facility requirement:

Bremerton/Everett, WA 10% No Facilities Required

Pearl Harbor, HI 15% No Facilities Required

San Diego, CA 20% No Facilities Required

Yokosuka, Japan 15% No Facilities Required

Sasebo, Japan 15% No Facilities Required

Norfolk, VA 20% No Facilities Required

Mayport, FL 5% No Facilities Required

For Official Use Only 8

• Provide engineering and technical services to accomplish specific requirements described herein in support of maintenance and planning for the overhaul and repair of equipment and systems associated with U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers (CVN) and west coast U.S. Navy Surface Ships

• Provide engineering, technical, repair and logistic support to forces afloat in identification and correction of material condition discrepancies in Hull, Mechanical and electrical (HM&E), Aviation systems, and C4I/combat support systems and other support equipment to:

– identify and correct systems material discrepancies;

– update and maintain configuration and availability report database systems; and

– develop or update on board training and curriculum and conduct instruction

CEMAT Solicitation

For Official Use Only 9

• Provide teams of craftsman, technicians and engineers qualified in hull, mechanical, electrical, electronic, and ordnance systems who:

– Are familiar with carrier and surface ship maintenance procedures; and

– Hull coatings

• Perform inspections, examinations, analysis, repairs incidental to such and make recommendations in the areas of maintenance planning and/or repair as requested on naval propulsion and auxiliary machinery associated with:

– high pressure steam propulsion plants;

– Non-nuclear steam plant systems of nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers;

– Aviation systems associated with these naval propulsion plants; and

– U.S. Naval Surface Force Ship propulsion plants and auxiliaries

CEMAT Solicitation (continued)

For Official Use Only 10

• In conjunction with the engineering maintenance/auxiliary systems assist program, specific emphasis will be placed on providing support to the:

– Carrier Engineering Maintenance Assist Team (CEMAT);

– Food Service and Laundry Support programs;

– COMNAVSURFOR maintenance and material readiness programs/projects;

– Surface Engineering Maintenance Assist Team (SEMAT);

– Underway Material Assessment Team (UMAT);

– Aircraft Carrier Climate Control Improvement Team (ACCCIT);

– Corrosion Control Information Management System (CCIMS);

– Enhanced Quality of Life Program (EQOL);

– Light Industrial Facilities (LIFAC) support;

– SURFOR Enhanced Capability to Assess Program (SECAP);

– INSURV support;

– Cableway Improvement Program; and

– Tool Depot program

For Official Use Only 11

• Provide dedicated:

– Engineering and design services;

– Maintenance information and metrics management;

– Engineering maintenance;

– Technical assistance;

– Configuration management and planning support for Carrier Availability Planning System (CAPS);

– Pre-Overseas Movement (POM) Periods;

– Carrier Availability Support Teams (CAST);

– Post Shakedown Availability (PSA);

– Selected Restricted Availability (SRA);

– Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH);

– Planned Incremental Availability (PIA);

– Docking Planned Incremental Availability (DPIA);

– Carrier Incremental Availability (CIA); and

– In-port upkeep periods

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

CEMAT 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

*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.

Incentive Fee

Incentive Fee (CPIF)

4.0%

Base Fee

5.0%

Max Fee

9.0%

For Official Use Only 16

• 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 3rd Quarter GFY 20

• Peer Review 3rd Quarter GFY 20

• Contract Award 3rd Quarter GFY 20

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 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 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 make the review process more time consuming

• Ensure continuity between Technical and Cost Proposals

Technical Proposal Quality

For Official Use Only 21

• 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 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 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 EDT on 16 May 2019.

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

This concludes the end of the presentation.

Thank you