Industry Day Slide Deck_SEAFAC FINAL.pptx
PPTX presentation 8 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00167-24-SEAFAC-OPS
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
CARDEROCK DIVISION
PRE-RFP INDUSTRY DAY
Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC) Operations Support
16 MAY 2023
UNCLASSIFIED
Agenda Introductions Purpose Contracts Brief Small Business Brief Technical Brief Attendees POC/Questions/Wrap-up
Industry Day Disclaimer Remarks today by Government officials involved in the Industry Day should not be considered a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the acquisition. The informational briefings shared today reflect current Government intentions and are subject to change based on a variety of circumstances.
The formal solicitation, when issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements.
Introductions Basem Makar Acquisition Management Branch Head Eric Dockendorf Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) Andrew Wall Contracting Specialist(CS) Keith Sandoval Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Eric Simon Deputy Site Director, Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC)
Purpose of this Industry Day The purpose of this Industry Day is to provide:
A technical overview and contract requirements for SEAFAC Operation Support.
Prospective offerors an opportunity for networking.
An advanced look at the solicitation’s anticipated submission requirements and draft evaluation criteria.
An opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback to the Government
Communicate the Government’s requirements and objectives in clear, meaningful ways to encourage Industry to propose the best possible array of solutions.
Provide tour of facilities to assist in allowing prospective contractors to better understand the facilities and tasks.
PRE-RFP PLANNING INDUSTRY DAY
Southeast Alaska Acoustic Measurement Facility (SEAFAC) Operations Support
CONTRACTS BRIEF
BY
Andrew Wall, Contract Specialist
Future Contract Information Current Contract: N00167-18-D-0001 Incumbent: Leidos Solicitation Type: IDIQ with Yearly Task Orders. RFP will be posted on SAM
Contract Type: Single Award, IDIQ
Contract CLINS:
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Level of Effort Labor CLINS Cost Only for Other Direct Cost (ODCs) Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLIN for Data
NAICS: 561210; Facilities Support Services: $47.0M Size Standard
Five-Year Period of Performance (POP) Yearly task Orders
Security Level: Secret
Planned Dates
Anticipated RFP Release: June/July 2023
Target Award Date: February 2024
Anticipated LOE:
Base year: 47,742 labor hours Four (4) option years: 47,742 labor hours each
Other Direct Costs (ODCs):
Incidental materials, equipment, travel, leasing of barges, etc.
Non-fee bearing Permissible under the instant requirement Historically ODC’s have reached 35-45% of contract cost Level of Effort/ODCs Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.
Labor Categories Key Program Manager Site Manager Senior Electrical Engineer Senior Mechanical Engineer Non-Key Mechanical/Marine Engineer I Mechanical/Marine Engineer II Mechanical/Marine Engineer III General Engineer II Naval Architect / Engineer I Naval Architect / Engineer II Order Clerk II Management Analyst Security and Logistics Coordinator Electrician – High Voltage Electrician – Industrial/General Electronics Technician
Machinist/Pipe Fitter Welder Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician II Engineering Technician III Maritime Operations Supervisor Tug Captain Vessel Operator Boat Operator Deck Hand/Mechanical Specialist Crane Operator Diver
Draft Evaluation Factors Factor 1: Technical Factor Subfactor A: Technical Capabilities and Approach Subfactor B: Staffing Subfactor C: Experience (Company/Corporate) Factor 2: Past Performance Recency, relevancy, and quality Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 4: Cost/Price Proposal
Adjectival Ratings Recency: Must be at least six months of performance within the last five years prior to date of proposal
Draft Evaluation Factors Relative Importance
Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3 Factors 1, 2, and 3 combined are more important than Factor 4
Within Factor 1, Subfactors 1A through 1C are listed in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1A being the most important and Subfactor 1C being the least important.
The degree of importance of Factor 4 will increase with the degree of equality among the proposals with respect to the non-cost factors, or when the difference in evaluated price among offerors is so great it diminishes the value of non-cost factors.
Draft Adjectival Ratings: Technical
| Ratings | Description |
| Outstanding | Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Good | Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. |
| Acceptable | Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal | Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable | Proposal does not meet the requirements of the Solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high. |
| RELEVANCY | |
| Ratings | Description |
| Very Relevant | Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant | Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Somewhat Relevant | Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant | Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
Draft Adjectival Ratings: Past Performance Recency: amount of time elapsed since Past Performance reference has occurred (Must be at least six months of performance within the last five years prior to date of proposal)
| Relevancy: | Quality: | ||
| Ratings | 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. | ||
| Neutral Confidence | 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of Past Performance. | ||
| 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. |
Cost Realism
COST REALISM
The solicitation advises offerors that a cost realism analysis will be conducted. Because this is a competitive procurement, the Government assumes that offerors have an incentive to understate, but not to overstate their proposed costs. For this reason, the cost realism analysis will focus on understated proposed costs.
In its cost realism analysis, the Government will use the most relevant, reliable data available to evaluate the probable cost. Since each offeror bears the burden of demonstrating the realism of its proposed costs, the offeror shall submit the most relevant, reliable data that demonstrates the realism of each proposed cost element
Cost Realism
COST REALISM
FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) states that cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.
FAR 15.404-1(d)(2) requires the Government to perform cost realism analysis on all cost-reimbursement contracts in order to determine the most probable cost of performance for all potential awardees and each relevant subcontract.
The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.
Factor 4 Cost/Price Direct Labor Rates:
Current Named Individual Direct Rate Supporting Documentation.
FPRA/FPRRs, screen-capture from the employer's payroll system (i.e. payroll data), Invoices, Salary.com, No uncompensated Overtime Contingent Hire Direct Labor Rate Supporting Documentation Letter of Intent Unnamed Direct Labor Rate Supporting Documentation payroll data for a comparable position and a brief analysis of how the proposed position is comparable to the position corresponding to payroll date supplied Escalation:
Realistic Escalation Rate for future out-years
Indirect Rates:
FPRA/FPRRs, 3 years of historical date, Provisional Billing Rates
Offerors shall submit substantiating information as necessary to demonstrate the cost realism of its proposed costs. Merely providing the substantiating data, without sufficient analysis and explanation of the relevance and reliability of that data, may not be sufficient to demonstrate cost realism.
Best Value – Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government after evaluation based on the factors and subfactors described in the solicitation.
A tradeoff analysis may be used when it is in the best interest of the Government.
No analysis will be performed for any proposal found to be technically unacceptable in any factor or subfactor.
Government evaluation is in accordance with the most recent publication of Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures.
Evaluation Criteria
Government intends full and open competition via SAM, based on:
Industry responses to RFI Analysis of historical data Technical capabilities assessment Input from small business representative
No expectation of receiving proposals from at least two responsible small business concerns capable of performing at least 50% of the requirement.
A small business subcontracting plan will be required from all large businesses at the time of proposal. Subcontracting goals will be stipulated in the solicitation.
The acquisition strategy has been endorsed by NSWCCD Office of Small Business Programs and the Small Business Administration.
Small Business
PRE-ACQUISITION PLANNING INDUSTRY DAY
SEAFAC OPERATIONS SUPPORT
Technical Brief By Keith Sandoval, COR Eric Simon, SEAFAC Deputy Site Director
SEAFAC services provided by Code 70:
Acoustic measurement in static and underway sites Submarine target strength measurements Data acquisition and analysis in support of surface ship and submarine R&D projects Light industrial fabrication and machine shop
NOTE: All data collection and recording systems are located in a secure area in Building 1.
BLDG. 1
BLDG. 1
BACK ISLAND
STATIC SITE
PIER
TO KNUDSON COVE MARINA
SEAFAC Operations
SEAFAC Capability Land Based Capability
Compressed Air
Hot Water Generation
Water Collection, Storage, and Treatment
Wastewater Treatment
Waterfront Operations Parts Fabrication
Fuel Storage and Dispensing Power Generation and Management Data Transmission, Collection, Processing, and Storage Weight & Material Handling & Cargo & Passenger Transport Communications Security
SEAFAC Capability Water Based Capability
Power Generation and Management Diving Weight Handling
Cargo & Fuel Offload Testing & Trials Communications Cargo & Passenger Transport Towing Mooring Security Traffic Monitoring Imagery
Scope Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, facilities, transportation, incidental engineering, and other items necessary to provide the services outlined below and described in the SOW at SEAFAC. The SOW outlines requirements for site maintenance, logistics, operations, technical integration services, and program management, in support of signature silencing programs for naval ships and undersea systems. Locations include Back Island, AK, waters offshore Back Island in Western Behm Canal, and to and from Ketchikan, AK.
Requirements of this solicitation include:
3.1 Program Management Support
3.2 Operations
3.3 Facility Support
3.4 Equipment Maintenance
Author (A) - 5. General Services?? At the bottom of the slide (off the slide) Delete.
Program Management Support Program Manager Authority Communication CDRLs Quality Management System Contractor Safety Program Environmental Protection Program Property Management Site Management Deck Supervision Logistics Management Security Management Meetings
Operations SEAFAC Operations Vessel Support Services Project Support Security Support Logistics Support Vehicle and Equipment Operation Environmental
Facility Support Facility Management Facility Investment Water based Waterfront Land based Site Improvement Utilities Facility Services
Equipment Maintenance Vessels Crew Boats Research Vessel Work Skiffs Charter Vessels Vehicles and CESE Weight Handling Equipment Material Handling Equipment Communications and Electronics Systems
Other Details Security SECRET, references and specifics found in DD 254 ACCM (Alternative Compensatory Control Measures) NNPI (Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information) Travel Skills and Training Access Common Access Card Navy Marine Corps Internet RDT&E Network Other SEAFAC Contractors Food Services, Janitorial, & Berthing Engineering Services Barge Maintenance
COR Oversight Funding Invoice Review Labor Categories ODCs Materials: in-house maintenance, repairs, and upgrades of Government property, consumables (adhesives, lubricants, etc), IT equipment and software Travel: other Carderock site, home office, training ODCs: shipping, postage, mooring lease, equipment leases, subcontracted repairs/services up to $10K, subcontractor’s ODCs, offsite training, specialty tooling CDRL Review CAC & Mandatory Training
NMCI
Performance Assessment & CPARS
Questions and Wrap Up Submit all questions and comments via email to andrew.m.wall.civ@us.navy.mil and eric.w.dockendorf.civ@us.navy.mil by 11:00 am PDT on May 22.
This slide deck will be posted on SAM.Gov
All questions and answers to questions will be posted on SAM.GOV
The draft documents and all information presented today are in draft status and may change. Updates will be reflected in the final solicitation
Attendees POCs ▼Company Attendance List:
Leidos, Inc Cage Code: 5UTE0 Contact: Claudia Monroe, claudia.b.monroe@leidos.com Saxman One, LLC Cage Code: 7QTC5 Contact: Timothy Blaszkow, tblaszkow@capefoxss.com Amak Towing Company Cage Code: 0RTC8 Contact: Paul Axelson, paula@sousteve.com image5.png image6.jpg image15.webp image16.webp image17.emf image18.emf image7.emf image8.emf image9.emf image10.emf image11.png image12.webp image13.webp image14.webp image19.emf image20.emf image21.jpeg image1.png image2.png image3.png image4.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .