ATR-ATMO__Pre-Solicitation_Conf_Final_10May2013.pptx

ATR / ATMO

Contractor Support Services N00421-11-R-0066

Pre-Solicitation Conference and Site Visit

15 May 2013

For Official Use Only

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Welcome and Opening Remarks Robert Vargo Associate Director Atlantic Test Range

NAVAIR’S Vision

We are naval aviation’s provider of choice.

We will deliver safe, affordable, integrated and interoperable warfighting capabilities with agility, flexibility and speed.

NAVAIR’s Role Develop, acquire, and support aircraft, weapons and related systems which can be operated and sustained at sea Provide analysis and decision support for cost/schedule/performance trades and investment decisions Increase Navy and Marine Corps capability, readiness and affordability in a joint/coalition environment

Our capabilities support the unique mission of Naval Aviation.

NAVAIR’s Focus Areas

Increase speed to the fleet . . .

Through program of record planning and execution; and rapid response to urgent warfighter needs.

I&I includes platforms, sensors and weapons operating seamlessly in a systems-of-systems environment that produce an immediate and sustainable increase in warfighting effectiveness.

By reducing operating and sustainment costs for fielded systems and implementing life-cycle cost reduction initiatives as part of new systems development.

Deliver Integrated and Interoperable warfighting capabilities . . .

Improve affordability . . .

Making the Navy and Marine Corps more capable, ready and affordable in a joint/coalition environment

NAVAIR Organization Chart

Fleet Readiness Centers Support Relationships Naval Air Warfare Centers

Naval Air Systems Command

CNO

Chief of Naval Operations

ASN(RD&A)

Navy Acquisition Executive Naval Air Systems Command Headquarters

Operating Agreements

PEO (A)

Air ASW, Assault & Special Mission Programs

PEO (U&W)

Unmanned Aviation & Strike Weapons

PEO (T)

Tactical Aircraft Programs

AIR-5.0

Test & Evaluation

PEO (JSF)

Joint Strike Fighter

Joint Program with Alternating SAE

Updated 31 Oct 12

5.4 Integrated Battlespace Simulation & Test

Director

5.3 Threat / Target Systems

5.2 Ranges

RDT&E Infrastructure 5.4.1 Battlespace Modeling & Simulation 5.4.2

Aircraft Simulation 5.4.3 Integrated Combat Environments 5.4.4

WING COMMANDERS

NTWP

5.1 Integrated Systems Evaluation, Experimentation & Test

NTWL

Director for Flight Test Engineering

Systems Test & Exp Management

VX 20

Manned/Unmanned Air Vehicle Evaluation

Weapons Evaluation

VX 31

Mission Systems Test & Evaluation

HX-21

VX 23

VX 30

USNTPS

AIR 5.0 TEST & EVALUATION

Test Management

5.2.1

ATR

Range Operations 5.2.2

Pacific Range Operations 5.2.3

ATR

Instrumentation 5.2.4

Pacific Range Instrumentation 5.2.5 Electronic Combat Range Threat Systems 5.2.6

Range Data Systems 5.2.7

Aircraft Prototype Systems 5.2.8

Aircraft Instrumentation 5.2.9

Weapons Instrumentation 5.2.10 Military Director

Target Systems 5.3.1 Pacific Target & Marine Operations 5.3.2

ATMO

5.3.3

Airborne Threat Simulation 5.3.4 Combat Environment Simulation 5.3.5

Threat/Target Systems Lead 5.3.9 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 5.1.9 5.1.10

NTAB

Staff Office 5.0C

Aircraft Controlling Custodian 5.0D

Aviation Safety Office 5.0F

Military Deputy Director Weapons & Strike Environments 5.4.5

5/10/2013

Agenda and Ground Rules

John Tomechko Procurement Contracting Officer

(PCO)

Agenda

May 15, 2013 0800-0900 Sign In

0900-0905 Welcome, Opening Remarks Robert Vargo ATR Associate Director

0945-1015 ATR Requirements Overview Greg Havens ATR COR

1045-1100 Break

Agenda (continued)

1200-1300 Lunch Break

1300-1700 One-on-One Meetings

May 16, 2013

0900 -1600 ATR & ATMO Site Visits

Ground Rules All attendees must sign-in

Please silence cell phones and pagers

No audio or visual recordings are permitted

This is an Informational Briefing only

The Brief, One-on-Ones, and Site Visit are “UNCLASSIFIED”

No Verbal Questions Will be Entertained During the Briefing or Site Visit

Submit questions in writing on 3x5 cards provided at the sign-in table

Questions and Answers Today, questions should be submitted to the PCO/Contracts Specialist in writing. Questions may be submitted during any break or at tomorrow’s One-on-One meetings.

Any follow-on questions should be submitted to NAVAIR Contracts Specialist Leanne Serman at the following email address: Leanne.serman@navy.mil Subject Header: “Q&A For ATR-ATMO Industry Day”

All questions must be submitted to the Government by May 20, 2013, 4 pm EST.

All questions and Government answers will be posted on the FedBizOpps website (www.fbo.gov).

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.

Disclaimer The remarks today of Government officials involved in the ATR / ATMO Contractor Support Services procurement should not be considered a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the program.

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 solicitation, when issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements.

Procurement Strategy Overview

John Tomechko Procurement Contracting Officer

(PCO)

Acquisition Strategy C Type, Level of Effort (LOE) Contract (non-Seaport)

Five (5) year Period of performance

One (1) year base period with four (4) one-year Options

CPFF CLINs Labor related effort

Cost Reimbursement CLINs for Travel, Material, ODCs, Vessel Leasing, and Dry Docking

Milestones 2nd Qtr CY13 3rd Qtr CY13 2nd Qtr CY14

RFP Release Proposals Due Contract Award

Section B – Supplies or Services (Base year)

Section B – Supplies or Services Option years

Section C – Descriptions and Specifications Attachment #1 – Statement of Work Scope Locations for the required efforts Background on ATR and ATMO Applicable Documents Tasking/Requirements for ATR and ATMO Reports and Data Requirements

Attachment #2 – Labor Category and Hours Worksheet By location Required Security requirements Required Certifications or Licenses Specialized Training and Experience

Section H – Special Contract Requirements H-1 Mandatory Small Business Participation Small Business Participation is a material part of this contract.

Contractor shall sustain the mandated Small Business Participation level of 20% of total contract costs throughout the contract

H-2 Vessel Collision Liability And Protection And Indemnity Liability Insurance Insurance coverage to support ATMO vessel operations and maintenance

H-3 Restriction On The Direct Charging Of Material And Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Navair 5252.242-9515 (Variation) (Dec 2010) Establishes Approval Authority for the purchases of materials and ODCs Provides allowable types of ODCs and Materials which can be purchased under this contract

Section I – Contract Clauses

FAR 52.222-17 – Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers Applies to Service Contract Act labor categories

Distribution of Documents Federal Business Opportunities:

https://www.fbo.gov

ALL solicitation-related information will be posted to the FedBizOpps website. This includes, but is not limited to:

Synopsis and Sources Sought Draft RFP, Including All Sections (A Through M), Exhibits, and Attachments Industry Day Brief Listing of Industry Day Attendees Industry Questions and Answers Final RFP RFP Amendments

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

NAVAIR Small Business Program Overview & Strategy Paula Coxon Office of Small Business Programs

(OSBP)

NAVAIR Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)

MISSION:

Enabling the Warfighter with Creative Solutions brought to them through small business

VISION:

NAVAIR’S Office of Small Business Programs is a valuable resource that enables the Best Solutions for the Warfighter. We are advocates for NAVAIR’s Strategic Priorities: Increase speed to the Fleet; Deliver Integrated & Interoperable Warfighting Capabilities; and Improve Affordability. Achieving these priorities requires the entrepreneurial skills of Small and Large Businesses. We strive to ensure that the creative talents of small business are nurtured and sustained in defense of freedom.

NAVAIR OSBP SITES

NAWCTSD ORLANDO

Small Business Deputy, Argentina Thompson

NAWCWD CHINA LAKE / PT MUGU / NATEC SD / FRC NI

Small Business Deputy, Derrick Hu Small Business Specialist, Rowena Geyer Senior Office Manager, Marty Zielke

NAWCAD LAKEHURST

Small Business Deputy, Dawn Chartier

NAWCAD PAX

Small Business Deputy (Acting), Paula Coxon Small Business Specialist - Vacant

NAVAIR HEADQUARTERS

Associate Director, Emily Harman HQ Small Business Deputy, Ken Carkhuff Industry Liaison, Marshall Woodfolk Program Analyst, Wanda M. Norris

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 Businesses (EDWOSB) Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Businesses (HUBZone) In accordance with FAR Part 19, there are set-aside and sole source opportunities per program Procurements <$150K are automatically set-aside for small business

FY12 SMALL BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS

NAVAIR HQ

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER

FLEET READINESS CENTER

MISSILES / FREEFALL WEAPONS

WEAPON SYSTEM INTEGRATION

ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS

LAND RANGE / SEA RANGE

NON LETHAL WEAPONS

WEAPONS

WEST COAST HUB

AIR VEHICLES

PROPULSION & POWER

AVIONICS & SENSORS

SHIP INTERFACE & SUPPORT SYSTEMS

LAUNCH & RECOVERY

UAVS

ATLANTIC TEST RANGE AND GROUND SYSTEMS TEST FACILITIES

HUMAN PERFORMANCE / SIMULATOR SYSTEMS

AIRCRAFT

EAST COAST HUB

$259.2M $816.7M $467.7M $197M FY12 Small Business Prime Contracts Total NAVAIR = $1.74B Source: FPDS-NG FINAL

$43.8M - HQ

$423.9M - NAWCAD

CHINA LAKE

NAWC WEAPONS DIV

POINT MUGU

NAWC WEAPONS DIV

FRC WEST

FRC NORTHWEST

FRC SOUTHWEST

FRC WEST PAC

LAKEHURST

NAWC AIRCRAFT DIV

PATUXENT RIVER

NAVAIR HQ, PEOs, NAWC AIRCRAFT DIV

FRC SEFAC

FRC

MID-ATLANTIC

FRC EAST

FRC SOUTHEAST

ORLANDO

NAWC TSD

Find Opportunities

Long Range Acquisition Forecast Short descriptive title for the requirement Longer description of the requirement Estimated dollar value of the requirement Requiring Organization NAVAIR Contracting Office Est. Solicitation/Request for Proposal release date Timeframe when the contract may be awarded Small Business Set-Aside? (if known) Planned strategy (i.e., SDVOSB set-aside) Incumbent Contractor Procurement Quantities Period of Performance of the Contract Delivery/Performance Location Point of Contact Forecast posted annually on www.navair.navy.mil/osbp and includes:

Do Your Homework Review NAVAIR web site – www.navair.navy.mil Review NAVAIR OSBP web site – www.navair.navy.mil/osbp Strategic Plans NAWCAD Operating Plan Long Range Acquisition Forecast Responding to Sources Sought tips Links to other NAVAIR web sites Links to recent briefings Review Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) web site – https://www.fpds.gov/fpdsng Contains all federal procurement actions Find out what NAVAIR procured in the past Use it as a business opportunity tool

Guidance to Industry Company Data Sheet No more than three pages (MS Office document) about your company and services Tailored for NAVAIR/NAWC Keep it simple and make your company stand out Answer the following Company point of contact information Describe what your company does (products or services) How your mission relates to Naval Aviation Product commercially available?

Intellectual property rights?

Product utilized with or on any other DoD, government, or commercial platform?

Quantitative data on product performance Small business certifications, current contract vehicles and NAICS Posted on NAVAIR OSBP website :www.navair.navy.mil/osbp

After Contract Award Key Message: You Must Now Perform!

Let NAVAIR Know if you’re experiencing difficulties…ASAP Technical/Performance Schedule Financial …These communications should be documented Know your contract…scope, terms and conditions, schedules, deliverables- it’s what we're holding YOU accountable for Be aware the Government rates your performance yearly in a CPAR (Contractor Performance Assessment Report) – used in future source selections (contracts over $1M for services and over $5M for products)

Resources Available to Assist Contracting Officer Administrative Contracting Officer Technical Customer NAVAIR Small Business Deputy Also SBA (www.sba.gov) Counseling- in person, e mail Financial assistance Training PTAC (www.aptac-us.org/new) Counseling- in person, e-mail Training

First line of communication after contract award

Process Team

CHAMPIONS

NAVAIR Commander

COUNCIL CHAIRMAN ROLES / FUNCTIONS

ESTABLISH VISION FOR COMMAND

CHAMPIONS ROLES / FUNCTIONS

KEEP PROGRAM VISIBLE AND FOCUSED

ADVISOR ROLES / FUNCTIONS

INTEGRATION AND LEVERAGE EXISTING NATIONAL PROGRAMS

SME ADVISOR

TEAM LEADS ROLES / FUNCTIONS

ADVISE

ASSIST TEAMS

TEAM LEADS

11.0

OSBP

SBIR

CTO

Communication Team

Performance Analysis Team

ADVISORS

Deputy Commander

DEPUTY COUNCIL

CHAIRMAN

Executive Small Business Council

COUNCIL CHAIRMAN

Deputy Assistant Commander for Test and Evaluation

PEO (JSF)

AIR 4.0

AIR 7.0

COMFRC

AIR 1.0/PEO

AIR 2.0

AIR 5.0

AIR 6.0

AIR 10.0

NAWCAD

NAWCWD

Assistant Commander for Contracts

Deputy PEO (U&W)

Small Business Council Chairs Commander NAWCWD

AIR 7.2

Executive Steering Committee

Facilitators

SOURCE:

POC: NAME; PH#

SLIDE TYPE: TEXT

Executive Small Business 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/Best Practices).

ATR/ATMO

Small Business Strategy DoN/DoD Areas of Emphasis Small Business Market Research Competition Previous Seaport Contract - 3 Distinct Divisions Air Vehicle Modification & Instrumentation (AVMI) Atlantic Test Range (ATR) Atlantic Target & Marine Operations (ATMO) Request for Information – Nov 2010 Sources Sought – Apr 2011

ATR/ATMO

Small Business Strategy Market Research Results AVMI - Small Business Set-Aside ATR/ATMO Full & Open Mandatory Small Business Sub-Contracting Participation 20% of Total Contract Costs Pass/Fail for Evaluation Purposes Product/Service Code AC14 – R&D- Defense System: Aircraft NAICS Code 541330 – Engineering Services Size Standard Military & Aerospace Equipment & Military Weapons $35.5M

What Matters Most…

Technical Requirements Overview

ATR-ATMO

Technical Requirements Overview Flexible and Responsive Management Support and Workforce to ATR & ATMO’s Dynamic Test & Training Environment Team with the Government Managers, Technical and Administrative to Meet Customer Requirements.

Provide Innovative and Cost Effective Solutions to Meet Customer Requirements, Improve Data Quality, Lower Costs, and be SAFE!

Provide Logistical Support to meet Operational, Maintenance, Improvement & Modernization, and Management Requirements.

NAVAIR T&E Lifecycle Process Systems Development Process/Methodology

Test Feedback

Flight Test Ground Test

IOC

Technology Development

System Development & Demonstration

Production & Deployment

Systems Acquisition

Operations & Support

B

C

Sustainment

FRP

Decision Review

FOC

LRIP/IOT&E

Critical Design Review

Pre Systems Acquisition

Concept Refinement

Decision

JROC

JCIDS

A

Live

Virtual Constructive

Dev System Design System Dev D T&E

IO

T&E Operations

Modeling & Simulation Hardware In the Loop Systems Integration Installed Systems Test Open Air Testing

Aircraft RDT&E

Mission Systems Tactical Data Links Materials Carrier Suitability Human Factors Systems Safety Sensors AV Flying Qualities & Performance (FQ&P) Reliability & Maintainability Electronic Warfare Propulsion & Power Software Validation & Verification Support Equipment Shipboard Dynamic Interfaces Aircraft Launch & Recovery Common Control System (CCS)

Weapons Integration

Component Test

UAS

Rotary-Wing Fixed-Wing Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Stability/Control

Atlantic Test Range Mission ATR provides:

Range and ground test facilities and mobile assets for Test & Evaluation (T&E) and training;

Decision-quality data in support of weapons systems development, test, and evaluation;

Safe, instrumented, controlled open air flight testing and training in air, land and sea arenas to a diverse DoD and US Agency customer base;

ATR Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) and Warfighter Support Capabilities include:

Aero-Mechanical –Flight Stability &Control Aircraft Flying Qualities and Performance Carrier/Shipboard Suitability Air Vehicle Stores Compatibility Air Vehicle Survivability Mission Systems Surface Vessel Support Fleet Support – JFTFX

Patuxent River Special Use Airspace Chesapeake Test Range Restricted Areas R-4006/8, 6609 (ext), 4007, Chessie A, B, C Approximately 2,700 square miles Surface to 85,000 feet Offshore Atlantic Ranges Warning Areas W-386, 387, 72 Approximately 50,000 square miles Surface to unlimited altitude

Instrumentation/Target Sites

Hannibal Target

Target Cues at Webster Field

Cedar Point Emitter Site

Remote Instrumentation Sites

Remote Emitter System, Pt. Lookout

Adams Island Emergency UAS Landing Site

SA-9 on Bloodsworth Island

ATR Systems Atlantic Test Ranges

Range Operations Division Test Management Scheduling Range Safety Test Communications Mid-Atlantic Area Frequency Coordination Office

Range Instrumentation Division Range Systems Range GPS Systems Large Area Tracking Range Personal Computer Debriefing System Range Computation & Control System Systems Administration Tactical Aircrew Combat Training System Tactical Combat Training System

ATR Systems Atlantic Test Ranges - Continued Range Instrumentation Division Range Systems Aircraft Signature and Avionics Measurements Automated Communications Test System Battlefield Communications Simulation System Electronic Warfare Patuxent River Infrared Signature Measurements Radar Cross Section Radar

Telemetry Systems Real-time Telemetry Processing System Mobile Telemetry Test Support

Optical Systems Electro Optical Tracking System Instrumentation Electro Optical Tracking System Tracking Systems Electro Optical Mobile Tracking Test Support Photogrammetrics

ATR Systems Range Control Center

Simultaneous Mission Support (5 Mission Control Consoles)

Real-Time Control, Safety, Data Acquisition, Processing of Multiple Test Vehicles (up to 128 per console)

Range Safety (airspace and surface) Local and Remote Area Surveillance (IFF, FACSFAC VACAPES, Link-11, Surface Radar)

Range Control Center Communications Diversity (video, voice, data) Radio, Microwave, Land-line, Fiber Optics, SATCOM Secure Operations DIS/DSI Compatibility with External Connectivity Multi-sensor Integration Time Space Position Information (TSPI) Video (high resolution) High-speed digital imaging (up to 400 images per second) Audio Meteorological Data

Instrumentation Diversity Radar Single and Multiple Object Cooperative and Non-cooperative Frequency & Geographic Diversity Electro-Optical Kineto Tracking Mounts and Theodolites Automatic Laser Tracking System Infrared (IR) Global Position System (GPS) Tracking Mid-Atlantic Tracking System Global Positioning System (GPS) Large area coverage Multiple participants Over the horizon Land, air and sea coverage Area Surveillance IFF, FACSFAC, Link 11, Surface Radar

Radar Laser Optical

MATS/GPS

ATR Mobile Assets and Services

P-8A Poseidon Testing Using Mobile MITS-12 Vehicle Boeing Field, Seattle, Washington

Optical Tracking Vehicle and KTM

Transportable Automated Meteorological System (TAMS) Photogrammetrics Mobile Lab

Battlefield Communication Simulation System

PRISM

Mobile Remote Emitter System Mobile assets allow test platforms to fly in airspace across the country – using proven range systems RTPS mobile vehicles Mobile KTM and Optical Tracking Vehicle Mobile EW Threat Emitters Mobile Photogrammetrics Equipment

EW Emitter Sites and Resources

Cedar Point Local Emitter Site Point Lookout Remote Emitter Site VHF/UHF Antenna System Mobile C3 Emitters

Cedar Point Fixed Emitter Site

Real Time & Dynamic RCS Measurements

RCS Engineering Workstation Whole Body & Doppler Signature Measurements Down Range & ISAR Measurements Jammer-to-Signal Ratio Chaff & Decoy Measurement

Dynamic RCS Measurement System

Patuxent River Infrared Signatures Measurement ATR’s PRISM facility conducts dynamic, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface infrared signature measurements of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, missiles, engines, boats and UAS. The system is completely mobile and operated either locally at Patuxent River or at any off-site location.

PRISM KTM and Operations Trailer

Automated Communications Test System ACTS is a fully automated open-air C3I simulation transmission system that provides RDT&E and fleet training and exercise support. An extensive antenna farm contains omni-directional and directional antennas that have unobstructed electromagnetic propagation paths over the Chesapeake Bay. ATR provides radar tracking and aircraft controller support.

ATR Special Signals Facility provides:

Test signals to stimulate threat warning receivers RF direction finding systems Jammer systems aboard airborne platforms Frequency range of 2 MHz to 2 GHz

Real Time Telemetry Processing System The Telemetry Data Center provides real-time radio-link reception, translation, processing and display of test data using the Real-time Telemetry Processing System. This widely-used system provides real-time test information from up to nine separate in-flight aircraft to ground engineering personnel. Test teams operate the system from any of nine Project Engineer Stations.

Project Engineer Stations

ATR Assets and Services Test Planning, scheduling, and management Positive airspace control in designated warning and restricted areas Secure Test data acquisition, processing, and display High-rate telemetry data delivery Secure and unsecure voice and data communications Real-time and 3D data processing and display Radio Frequency spectrum management Weather forecasting GPS and Time-Space-Position Information (TSPI) data for cooperative and uncooperative air vehicles, vessels and other objects Visual and electro-optical tracking systems Laser and optical tracking mounts Geomatics & Metrology Photogrammetric post processing Aircraft Signatures & Avionics measurements – Radar Cross Section Multi-spectral Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft measurements EW threat emitters Mobile range assets

Atlantic Test Range Support Service Requirements

Technical, engineering, administrative and management support services required to support aircraft engineering and developmental flight testing and fleet training capabilities for the Atlantic Test Range Team with government range personnel Multiple DoD and industry customers Multiple locations within CONUS & OCONUS Exposure to hazardous conditions & hazardous materials Dynamic event driven work requirements TS & TS-SAP security clearances

Atlantic Targets & Marine Operations Overview

Program Requirements Provides land, sea, and aerial target services Designs, develops, fabricates and modifies target systems Deploys a range of vessels to support unique maritime requirements Operates maritime vessels Operates and maintains surface and aerial targets Designs and fabricates prototype land targets Full-scale sea target hulks for weapons effects testing Underwater and land test article recovery operations

5.3.3 Geographic Distribution

Recurring Tasking

Weapons Effect Testing LPD-19 Shock Trial

Tomahawk Recovery

Ex-USS Wainwright

SINKEX

Ex-USS Oriskany

NAVSEA/NAVAIR

Tomahawk Recovery Team Support out of Eglin, Pt. Mugu & China Lake Future support out of AUTEC/FL Keys

Fleet Training Assumed all VC-6 responsibilities Jun 08 Composite Training Unit Exercises United Allied Exercises Force Protection Exercises Anti-Terrorist Protection Exercises Fast Inshore Attack Craft Exercises Maritime Intervention Operations

Missile Defense Agency

Operate and Maintain the Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), Ex-USS Tripoli Launching of target missiles Telemetry platform Operate and Maintain the Narragansett (ocean-going tug) Install the XTR-1 and Transportable Telemetry System (TTS) aboard the Pacific Tracker At-sea endurance for 21 days, 70 people (towed vessel) Multiple comm nets / Digital voice recording Crane/forklift service while at-sea Video recording on flight deck 35,000+ sq. ft. of reconfigurable hangar bay and flight deck space

Aerial Targets

BQM-74

BQM-34

Surface Targets Full Scale Target Hulks Command Control Functions

HARM

QST-35 (57 ft.)

Williams Sled Floating At-Sea Target (FAST) Improved Surface Towed Target (ISTT) Sea Deployed Surface Target (SDST) (Roboski) Rafts

Support Vessels Navy MkIII 65ft Patrol Boat 777 Navy Transporter (100 ft) Hurricane 23ft Rib Boat Fountain NAVAIR-38 (Key West)

Support Vessels

Hugo Narragansett

Plastic Land Targets

Target Mold Prototype & Manufacture 3D, 2D, cold air inflatable Copper cladded Trailer mounted Active Emitters Integrated

Source Selection Overview

Jim Stanford Source Selection Office

Source Selection Objectives Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered.

Obtain through use of a comprehensive evaluation process, providing fair and consistent evaluation of proposals.

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC ADVISORS

SSEB ADVISORS

SSEB

TECHNICAL

TEAM LEAD

SSAC MEMBERS

ASSISTANT CHAIR

COST

TEAM LEAD

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

TEAM LEAD

PAST

PERFORMANCE

TEAM LEAD

PCO

Source Selection Organization

Generic Source Selection Process

Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach Acquisition Strategy/Plan

SSP

Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry

SOO

P-Spec Draft RFPs One-on-ones Industry Days Tech. Library

Receive Proposals Compare Proposals Discussions w/ Offerors (ENs) Complete Discussions

Evaluate Proposals Competitive Range (or SSA Selects Source) M&M Appr

Exp Past Perf Price Evaluate FPRs Request Final Proposal Revision (FPRs)

Debrief Contract

SSAC

SSA

SSAC

SSA

SSAC

SSA

SSA

SSAC

SSAC/L&M

The Source Selection Process

Formal

RFP

Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review Select Source

Sections L and M Understanding and following Sections L&M are the keys to developing a good proposal; a mutually beneficial goal for award

Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP:

Tells Offerors what to put in the proposal

Evaluation Criteria – Section M of the RFP:

Identifies what will be evaluated

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

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

The proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost/price.

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors – General (cont) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting discussions with Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range – FAR 52.215-1 Alt 1 Provide your best initial proposals - Don't assume you can improve your position during discussions because you may not be included in the Competitive Range

Those included in the Competitive Range will enter into Discussions Written (Evaluation Notices ) and Oral Discussions 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)

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

(Confidence Assessment Rating)

TECHNICAL

(Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating)

Key:

> (more important) = (equal importance );

COST

Draft Evaluation Criteria

PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Confidence Assessment Rating)

Proposal Content & Volumes Annexes do not have suggested page counts and do not count towards the suggested page count.

Executive Summary Provide a summary of the Offeror’s entire proposal, excluding Cost numbers or values Each section should highlight the significant features of the proposal and include the salient points contained in the other volumes Provide Summary Table of prime and subcontractor place of performance, work assignment and % of total proposed cost Request providing this 3 weeks prior to proposal due date

TECHNICAL

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Technical- 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.

Evaluation will include an assessment of:

Personnel and Staffing Program Management Technical Capabilities Transition Plan.

Small Business Strategy and Small Business Subcontracting Plan

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 RFP 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

Draft Section L Cross Reference Matrix

Section L Technical Volume

- General Guidance - A proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the program can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government

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

Technical Rating (Compliance) Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable Technical Risk Rating High Moderate Low Technical Evaluation Grading - Qualitative

- 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

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 Strength Strength Definition: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Affects Technical Rating (Compliance) Provides appreciable performance or operational benefits to the Government Each strength may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the rating differently Used to determine adequacy of approach and understanding of requirement Strengths without a deficiency or uncertainty indicates a thorough (Good Rating) or exceptional understanding and approach (Outstanding Rating) Section M: “The degree of benefit to the Government associated with a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional.”

No strengths, deficiencies or uncertainties indicate an adequate approach and understanding (Acceptable Rating)

Technical Strength (cont.)

Strength Examples Exceeds minimum requirement with appreciable benefit to the Government Approach contains a feature that enhances operational or other program/product capability with appreciable benefits to the Government (Aspect of a proposal that has merit.)

Technical Uncertainty Uncertainty Definition: An aspect of the proposal that affects the Government’s ability to determine if a requirement will be met.

Affects Technical Rating (Compliance) Proposal is not adequate to allow a determination as to whether or not a requirement can be met and as such also does not demonstrate an adequate approach Results in no higher than a Marginal Rating

Uncertainties Examples Critical information is missing to enable the Government to determine if the requirement will or can be met Inconsistencies in the proposal brings into question what is being proposed

Technical Deficiency Deficiency Definition: “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Affects the Technical Rating (compliance) or both the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating Results in an Unacceptable Rating and makes the proposal unawardable Section M: “An "Unacceptable" Rating or a "High" Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition”

Technical Deficiency (cont.)

Deficiency Examples Proposal states exception or deviation Approach is assessed to be unable to meet a requirement Gross lack of information resulting in the failure to clearly and positively address major part of the Technical factor Combination of weaknesses that raise the risk of performance to an unacceptable level Requirements can only be accomplished by impacting Government operations, capability or resources beyond what is allowed/normal for this effort or system The approach relies on Government resources or operations not identified as available in order to comply with the requirement

Technical

- Rating Definitions -

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

Technical Risk Reducer Risk Reducer Definition: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Affects Technical Risk Rating Provides appreciable risk reducing benefits to the Government that may mitigates weaknesses or further reduces the risk to performance Each risk reducer may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the risk rating differently Used to assess the risk associated with the proposed approach

Risk Reducer Examples Reduces proposal risk by providing more than sufficient resources in order to respond to unknown conditions/situations Reduces proposal risk by providing resources/capabilities that are in-place and ready to be used Reduces proposal risk by providing plans that reduce/mitigates risks inherent in the proposed approach and program Reduces proposal risk by providing performance margin

Technical Significant Weakness Significant Weakness Definition: A “Significant Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Affects Technical Risk Rating Provides appreciable increases in risk to the Government Used to assess the risk associated with the proposed approach Each significant weakness may provide different degrees of impact, thereby affecting the risk rating differently based on the likelihood of occurrence and the consequences An “Unacceptable” Rating or a “High” Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Significant Weakness Examples Marginal resources or capability to accomplish the effort Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the Offeror’s full control Approaches that rely heavily on a single action or resource (aka single point failure) Untested/unproven approaches Lacks substantiation or full description of the approach Lacks information to assess risk

Technical

- Proposal Risk Definitions - Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating 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.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Corporate Experience vs. Past Performance Corporate Experience – What you have done “I’ve repaired 100 leaky boats in the past month.”

Past Performance – How well you have done “Ninety leaked after repair!”

Look Back

Look Forward

Past Performance -Evaluation Concept- How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS, Questionnaires Determine Relevancy / Recency Assess each contract referenced 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 (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program?

Final product is a determination of the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for the ATR/ATMO Contract

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable) its principal and critical subcontractors and 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, and Managing the contracted effort on similar programs Demonstrated systemic improvement Consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement

- Specific, Past Performance -

Past Performance Proposal Identify contracts containing efforts similar to the ATR/ATMO effort For Prime, Principal Subcontractors, Critical Subcontractors and team members All contracts submitted for Experience should also be submitted for Past Performance or an explanation of why not Performance within 5 years of proposal due date Relate to same plant, division or cost center where you propose to accomplish work Provide agreements between you and your subs/team members to allow us to coordinate past performance issues Provide past performance information, at least 3 weeks prior to proposal due date Requested that one hard copy and one electronic copy on a CD-ROM of the following tables be provided:

Section L Past Performance Volume Relevant Contract Data (Attachment P5)

(Include Cage and DUNs)

Proposed for ATR/ATMO Place of Performance Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference

(See Note 1 below)

Section L Past Performance Volume Relevant Contract Data (Con’t) Role on contract referenced past contract Ensure all contact info is current!!

Short summary of what is presented in paragraph 3.3.1 and identify as VR or SR

Past Performance Questionnaires

Past Performance Questionnaires (Section J Attachment P4) Send to contacts within 2 weeks from receipt of the RFP where CPAR data is not available Remove RFP number from Questionnaires prior to sending out

Request responses back to ATR/ATMO PCO within two weeks of receipt

Identify in Section J Attachment P5 when and where the questionnaires were sent

DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on Questionnaires; The Government will perform all follow-up actions Ensure that all points of contacts (POC’s) are current

Contract Relevancy 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.

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 assessed by the Government to involve little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/ or complexities that this solicitation requires, will be assessed as Not Relevant.

Relevant efforts are those which have a logical connection to the RFP requirements and occurred within the applicable time span The question to ask is, “Will the Contractor’s performance associated with this reference have a bearing on the future performance of the proposed contract?”

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

Performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due 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 Encompass 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

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 Bottom-line: Demonstrate that the problem will not reoccur or the extent that the likelihood of reoccurrence is reduced

Confidence Assessment Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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 re-occurring Impact: Consequences/severity of poor performance and Benefits of good performance Significant Positive and Negative Findings Positive and Negative Findings Performance Confidence Assessment Assessment Of Relevant Past Performance

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.

- Confidence Assessment Definitions -

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: 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.

EXPERIENCE

Evaluate the Offeror’s, which includes its…