NTWL_Pre-Sol_Conference_Brief_-_FPO_Posting.pptx

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - FAR 2.101 and 3.104

AIR-4.0E

Source Selection Office Naval Test Wing Atlantic Aircraft Maintenance, Modification, & Aircrew Support

Pre-Solicitation Conference 22-23 July 2015 Distribution Statement A - "Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited”

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. Daniel Chambers Procuring Contracting Officer

Day’s Events Day 1

111 (HX-21)

110 (TPS)

Adjourn

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Day’s Events Day 2

Meet in HX-21 Parking Lot 0930

Hangar Tour

109 (HX-21)

115 (VX-23)

306 (VX-20)

Wrap Up (HX-21 Conference Rm) & Adjourn TBD

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Ground Rules All attendees must sign-in

Please silence cell phones

No recording devices or photography allowed (tours inlcuded)

This is an informational briefing only, meeting is unclassified

Any additional questions/communications shall be submitted via the question form posted on FBO, to the Contracting Office:

Denise Morrissette and Daniel Chambers denise.morrissette@navy.mil and daniel.chambers@navy.mil Include Solicitation Number N00421-15-R-0044 in Subject Line of all communications

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Pre-Solicitation Conference Goals Exchange information regarding the Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) Aircraft Maintenance, Modification, and Aircrew Support Services per FAR 15.201 to enhance:

Offerors’ understanding of Government requirements and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, and

The Government’s proposal evaluation and award process and ensure cost-effective and quality support is obtained

Afford industry an opportunity to provide feedback and to ask questions regarding the Government’s requirement

Provide basic contractual information including the cognizant Contracts personnel, the types of support services being procured and an estimated timeline to award

Increase competition and teaming/subcontracting opportunities amongst capable and/or interested service providers

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Disclaimer Statement Remarks today of Government officials involved in the NTWL Aircraft Maintenance, Modification, and Aircrew Support Services procurement are not a guarantee of the Government’s course of action

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 is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Feedback Additional feedback from industry is welcomed after today’s conference and site visit

Industry feedback shall be received in writing by Denise Morrissette, Contract Specialist, prior to noon (EST) 14 August 2015 in order to be considered during solicitation completion

The Government requests that questions and/or input are focused on clarification of the draft solicitation to enhance the quality of offers

Feedback should not be submitted with proprietary information, or with limited or restricted rights assertions

Questions or requests for clarification will be dispositioned per FAR 15.201(f)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Information to be Posted For teaming purposes, the Government intends to post a list of companies participating in today’s events Please indicate on the sign in sheet if you would like your POC information shared Solicitation and contract (J) and proposal (P) attachments are posted on FBO E.g., historical maintenance data, floorplans, baseline manning data, projected aircraft load (L attachments) are currently available via email request to the contracts specialist The Government intends to post today’s Pre-solicitation Conference brief on FedBizOpps

The Government intends to respond to questions received by noon 14 August 2015 and post responses as questions are received All questions will be considered prior to posting the final RFP The Government does not intend to provide informal ad hoc answers to questions during this conference

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

NTWL PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Lisa Rice

NTWL (COR)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

NTWL Mission Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) Provide aircrew and aircraft assets; maintenance; operational and safety oversight; and facility support to conduct research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) of manned and unmanned, fixed and rotary wing aircraft and train test pilots, test Naval Flight Officers, and flight test engineers in order to support the Naval Aviation and as directed.

~104 aircraft; ~35 Type/Model/Series ~1000 personnel (current) 4 Squadrons/ 5 Sites at NAS Patuxent River Numerous Instrumented/Modified Aircraft Frequent Configuration Changes

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

NTWL Requirements Requirements Organizational, Intermediate and Depot Level aircraft maintenance and logistic support on all aircraft and Support Equipment (SE) for which Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) has maintenance responsibility Total maintenance, logistic, and technical support, for squadron aircraft, and associated equipment, in order to meet the daily flight and ground test schedule (DFS).

Personnel with experience in the associated Type/ Model/ Series aircraft.

Execution of safe, quality work ensuring aircraft availability and flight safety.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

U.S. Naval Test Pilot School USNTPS provides instruction to experienced pilots, flight officers, and engineers in the processes and techniques of aircraft and systems test and evaluation. The school educates and trains personnel from all U.S. military services, other U.S. Government agencies, and foreign nations to ensure Critical Warfighting Systems are effective and ready to satisfy respective service Defense Planning Guidance requirements and the ongoing Global War on Terror.

~1000 personnel

USNTPS

Total Aircraft: 33

FA-18F

NU-1B

OH-58C

T-6B T-38C U-60A

UH-60L

X-26A

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

VX-20

Force Aircraft Test

“FULL SPECTRUM FLIGHT TEST FOR THE FLEET”

Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Zero (VX-20) tests and evaluates aircraft and related systems in support of their delivery to the Fleet. We provide trained people, test ready aircraft, and access to state of the art facilities necessary for the development of cutting edge technology to support the warfighting needs of the operating forces.

VX-20

Total Aircraft: 18 C-2A C-38 C-12 E-6B E-2C E-2D

KC-130J

KC-130R/T

NP-3C

P-8A T-6A

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

HX-21

Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Air Test and Evaluation Squadron TWO ONE (HX-21) provides aircrew and assets; maintenance, operational and safety oversight; and facility support to conduct research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) of manned and unmanned rotary wing aircraft in order to support the Naval Aviation and others as directed.

Total Aircraft: 25

AH-1W

AH-1Z

MH-60R

MH-60S

MH-60S (SAR)

MV-22B

TH-57C

UH-1Y

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

VX-23

Strike Aircraft Test Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) is the Department of the Navy’s largest flight test organization whose mission is to support the research, development, test and evaluation of fixed wing tactical aircraft by providing aircraft and pilot assets, maintenance services, safety oversight, and facility support for these efforts. VX-23 conducts operations from a facility that includes three large hangars and also operates and maintains it own TC-7 catapult and MK-7 arresting gear facility.

VX-23

Total Aircraft: 28

EA-6B

EA-18G

FA-18B

FA-18C

FA-18D

FA-18E

FA-18F

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

NTWL Hangars

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

CONTRACT OVERVIEW

Mr. Daniel Chambers

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Milestones The following milestones are anticipated:

Formal Solicitation Release (60 days) September 2015

Proposal Receipt November 2015

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

NTWL Aircraft Maintenance, Modification, and Aircrew Support Services

Full and Open Competition

One (1)-year base period and four (4), one (1)-year options Ninety (90) day transition period prior to the start of the base period of performance

Hybrid Cost Plus Fixed Fee/Firm Fixed Price contract CPFF: Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance (~60% of performance) FFP: Shared Services (~40% of performance) Cost Reimbursable: Travel and Material

Acquisition Strategy Current contract: N00421-11-C-0033

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Solicitation Terms and Conditions Government may include portions of successful proposal in contract E.g., Subcontracting Plan, proposed special clauses

No alternate proposals

Intent to Award on initial offers, but the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section B – Supplies or Services

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section B – Supplies or Services

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

SOURCE SELECTION OVERVIEW

Ms. Lasandra Nelson

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

* Draft RFP Page 90 Source Selection Objectives Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered

Provide a fair and consistent evaluation of proposals

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC Advisors SSEB Advisors

SSEB

TECHNICAL

SSAC Members

ASSISTANT CHAIR

PAST

PERFORMANCE

COST/PRICE

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

Source Selection Organization

PCO

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

DASN (AP) Level Peer Review Per DFARs 201.170 and DASN (A&LM) memo dated 26 MAR 2009 Pre-Award competitive procurements with estimated value between $250M to $1B Phase I – Prior to issuance of the solicitation Phase II – Prior to request for final proposal revisions Phase III – Prior to contract award Peer review is advisory in nature and implemented to ensure Consistent and appropriate implementation of policy and regulations Continued improvement in the quality of contracting processes Identification and sharing of best practice and lessons-learned Peer Review

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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

Formal

RFP

SSP

RFP

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

Evaluate Proposals Competitive Range (or SSA Selects Source) Technical

Exp Past Perf Price Evaluate FPRs SSEB Eval. Report Request Final Proposal Revision (FPRs) Brief Brief

Debrief

SSAC

Brief Source Selection Roadmap

SSA

SSAC

SSA

SSAC

SSA

SSA

SSAC

DM

Brief Brief

DECISION

PAR

Evaluation Planning SSEB Plan

SSAC/L&M

Contract

Award without Discussions

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Tradeoff Evaluation Process

Evaluation Factors E v a l u a t i o n

Strengths Risk Reducers Uncertainties Deficiencies Sig. Weaknesses PP Confidence Corp Exp Confidence Cost/Price, etc.

Initial Evaluation Debrief Offeror Proposals

Initial Evaluation Briefing

Discussions

Competitive Range Determination Discussions Final Proposal Evaluation Notices

Final Evaluation

Revise Strengths Risk Reducers Uncertainties Deficiencies Sig. Weaknesses PP Confidence Corp Exp Confidence Cost/Price, etc.

Award

Final Evaluation Briefing Best Value Decision

ENs

Pre-FPR Briefing Award Without Discussions?

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Sections L and M Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP:

Identifies what to put in the proposal and in what format Understanding and following the Proposal Instructions in Section L will ensure that Offerors develop a good proposal

Evaluation Factors for Award – Section M of the RFP:

Identifies what will be evaluated Understanding the importance of each factor is key

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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered

Offerors are advised that proposals 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 the best value to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost/price

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors -General-

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions… The Government may award based on initial proposals if . . .

The Government receives a proposal that conforms with the requirements of the solicitation The proposal provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered

Offerors are advised that the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, corporate experience and cost/price standpoint since discussions may not be conducted

However, …

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

...the Government Reserves the Right to Conduct Discussions The Government may establish a Competitive Range with the most highly rated proposals if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government Those included in the Competitive Range will enter into Discussions Evaluation Notices (ENs) As a minimum, notification of deficiencies, uncertainties and significant weaknesses Proposal change pages where needed Helps to easily identify changes Minimizes work for the Final Proposal Revision (FPR)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

NTWL Evaluation Factors Draft Order of Importance Key:

> (more important) = (equal) All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important, than cost/price.

TECHNICAL

(Compliance Rating & Risk Rating)

PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Performance Confidence Assessment Rating)

COST / PRICE

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

(Performance Confidence Assessment Rating)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Proposal Content and Volumes Annexes are used to provide supporting data Annexes do not count toward the suggested page counts for each Volume Annexes C & D electronic only

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Volume 1 – Executive Summary Provide the Government with an overview of the entire proposal, excluding cost/price Offeror Summary (Table ES-1):

Relevant Contract Summary (Table ES-2) Technical Summary Past Performance Summary Corporate Experience Summary Contract Administration Summary Exceptions or Deviations Section H clauses proposed in Vol 6 (Contract Administration)

Identify and highlight significant features of the proposal

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

The term “entity” is used to mean any or all of the following: prime contractor, JV, JV team members, any subcontractor, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate (e.g. any contractor with a different CAGE Code/DUNS than the Offeror).

The following entities are defined as principal entities and only principal entities will be used in the past performance and corporate experience evaluations: (a) the prime contractor; (b) JV Team Members; and (c) other entities that perform at least 15.00% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract minus the ODC CLINs (X031 – X038) costs.

Draft Section L, Part A General

- Entities -

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Cage Code: 12xxx

Volume 1 - Executive Summary Sample Offeror Summary Table ES-1 PP / CE references should only be provided for principal entities

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Volume 1 - Executive Summary Sample Relevant Contract Summary Table ES-2

JV team member N (where Applicable) T5 FFP X X

PP / CE references should only be provided for principal entities

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Volume 2 - Technical Draft Section M Evaluation Factors 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

Technical Evaluation Elements:

*Emphasis will be placed on Manning Approach and Management Control Systems

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Volume 2 – Technical Section L Guidance Throughout the Technical Volume the Offeror should identify any proposed capability, approach or feature that exceeds a requirement or provides merit associated with a performance or operational benefit to the Government The Offeror should also identify any proposed capability, approach or feature that reduces risk inherent in the program Specifically, explain the benefits to the Government in technical terms and the degree of impact it will have to performance, operations and/or risk Any offer to exceed a requirement or to provide a feature with performance and/or operational benefits may be included in the resulting applicable Contract within the proposed cost/price

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Volume 2 - Technical Cross Reference Matrix Provided in Section L as guidance to Offerors

Road map to RFP and proposal The Technical CRM is included to help the Offeror develop its proposal and to ensure traceability of Section L paragraphs to the requirements

Shows relationship between the proposal instructions paragraphs and PBSOW requirements

The Offeror’s Technical CRM may be identical to the one provided or revised to add information to better relate your understanding of the program and guide the Government through your proposal

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Volume 2 - Technical Cross Reference Matrix

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Deficiencies

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable Technical Risk Rating High Medium Low Assessment Of Technical Proposals Strengths and Uncertainties Risk Reducers and Significant Weaknesses

- Review for accuracy and “common threads”

- Assess type of and degree of benefit/impact Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range Technical Evaluation Process Technical Rating (Compliance)

Potential Strengths, Uncertainties, Potential Risk Reducers, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

- RISK -

Assessment of likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

- COMPLIANCE -

Assessment of the Offeror’s solution for meeting requirements

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Compliance Rating Definitions

The Technical Compliance Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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 Compliance Rating Appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit 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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Strength (cont.)

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.”

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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 Compliance Rating 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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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

Deficiency Examples Proposal states exception or deviation Approach is assessed to be unable to meet a requirement Combination of significant weaknesses that raise the risk of performance to an unacceptable level An approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g. Government Furnished Property) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Deficiency (cont’) Affects the Technical Compliance Rating or both the Technical Compliance Rating and the Technical Risk Rating (due to a combination of significant weaknesses)

Section M: “Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor rating of “Unacceptable” or “High” risk may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.”

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Risk Rating Definitions Technical Risk Rating: The risk assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Significant Weakness (cont’) Significant Weakness Example 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

A combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level may be considered a deficiency.

Section M: Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor rating of “Unacceptable” or “High” risk may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

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!”

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Process Assess overall Offeror Team Performance Receive Early Past Performance Information Assess Contract Recency/ Relevancy for Past Performance/Corporate Experience Assess Individual Contract Performance

Performance Confidence Assessment

(PCA)

Substantial

Satisfactory

Limited

No

Unknown

Review trends and predictors of future performance to assign PCA Rating for each Offeror Team Technical, Schedule, Cost and Management Performance, and Small Business Utilization Look Back Look Forward

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Recency No Go

NR

Complexity:

Performance of O-Level aircraft maintenance within one or more of the following categories: fixed wing tactical, large fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing tactical, training or non-tactical/general aviation aircraft identified within Attachment L-8 (NTWL Aircraft Categories).

Scope:

Performance of O-Level aircraft maintenance in accordance with technical publications while managing aviation programs in accordance with DCMAINST 8210.1 Series and/or CNAFINST 4790.2 Series Magnitude:

The number of aircraft maintained similar to those identified within Attachment L-3 (NTWL Anticipated Aircraft Load).

Similarity Go

Contract Relevancy Assessment Contracts assessed as not relevant by the Government will not be considered in the Past Performance or Corporate Experience assessments

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Corporate Experience Process

Assess overall Offeror Team Performance Relevant Contracts Perform a Gap Analysis for each area identified in the Evaluation Criteria Assess the Impact of the Gaps in each Area

Performance Confidence Assessment

(PCA)

Substantial

Satisfactory

Limited

No

Assign PCA Rating for each Offeror Team

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Corporate Experience

- Confidence Definitions -

Corporate Experience Confidence Assessment Rating: Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s previous experience.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

The Offeror’s total proposed price will be evaluated to determine that it is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15-404.1

~60% of the performance requirement will be CPFF Cost Realism ~40% of performance requirement will be FFP Inconsistencies between the manning proposed in the technical factor and the priced manning proposed in the cost/price factor may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical factor as described in FAR 15.404-1(d)(3).

Volume 5 - Cost/Price

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Typical Proposal Shortfalls Proposals are not well organized Proposal does not follow proposal structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information Information not provided in the way it was requested Statements in the proposal are not well supported Too much / too little information Not signing SF-33 Past Performance POCs are not current DUNS/CAGE Codes references do not match Deficiencies - preclude award

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance - Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks Support statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate a valid and practical solution for all requirements Substantiate, don't simply make claims Provide enough information to allow an independent assessment Be consistent from Volume to Volume Make appropriate trade-offs to provide the very best value that you can offer Point out strengths, risk reducers and associated benefits Address risks with mitigating approaches Show balance between Cost/Price and Technical benefits Drawings & diagrams complement narrative; don’t replace it

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance - Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs Structure the proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions The Cross Reference Matrix can be a good proposal development tool Be clear and concise Be attentive to all parts of the RFP Requirements, PBSOW Section L Attachments (e.g. Maintenance Man Hr/Flight Hr, Projected A/C, Historic & Government Estimated Manning) Terms and Conditions Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions Avoid marketing material

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Propose the best value solution, making the appropriate Technical and Cost/Price Trade-Offs to provide the very best value Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution Bottom-Line

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

TECHNICAL

Lisa Rice

NTWL (COR)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical Factor Volume 2.0

2.1 Management Approach

2.2 Manning Approach *

2.3 Key Personnel

2.4 Management Control Systems *

2.5 Transition / Phase In Plans

2.6 Risk Identification Plan

2.7 Small Business Management

* Emphasis area

Evaluation Flow

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical

2.1 Management Approach

Overview Recruitment, retention, and professional development Innovation by hangar location Approach to organizing Noting innovations and efficiencies Lines of Authority (management personnel) High-level Org Chart Reflects position of this program within the corporate organization Managing a CBA Workforce Daily management, plan to negotiate, impact on contract costs Strike Contingency

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical

2.2 Manning Approach (Emphasis)

Complete Table T-2 (Attachment J P-3 Vol 2) Rationale for how manpower requirements were determined Describe adjustments from data or standards and the rationale.

Demonstrate Implementation to support aircraft Temporary increases (aircraft supported) Simultaneous detachments Manning Distribution Skill level onsite and off site Overall Process Top level flow chart showing man-hours and man loading

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical

2.3 Key Personnel

Position Descriptions Critical Skills

SCA

2.4 Management Control Systems (Emphasis)

Management Information System (for aircraft not in OOMA) Time Keeping Accurately apply costs to CLINs

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical

2.5 Transition / Phase In Plans

Transition Start Up/Learning Development of Procedures and Plans Hiring Phase In Time Phased manning Training

2.6 Risk Identification Plan

Inherent Risk / Contingency

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Technical

2.7 Small Business Management

SB Utilization Strategy Describe approach to identifying SB concerns Describe extent of participation with detailed description of supplies and services for each SB Concern subcategory Identify processes to correct inabilities to meet proposed goals with corresponding improvements Describe specific efforts and new initiatives to ensure meeting or exceeding proposed SB goals Demonstrate SB Utilization Strategy is consistent with SB Subcontracting Plan goals (Ref PWS 3.14) SB Subcontracting Plan Large Businesses Only - Provide SB Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 19.7 & DFARS 219.7 as part of Annex B Plan will be incorporated into awarded contract (Ref PWS 3.14)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

PAST PERFORMANCE

Mr. Rob Litz VX-20 Deputy Maintenance Officer

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance -Evaluation Concept-

Look Back

Look Forward

How well did the Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS, Past Performance Questionnaires, Interviews Assess each contract referenced Determine Relevancy / Recency 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 the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

- Past Performance - The Government will evaluate the Prime’s and other principal entities’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements for each of the following areas:

1) meeting technical requirements;

2) meeting schedule requirements;

3) controlling contract cost;

4) managing the contracted effort on similar programs; and

5) Small Business Utilization.

Demonstrated systemic improvement Consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Proposal

Provide past performance information, at least 2 weeks prior to proposal due date Attachment P-1, “Offeror Summary” Attachment P-6, “Past Performance Contract Data” Attachment P-7, “Corporate Experience CRM” Annex C, “Final versions of previous SOW/PWS for Past Performance and Corporate Experience” Provide agreements between you and your subs/team members to allow us to coordinate past performance issues

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Past Performance Questionnaires Attachment P-5, “Past Performance Questionnaires” Send to contacts within 2 weeks from receipt of the RFP where Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data is not available Do not include RFP number on Questionnaires

Provide instructions to each recipient of the questionnaire requesting a response to the NTWL PCO within two weeks of receipt

Identify in Attachment P-6, “Past Performance Contract Data” when and to whom 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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section L Past Performance Contract Data (Attachment P-6)

Proposed for NTWL

Relevant contracts for the proposed Prime (e.g. P1) and proposed Subcontractor (e.g. S1)

Place of Performance Contract of the prime Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section L Past Performance Volume Relevant Contract Data (Con’t)

Role on referenced contract Identify PWS/SOW references Identify PWS/SOW references

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Section L Past Performance Volume Relevant Contract Data (Con’t)

Phone:

Email:

19 Gov’t ACO Name:

Phone:

Email:

20 Gov’t PM Name:

Phone:

Email:

21 Other: Name:

Phone:

Email:

Ensure all contact info is current!!

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Contract Relevancy The Government will assess the degree of relevancy. Reference contracts will be assessed as Relevant (R) or Not Relevant (NR) Relevant (R) – Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires Not Relevant (NR) - Contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that are not similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicitation will be assessed as Not Relevant. Contracts assessed as NR by the Government will not be considered in the Past Performance assessment.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Relevant Contracts For this solicitation, a relevant past contract reference is one that has the following scope, magnitude and complexity. Scope is performance of O-Level aircraft maintenance in accordance with technical publications while managing aviation programs in accordance with DCMAINST 8210.1 Series and/or CNAFINST 4790.2 Series. Magnitude is the number of aircraft maintained similar to those identified within Attachment L-3 (NTWL Anticipated Aircraft Load). And, complexity is performance of O-Level aircraft maintenance within one or more of the following categories: fixed wing tactical, large fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing tactical, training or non-tactical/general aviation aircraft identified within Attachment L-8 (NTWL Aircraft Categories).

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document

Not Relevant Contracts Contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet…