APSD_AIRWORKS_Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Slides_-_Final.pdf

AIR-4.0E

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - FAR 2.101 and 3.104

APSD/AIRWorks Prototyping and Limited Production Contract Pre-Solicitation Conference

19 July 2016

N00421-16-R-0040 NAVAIR Public Release 2016-608 Distribution A -

"Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited"

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 2

AIR-4.0E

Agenda

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin Mr. C. Bowman

• Program Overview & Requirements Mr. C. Beard

• Source Selection Overview Mr. C. Bowman

• Draft Sections L&M Mr. C. Bowman

• Summary & Path Forward Team

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 3

AIR-4.0E

Welcome

• All attendees must sign-in

• Please silence cell phones, etc.

• No recording

• This is an Informational Briefing only

• This meeting is UNCLASSIFIED

• Today’s briefing and attendees’ list will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities Website

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 4

AIR-4.0E

Government Attendees

• Robert Smith - Director, AIRWorks

• Lisa Manley - Division Head, Aircraft Prototype Systems Division

(APSD)

• Jeffrey Guarnero – Deputy Department Head 2.5A

• Tracy Medford – Department Head, AIR 2.5.1

• David Silverstone – AIR 2.5.1

• Michael Coon – AIR 2.5.1

• Kathleen Notaro – AIR 2.5.1

• Margo O’Rear – AIR 2.5.1

• Amy Hanson - Office of Counsel

• Christine Hill – NAVAIR Source Selection Office

• Christopher Bowman – NAVAIR Source Selection Office

• Christopher Beard – APSD COR / Acquisition Manager

• Rebecca Smith – Director of Aircraft Prototype Facility

• Caleb Gill – APSD

• Curtis Cook - AVMI

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 5

AIR-4.0E

Disclaimer

• The remarks today of Government officials involved in this 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.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 6

AIR-4.0E

Purpose

• Primary Purpose – understanding the content of the draft RFP, with focus on Sections L and M

• Final opportunity for open industry feedback prior to final RFP release

• All information released to date and during this conference is to be considered draft and for informational purposes only

• Internal source selection plans and procedures will not be discussed

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 7

AIR-4.0E

Questions and Answers

• The Government may answer questions as the presentation progresses. All questions may not be answered today due to time constraints.

• After today, questions should be submitted to Margo O’Rear and Dave Silverstone at the following email addresses: margo.orear@navy.mil & david.silverstone@navy.mil

• All draft RFP questions should be submitted to the Government by 29 July 2016. It is not the Government’s intention to release answers to every draft RFP question.

If necessary, changes will be made via the final RFP release.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 8

AIR-4.0E

Agenda

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin Mr. C. Bowman

• Program Overview & Requirements Mr. C. Beard

• Source Selection Overview Mr. C. Bowman

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 9

AIR-4.0E

Requirement Summary

• MAC ID/IQ Supply Contract

– Lot I – Unrestricted

– Lot II – Restricted – Small Business Set Aside

• Five Year Base Ordering Period with Three One Year Ordering Period Extension Options

• Approx. $487M Ceiling –15% Services / 85% Supply

• Competitive Orders

• Mix of Services (CPFF) and Supply (CPFF/FFP) CLINs

• Prototyping, Validation, Verification and Limited

Production Contract with Lead Systems Integrator, Functional Validation, Post Delivery Support and Publications / Logistics Capabilities

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 10

AIR-4.0E

Supporting Programs

• Prototyping, Val, Ver

– Rapid Response / Urgent Needs /

TACDEMOs

– Fleet Introduction (Capability /

Obsolescence Upgrades)

• Sustainment

– Reverse Engineering

– Critical Safety Item Fabrication

– Obsolescence Fabrication

– Publications

– Short term sustainment activities

• Limited Production Kits / Installs

– Urgent Need

– Evaluation Units

– Fleet Introduction

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 11

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section B

CLIN Title Type Description Deliverable

0X01 Collaborative Development (Labor)

CPFF Supplement Government staff with labor services for engineering, fabrication and installation

(Service) Labor category Hours

0X02 Prototype, Validation and Verification Systems (Labor + Material)

CPFF Based on a government specification:

Design, documentation, fabrication, installation and/or delivery of prototype systems with additional units for validation and verification activities (on site / off site)

(Supply) Physical deliverable prototypes, validation and verification units/installations with technical data packages

0X03 Limited Production (Labor + Material)

FFP Limited production based on a provided data package (off- site production / on-site and off-site installations)

(Supply) Kits / Installations

0X04 Materials, Special Tooling & Test Equipment

COST Supplies and Materials in support of CLIN 0001 collaborative programs

(Supply) Prototyping Materials

0X05 Travel COST Travel in support of CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003

Travel

0X06 CDRLs NSP Technical and programmatic data Data

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 12

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW Overall Requirements

• SOW Section 4.0 General Requirements applicable to both lots

• SOW Section 4.1 Lot I Unrestricted Capability Requirements

• SOW Section 4.2 Lot II Small Business Set Aside Capability Requirements

• SOW Sections 4.3 – 4.8 Execution CLINs to define scope of each order that will rely on those capabilities defined in Sections 4.0 – 4.2.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 13

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW Order Lot Designation

• LOT I – The unrestricted portion consists of requirements which are of greater complexity (SOW Section 4.1)

• LOT II – The small business set-aside portion consists of requirements which are of lesser complexity (SOW Section 4.2)

• In making this determination, the Government will consider a combination of, but not limited to, the following elements for assignment to LOT I and LOT II (SOW Section 3.0):

– Degree of system complexity

– Level and availability at DO award of manpower required

– System testing requirements inclusive of Flight Testing

– Degree of requirement maturity or stability

– Number of concurrent installations

– Production requirements

– Contractor facility capability/capacity requirements

– Software development and maturity requirements

– OCONUS system installation or support requirements

– Performance, cost, or schedule risks

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 14

AIR-4.0E

Lot I Requirements

Lot II Requirements

Vendor Capability Requirements Government

System Performance

Requirements Definition

System Architecture Development

Air Vehicle Baseline

Airworthiness

Aircraft Installation Design and

Airworthiness Substantiation

Kit Fabrication and Installation

Logistics

System Performance

Testing / Validation

Government Acceptance

Testing

Representative Aircraft Modification Program

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 15

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW CLIN 0X01 Collaborative Development

• In accordance with the Delivery Order, the Contractor shall support the Government team with personnel and equipment resources to support the design, development, test and delivery of items including, but not limited to, technical data packages and/or prototype, validation, verification and limited production systems.

– Supply labor across a broad variety of capabilities to support all levels of the projects

– Purchase materials as defined in CLIN 0X04 in support of operations and project executions

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 16

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW CLIN 0X02 Prototyping, Val. and Ver. Systems

• The Contractor shall, working from Government provided high level requirements, objectives, specifications and/or concepts, research, design, analyze, document, fabricate, assemble, deliver, install, integrate, test and support Government test and evaluation activities for Prototype ground and aircraft systems or modifications and associated developmental equipment and systems integrations laboratories.

• Validation and Verification Systems

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 17

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW CLIN 0X02 Prototyping, Val. and Ver. Systems

• The Contractor shall provide technical, trouble shooting, logistical and maintenance support of developed prototypes, validation and verification systems during test, evaluation and initial operational deployments or demonstrations.

• The Contractor shall procure/deliver materials to support all items included in CLIN 0X02.

• The Contractor shall provide training for Government personnel at the Contractor's facility or other agreed upon locations, as required. Contractor training may include, but is not limited to, training associated with specific system or software design in order to facilitate prototype development, testing and initial deployment.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 18

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW CLIN 0X03 Limited Production Systems

• The Contractor shall, at its facilities using production quality information, produce and deliver limited production units as determined in individual DOs.

• The Contractor shall perform modification / installations of limited production units at NAS Patuxent River, other DoD or OGA facility, Contractor facilities or other designated locations as identified in individual DOs.

• The Contractor shall provide technical, trouble shooting, logistical and maintenance support of limited production systems during testing, initial operational deployments or demonstrations.

• The Contractor shall procure/deliver materials to support all items included in CLIN 0X03.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 19

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section C: SOW Other CLINs

• CLIN 0X04 (Cost) – Materials, Special Tooling & Test Equipment

• CLIN 0X05 (Cost) – Travel in support of all other CLINs

• CLIN 0X06 (NSP) – CDRLs

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 20

AIR-4.0E

Agenda

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin Mr. C. Bowman

• Program Overview & Requirements Mr. C. Beard

• Source Selection Overview Mr. C. Bowman

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 21

AIR-4.0E

Source Selection Objectives

Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered

Obtain the best value using a comprehensive evaluation process

Use of the evaluation process provides a fair and consistent evaluation of proposals

• Choose the contractors who provide the best value to the Government, all factors considered

• Obtain the best value using a comprehensive evaluation process

• Use of the evaluation process provides 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 22

AIR-4.0E

Source Selection Organization

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC Advisors

SSEB Advisors

SSEB

TECHNICAL

SSAC Members

ASSISTANT CHAIR

COST/PRICE CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

PCO PAST

PERFORMANCE

Evaluators

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 23

AIR-4.0E

Source Selection Process

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)

Corp Exp Past Perf Technical

Cost/ Price

Evaluate FPRs Request Final

Proposal Revision (FPRs)

Debrief

Contract

SSAC SSA

SSAC SSA

SSAC SSA SSA SSAC

SSAC/L&M

Formal

RFP

Select Source

Award on Initial Proposals?

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 24

AIR-4.0E

Sections L & M

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

• 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 Factors and Criteria – Section M of the RFP:

– Identifies what will be evaluated

– Identifies relative order of importance of factors

– Identifies emphasis areas

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 25

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section M: General

• The APSD/AIRWorks Prototyping and Limited Production contract will contain two lots.

• The most highly rated proposals will be selected for a MAC basic contract award for Lot I and Lot II, allowing them to compete for future task orders

– The Government intends to conduct evaluations and make awards concurrently for both Lots utilizing best value procedures

– The most highly rated proposal in Lot II will also receive award of Order 0001

• The Government expects to select 2-3 Offerors for Lot I and 3-5 Offerors for Lot II for the award on the basis of their proposals providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 26

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section L and M:

General

• AS9100C Prerequisite

– The Contractor shall have a quality management system that complies with Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), AS9100C Quality Management Systems - Aerospace – with sufficient scope for the Design, Manufacture and Installation of Aircraft Parts and Components.

Independent certification/registration with no exclusions is required under the Aerospace Industry controlled AS9104 process.

• Evaluation will be focused on Prime or Joint Venture Offerors

Only in relevancy determinations for Past Performance and Corporate Experience

– Subcontractors will NOT be evaluated in these areas since there is no guarantee of Primes using a particular subcontractor throughout the life of the MAC

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 27

AIR-4.0E

Discussions…

• The Government intends on awarding without discussions

• The Government may award based on initial proposals if . . .

– the Government receives proposals that conform with the requirements of the solicitation, and

– the proposals provide the greatest overall benefit to the

Government, all factors considered

• Offerors are advised to provide the best proposal possible 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 28

AIR-4.0E

Discussions…

• ...the Government Reserves the Right to Conduct Discussions

• The Government may establish a Competitive Range with the most highly rated proposals

– Those included in the Competitive Range will enter into

Discussions

• Evaluation Notices (ENs)

– As a minimum, notification of deficiencies 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)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 29

AIR-4.0E

Draft Evaluation Criteria

Key: > (more important)

All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important, than cost/price.

> Cost/Price

TECHNICAL

(Rating &

Proposal Risk)

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

(Confidence Assessment)

PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Confidence Assessment)

= (equally important)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 30

AIR-4.0E

Proposal Content and Volumes

• Annexes are used to provide supporting data

• Annexes do not count toward the maximum page counts for each Volume

Volume Title Volume 1 Executive Summary Volume 2 Past Performance Volume 3 Technical Volume 4 Corporate Experience Volume 5 Cost/Price Volume 6 Contract Administration Annex A Relevant Portions of Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs for Past Performance and Corporate Experience Annex B Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Lot I Only) Annex C T-1 SB Goals (Lot I Only)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 31

AIR-4.0E

Volume 1: Executive Summary

General Note: Offerors shall clearly identify whether they are proposing for the Lot I (Unrestricted) or Lot II (Restricted) effort. If small businesses desire to propose for both Lot I and Lot II, than two separate clearly identified proposals must be submitted.

a. AS9100C Prerequisite

– The Contractor shall have a quality management system that complies with

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), AS9100C Quality Management Systems - Aerospace – with sufficient scope for the Design, Manufacture and Installation of Aircraft Parts and Components. Independent certification/registration with no exclusions is required under the Aerospace Industry controlled AS9104 process.

b. Offeror Summary Table (ES-1, Part of Attachment L-1)

c. Relevant Contract Summary Table (ES-2, Part of Attachment

L-1)

d. Contract Administration Summary

Cost/Price Information is not included in this Volume

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 32

AIR-4.0E

Sample Offeror Summary Table (ES-1)

• This table summarizes the offeror and/or the JV Team Members’ roles and responsibility as well as their work commitment.

• All current CAGE Codes/DUNS must appear in Table ES-1(Offeror Summary Table) which indicates a commitment of work for those entities

Offeror:

Contractor Name Place of Performance CAGE Codes Work Description

XYZ Corporation (Prime or JV Company) Any City, Any State, Any Zip

DUNS#: 12-345-XXXX

Cage Code: 1XXXXXX

ABC Shop LTD (JV Team Member) Any City, Any State, Any Zip

DUNS#: 12-345-XXXX

Cage Code: 1XXXXXX

DEF Corporation (JV Team Member) Any City, Any State, Any Zip

DUNS#: 12-345-XXXX

Cage Code: 1XXXXXX

XYZ

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 33

AIR-4.0E

Sample Relevant Contract Summary Table (ES-2)

• This table summarizes the offeror and/or the JV Team Members’ proposed relevant contracts. Subcontractors will not be evaluated.

“Subcontractors” includes any entity other than a Prime Offeror or JV Team Member

Offeror:

Contractor Name Contract Reference

Contract Number Contract Type

Contract Title Volume 2

(Past Performance)

Volume 4 (Corporate

Experience)

P1 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX FFP X X

P2 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX CPFF X X

P3 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX FFP X N/A

T1 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX FFP X X

T2 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX FPI X N/A

T3 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX FFP X X

T4 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX CPFF X X

JV team member N (where applicable)

T5 XXXXXX-XX-X-XXXX FFP X X

JV team member A (where applicable)

Referenced in:

Prime or Joint Venture Company

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 34

AIR-4.0E

Volume 2: Past Performance Evaluation Concept

Look Back Look Forward

• Assess each Contract Referenced

– Determine Relevancy / Recency

• How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

– Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS, Questionnaires

• Assess each relevant contract found through an independent Government search

• Roll up each contract reference assessment 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 confidence assessment for the APSD/AIRWorks Prototyping and Limited Production MAC

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 35

AIR-4.0E

Volume 2: Past Performance

Note: Subcontractors will NOT be evaluated as part of Past Performance

2.1: Past Performance Information Point of Contact

– Margo O’Rear at the following email address: margo.orear@navy.mil

2.2: Relevant Contract Data

– Table PP-1a for Lot I, found in Attachment L-3a

– Table PP-1b for Lot II, found in Attachment L-3b

2.3: Evaluation

a) Relevancy (Very Relevant, Somewhat Relevant and Not Relevant)

b) Past Performance Information

c) Demonstrated Systematic Improvement

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 36

Table PP-1a (Lot I) Past Performance Contract Data

1 Contractor Name 2 Contract Reference 3 Title of Contract 4 Contract Number 5 Contract Type 6 Relevant Delivery/Task Order Numbers (if applicable) 7 Subcontract Number/PO Number 8 Procuring agency 9 Description of product or service 10 Period of performance 11 CAGE Code

12 a. Scope

For the attribute below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that document the APSD/AIRWorks Prototyping and Limited Production Contract scope of the past performance contract submitted.

2.2 Relevant Contract Data

• Complete and provide Table PP-1a (Lot 1) or PP-1b (Lot 2)

Provide Relevant contract information for the proposed Prime (e.g. P1) or proposed JV team members (e.g. T1)

Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference

Period and Place of

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 37

AIR-4.0E

2.2 Relevant Contract Data

b. Magnitude Dollar value of contract (Total) Dollar value of contract (Annualized)

c. Complexity

For the attribute below, briefly describe how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that document the APSD/AIRWorks Prototyping and Limited Production Contract complexity element of the past performance contract submitted.

13 Date of last completed CPARs 14 Date past performance questionnaires were sent.

16 Gov't PCO or Commercial Purchasing Agent Name:

Phone:

Email:

17 Gov't ACO Name:

Phone:

Email:

18 Gov't PM or Commercial PM Name:

Phone:

Email:

19 Other:

Name:

Title:

Phone:

Email:

Points of Contact who can validate performance on the contract referenced in Cell C6 or specific delivery order or task order number referenced in Cell C8.

Ensure all contact info is current!!

For each area in 12, explain how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that document the relevant scope of the past performance contract submitted.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 38

AIR-4.0E

2.3a: Relevancy

• Offerors are advised that the Government will assess each proposed present/past performance contract reference and assign a relevancy rating (Very Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant)

• To demonstrate relevancy, Offerors should provide a comparative analysis to Lot I or Lot II DO/TO requirements with regard to the criteria identified in their PP-1a or b submissions

• Within the comparative analysis, Offerors should identify the applicable portions (sections, paragraphs and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s SOW/PWS to clearly identify how past tasks performed are similar to Lot I or Lot II DO/TO requirements and aligned with their PP-1

• In Annex A, Offerors should provide two electronic copies of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statements (SOW/PWS) from each of the referenced contracts identified in Table ES-2

• Please Do NOT provide self-assessed relevancy ratings. Only provide the comparative analysis as stated

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 39

AIR-4.0E

2.3a: Relevancy

• Very Relevant (VR) – A present/past performance contract reference involving essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort (annualized dollar value germane to the instant requirement), and complexity this solicitation requires.

• Somewhat Relevant – A present/past performance contract reference involving some of the scope, magnitude of effort (annualized dollar value germane to the instant requirement), and complexity this solicitation requires

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 40

2.3a: Relevancy: Lot I Scope & Magnitude

Scope:

_<insert>___ Scope from at least _<insert>_ of the following Scope areas:

1. Design and Development of Prototype Aircraft systems, or Aircraft Modifications, or ground based aircraft mission systems (SOW 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.3)

2. Manufacturing of Prototype Aircraft Modification Kits (SOW 4.1.4, 4.5)

3. Integration and Installation of Prototype Aircraft systems, or Aircraft

Modifications, or ground based aircraft mission systems (SOW 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.5, 4.1.10, 4.5.3)

4. Verification, Validation and Flight Test of Prototype Aircraft systems, or Aircraft Modifications, or ground based aircraft mission systems (SOW 4.1.12, 4.4)

5. Prepare, update, amend required documentation for, and perform, Integrated Logistics Support functions (SOW 4.1.7)

Magnitude of Effort: Dollar value >$5M

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 41

AIR-4.0E

2.3a: Relevancy: Lot I Complexity

Complexity:

<insert> Complexity from at least <insert> of the following Complexity areas:

1. Perform analysis and verification of designs for airworthiness including structural, frequency response, electrical loads and thermal (SOW 4.1.1)

2. Develop systems architectures and associated documentation for integrated systems; i.e., aircraft avionics and mission systems integration. (SOW 4.1.11)

3. Perform software development and integration of that software into OEM baselines (4.1.11)

4. Develop, produce and deliver a Technical Data Package in accordance with MIL-STD-31000 up to Level III (4.1.3)

5. Fabricate electrical and mechanical components, assemblies and modification kits for prototyping, verification, validation and limited production activities (4.1.4)

6. Integration efforts inclusive of systems of systems on a single aircraft type (i.e. avionics systems and mission systems) (4.1.2, 4.1.13)

7. Perform ground and airborne testing activities for systems or modifications to also include associated development equipment and/or system integration laboratories. (SOW 4.1.12)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 42

AIR-4.0E

2.3d: Relevancy: Not Relevant

• Not Relevant (NR) contracts are characterized by any of the following:

– An entity that does not have a defined proposed role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary)

– Performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date

– Encompass little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/or complexities required by this solicitation (i.e. does not meet definition of VR or SR)

• Contracts or the portions of their performance that are Not Relevant are not utilized in the assessment

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 43

AIR-4.0E

2.3b: Past Performance Information

Primary PPI Sources:

Offerors’ Proposals

PPIRS/CPARS

Questionnaires

Phone Interviews

DACO/DCMA

Other

Past

Information

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 44

AIR-4.0E

2.3b: Past Performance Information

• Provide a brief description of performance in delivering quality services in each of the Attributes identified below.

– Technical Performance: meeting technical requirements

– Schedule Performance: meeting schedule requirements

– Cost Performance: controlling contract cost

– Management Performance: managing the contracted effort

– For Lot I Only: Small Business Utilization

• Include in these descriptions any information that demonstrates the level of performance obtained; where available, provide quantifiable measures/trends to demonstrate past and current performance

• Also describe past problems, including when they occurred, what the circumstances were surrounding the situation, and what the consequences were as a result of the problem

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 45

AIR-4.0E

2.3b: Past Performance Information

• Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment L-2) will be the primary customer feedback data used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance

• The primary method to retrieve CPARS information will be through the Past Performance Information Reporting System

(PPIRS)

• For all contracts identified that do not have a CPARS, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the PPQ to that contract’s PCO, ACO, and PM; or commercial contractor equivalents

– Send to contacts within 2 weeks from receipt of the Final RFP

– Request responses back to 2.1 POC within two weeks of receipt

– Identify when and where the questionnaires were sent

– DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on Questionnaires, the Government will perform all follow-up actions

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 46

AIR-4.0E

2.3c: Demonstrated Systemic Improvement

• Identify systemic improvement actions taken to resolve any past problems identified in 2.3.b Past Performance Information

• Provide the records of such results and indicate where they are documented, preferably in Government record systems

• Describe the techniques, elements, and tools used to correct problems on the contract and, if applicable, how these techniques, elements, and tools may be used to prevent such problems from occurring on this contract. Provide quantifiable evidence or metrics that substantiate or demonstrate claims of improvement and to demonstrate that the past problem will not occur on this contract

• The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror

• 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 47

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section M: Past Performance

• For the Past Performance factor, a separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned for each Lot.

• The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Prime’s and JV team members’ (if applicable) demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the Lot I or Lot II DO/TO requirements for APSD/AIRWorks Prototyping and Limited Production Contract efforts in each of the following Attributes:

– 1) Meeting technical requirements

– 2) Meeting schedule requirements

– 3) Controlling contract cost

– 4) Managing the contracted effort and

– 5) Small business utilization (Lot I only)

• The degree to which the offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated

• Bulk of data obtained from CPARS & Questionnaires

• No subcontractor Present/past performance will be evaluated

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 48

AIR-4.0E

Past Performance Process

Assess overall Offeror

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

Neutral

Review trends and predictors of future performance to assign PCA

Rating for each Offeror

Technical, Schedule, Cost, Management and Small Business Performance

Look Back

Look Forward Note: Assessments are a continuum, each level providing a range

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 49

AIR-4.0E

Past Performance

- Confidence 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.

Rating 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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 50

AIR-4.0E

Early Proposal Information

• The submission date for all volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the solicitation; however…

• It is requested that one hard copy and one electronic copy on a CD-ROM be submitted no later than two weeks prior to proposal due date for the following items:

– Volume 1 Executive Summary, Table ES-1 (Offeror’s Summary); and

Volume 1 Executive Summary, Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary);

– Volume 2 Past Performance, Table PP-1a or b (Past Performance

Contract Data);

– Volume 4 Corporate Experience, Table CE-1 (Corporate Experience

Element – Contract Reference Matrix);

– Annex A (Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/Other Supporting

Documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 51

AIR-4.0E

Volume 3: Technical

3.1: Sample Tasks (Lot I and Lot II):

3.1.1: Lot I Only: Unrestricted - Sample Task 1 (Attachment L-4 + TDP)

– Technical and management approach

– AS9100 processes alignment

– Staffing and teaming approach

3.1.2: Lot II Only: Restricted - Sample Task 2 (Attachment L-5 + TDP)

– Technical and management approach

3.2: Lot II Only: Requirement Order 0001 (Attachment L-6 + TDP)

– Technical and management approach

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 52

AIR-4.0E

Volume 3: Technical

3.3: Management Plan (Lot I and Lot II)

– Proposal Development

– Management Approach of Basic contract

– Approach to recruit, retain, maintain, and acquire technical competence and capabilities

3.4: Small Business Management (Lot I only):

– Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy

– Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan (Attachment L-7)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 53

AIR-4.0E

Volume 3: Technical Cross Reference Matrix

Section L – Volume or

Paragraph #s

Section L - Proposal Instructions Volume or

Paragraph Title

Section M SOW Paragraphs

Offeror Proposal Section

Volume 3 Technical

3.1.1 Lot I – Sample Task 1

M II B

4.0, 4.1, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7

3.1.2 Lot II – Sample Task 2 M II B 4.0, 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7

3.2 Lot II - Requirement Order

M II B

4.0, 4.5

3.3 Management Plan (Lot I

and Lot II)

4.0, 4.1, 4.2

3.4 Small Business

Management (Lot I)

All

• Table G-5 shows the Technical Cross Reference Matrix (CRM)

• The CRM is included to help the offeror develop its proposal and to ensure traceability of Section L paragraphs to the requirements

• CRM submission is not required

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 54

AIR-4.0E

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 risk associated with the offeror's approach for both the Lot I and Lot II proposals

• For this solicitation there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations

– Technical rating definitions of Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation

• The Technical evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's:

– Sample Tasks (Lot I and Lot II) and RO 0001 (Lot II)

» Technical and management approach » AS9100 processes alignment » Staffing and teaming approach

– Management Plan (Lot I and Lot II)

– Small Business Management (Lot I only)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 55

AIR-4.0E

Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 56

AIR-4.0E

Technical Risk Definitions

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unaccepta ble

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

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.

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 57

AIR-4.0E

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

– Proposal 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 58

AIR-4.0E

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 (due to a combination of significant weaknesses)

– Results in an Unacceptable Rating and makes the proposal unawardable

• Section M: “Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” 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 59

AIR-4.0E

Technical – 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

• 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

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 60

AIR-4.0E

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

• A combination of Significant Weaknesses could result in a Deficiency

• Section M: “Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” 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 61

AIR-4.0E

Technical – Significant Weakness Examples

• Marginal resources or capability to accomplish the effort (Risk)

• Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the

Offeror’s full control (Risk)

• Approaches that rely heavily on a single action or resource (aka single point failure) (Risk)

• Untested/unproven approaches (Risk)

• Lacks substantiation or full description of the approach (Risk)

• Lacks information to assess risk (Risk)

• Requirements can only be accomplished by impacting

Government operations, capability or resources beyond that which is normal for this effort or system (Risk)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 62

AIR-4.0E

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 mitigate 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 63

AIR-4.0E

Technical Evaluation - Qualitative

Technical Rating (Compliance) Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Technical Risk Rating

Unacceptable High Moderate Low

- RISK -

Assessment of likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Assessment Of Technical Proposals

- COMPLIANCE -

Assessment of the Offeror’s solution for meeting requirements

Uncertainties, Potential Risk Reducers, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

Uncertainties Risk Reducers and Significant Weaknesses Deficiencies

- Review for accuracy and “common threads”

- Assess type of and degree of impact

Note: Ratings are a continuum, Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 64

AIR-4.0E

Corporate Experience vs.

Past Performance

• Corporate Experience:

– What your company has done?

• “We repaired 100 leaky boats in the past month”

• Past Performance:

– How well your company has done it?

• “Five boats still leaked after your repair”

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 65

AIR-4.0E

Volume 4: Corporate Experience

4.1: Evaluation Area Summary Table (CE-1, Part of Attachment L-8)

4.2: Evaluation Areas:

– 4.2.1 Experience as a Prime (Lot I and Lot II) – Emphasis Area

– 4.2.2 Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) (Lot I and Lot II)

– 4.2.3 Supporting (Lot I) Flight Clearance and Conducting Test Activities

(Lot I Only)

– 4.2.4 Supporting (Lot II) Flight Clearance and Test Activities (Lot II Only)

– 4.2.5 Advanced Reverse Engineering (Lot I Only)

– 4.2.6 Basic Reverse Engineering (Lot II Only)

4.3: Contract Comparative Analysis (CE-2, Part of Attachment L-8)

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 66

AIR-4.0E

Sample Evaluation Area Summary Table (CE-1)

• This table should provide a list of the Prime’s and JV team members’ referenced contracts that provide examples of corporate experience performing tasks similar to those required for evaluation areas 4.2.1 through 4.2.6. Subcontractors will not be evaluated.

• Only those contract references specified in Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary) shall be used in this table.

Offeror: Lot:

Contracts Reference Number

Contract Number

4.2.1 Experience as a Prime

4.2.2 Ground

Operating Procedures

(GOPs)

4.2.3 or 4.2.4 Supporting Flight

Clearance and Test Activities

4.2.5 or 4.2.6 Reverse

Engineering

P1 Pn T1 Tn

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 67

AIR-4.0E

Corporate Experience Proposal

• Provide contracts that demonstrate corporate experience relevant to the program and your proposed approach

– For each prime or JV team member as it relates to their assigned responsibility

• Provide a comparative analysis between your experience and the effort required by the solicitation

– Provide electronic copies of the Statement of Work/Performance Work

Statements (SOW/PWS) from each of the referenced contracts in Annex A

– Reference relevant portions (sections, paragraphs and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s SOW/PWS to clearly explain how previous corporate experience can be predictive of future performance

– Specifically describe the breadth and depth of the previous work experience with substantiating evidence

• Demonstrate that there are no gaps in experience with regard to CE elements

• Corporate experience is evaluated, not personnel experience

• No subcontractor Corporate Experience will be evaluated

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 68

AIR-4.0E

Sample Contract Comparative Analysis (CE-2)

• This table summarizes the detailed comparative analysis provided in subparagraphs 4.2.1 through 4.2.6 utilizing a separate worksheet for each of the evaluation areas located in subparagraphs 4.2.1 through 4.2.6.

• The Offeror shall include only those referenced contracts which relate to the requirements of this solicitation for the specified evaluation area.

Lot: Offeror Name Evaluation Area 4.2.X – Evaluation Area

Contract Reference

Contract Number

Comparative Analysis Summary

P1 Pn T1 Tn

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 69

AIR-4.0E

Volume 4: Corporate Experience CRM

Section L – Volume or

Paragraph #s

Section L - Proposal Instructions Volume or

Paragraph Title

Section M SOW Paragraphs

Offeror Proposal Section

Volume 4 Corporate Experience

4.2.1 Experience as a Prime (Lot I

and II)

M II C 4.1.2, 4.2.2

4.2.2 Ground Operating

Procedures (GOPs) (Lot I and II)

M II C 4.0.2

4.2.3 Supporting Flight Clearance

and Conducting Test Activities (Lot I)

M II C 4.1.1

4.2.4 Supporting Flight Clearance

and Test Activities (Lot II)

M II C 4.2.1

4.2.5 Advanced Reverse

Engineering (Lot I):

M II C 4.1.6

4.2.6 Basic Reverse Engineering

(Lot II):

M II C 4.2.6

• Table G-5 also shows the Corporate Experience CRM

Use or disclosure of this information is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document 70

AIR-4.0E

Draft Section M: Corporate Experience

• The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Prime entity’s and JV team members’ (if applicable)…