PMA-226 CAS Brief Props Ind Day.pdf

Contracted Air Services (CAS) Industry Day

12 July 2022 Presented to: Industry Partners

Presented by: PMA-226 CAS

Propeller Aircraft Services - N00421-24-R-0001

Schedule

0800-1200 – All Parties

• Industry Day Brief

1300-Completion

• One-on-ones as scheduled

Agenda

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

• Summary & Path Forward

• One-on-One Meetings

Welcome / Ground Rules

• All attendees must sign in

• No electronic recording of presentation or discussion

• Please silence your cell phones

• Conference Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

• This Industry Day conference constitutes an informal exchange of information Provides insight into Government plans

The information shared today represents the Government’s current intentions with regard to the subject acquisition; however, the Government’s intentions may change based on today’s discussions and any follow-up comments / questions

The remarks made by Government officials during this exchange should in no way be construed as a guarantee of the Government’s final course of action

• The formal solicitation, when issued, is the ONLY document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirement

• Attendance list and briefings approved for release to the public will be posted to solicitation N0042124R0001 on https://sam.gov

PMA-226 Specialized & Proven Aircraft Program Office

Manages specialized and proven platforms and systems to include 16 aircraft types in 9 countries (F-5, F-16, T-38, UH-72, OH-58, U-6A, X-26A, C-26, O-2A, UV-18, NU-1B, T-2, H-2, H-3, CN235 and A-4).

Manages Contracted Air Services (CAS) providing a broad array of capabilities through 12 contracts totaling 12.5K+ flight hours per year to supplement organic fleet.

• Contracted Air Services Fleet Training and Large Scale Exercise Support

• Opposing Force (OPFOR) (Fighter Jets, EW)

• Target and Banner Tow

• Air to Air Refueling (AAR)

• Close Air Support for Training

Program Test and Evaluation Support

• OPFOR, AAR, Range Support and Clearance for

ACAT program test execution

• Adversary Capability & Sustainment One F-16 and three F-5 squadron/s

• CLS contracts for NAWDC and F-5 sites

• F-16 Service Life Extension

• F-5 Safety & Sustainability Program

• USNTPS and NPS aircraft sustainment Out of Production Sustainment Support

• Safety, Capability and Obsolescence upgrades

• Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Out of Naval Inventory Aircraft Sustainment Support

• 22 FMS cases for 8 countries Program Manager:

Captain Gregory Sutton Principal Deputy Program Manager:

Mr. Andy Wilkinson

• CAS provides critical aviation capability and capacity for Fleet Training & Exercises as well as Acquisition Program Test and Evaluation (T&E) Support

• OPFOR (Air to Air, Air to Surface, EW)

• Aerial Refueling (Tanker)

• Target and Banner Tow

• Close Air Support for JTAC training

• Range Support and Clearance

• Essential to successful COMPTUEX, RIMPAC, Top Gun, SFARP…

• Mitigates readiness gaps and capability divestment

• Demand for services increasing by almost 50% through the FYDP

Contracted Air Services (CAS)

CAS Affordably Fills Critical and Mandatory Training Requirements Preparing the Fleet to Fight Tonight and Tomorrow

DoN CAS Acquisition

• PMA-226 works with Customers to determine Requirements: capability, capacity, location and scheduling

• Awards IDIQ type contracts through Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Procurement Group and other agencies to deliver these services

• Manages execution of contracts to optimize performance and meet Fleet and Program T&E needs

Airworthiness

• PMA-226 is responsible for the Airworthiness of CAS Public Aircraft Operations (PAO)

• Working with NAVAIR Airworthiness and Cybersafe Office (ACO) for initial airworthiness, and

• Working with NAVAIR Aircraft Controlling Custodian Office (ACC) providing Government Flight

Representative (GFR) and Aviation Maintenance Management Teams (AMMT) for continuing airworthiness oversight.

23 Mar 2011, FAA published Notice of Policy Regarding Civil Aircraft Operators providing contract support to Government Entities - Public Aircraft Operations (PAO)

“government entities are cautioned that public aircraft operations performed by civil operators create a significant transfer of liability to the contracting government entity, and that FAA oversight ceases.” [76 FR 16349]

Subsequent Advisory Circulars (ACs) from the FAA have softened that verbiage… “government entities must be aware that PAO performed by civil operators create a significant transfer of responsibility to the contracting government entity, and that most FAA oversight ceases.” [AC 00.1.1A, and B]

To understand and mitigate liability and risk: DoD then Issued DoDD 5030.61 (May 2013) “Military Department airworthiness authorities will assess and issue airworthiness approvals for manned and unmanned aircraft and air systems owned, leased, operated, used, designed, or modified by their respective Departments.” [DoDD 5030.61 CH3 dtd Aug 18]

Purpose of Industry Day

• Ensure common understanding between

Government and industry of the content of the DRAFT RFP Sections B, C, H, L, M, and Performance Work Statement (PWS)

• 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

Purpose of One-on-One Communications

• One-on-Ones provide an opportunity for Industry to present meaningful information to the Government regarding its potential solution to the requirements of the DRAFT PWS and evaluation criteria

• The Government is not interested in a “sales pitch”;

rather, Industry will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the Government's intentions

Questions and Answers

• The Government may answer questions during the conference;

however, all questions may not be answered today due to time constraints

• Initial questions relating to the DRAFT documents should have been submitted In Accordance With (IAW) https://sam.gov release instructions

• Additional questions must be submitted in writing to the Government via e-mail to bradley.dioguardo.civ@us.navy.mil, david.s.silverstone.civ@us.navy.mil, rhonda.k.link.civ@us.navy.mil and john.a.dijoseph4.civ@us.navy.mil by 12:00 PM EDT on 15 July 2022

• Answers to relevant questions received will be posted at https://sam.gov. (Exceptions: Any questions and answers which would divulge a potential offeror’s competitive strategy/solutions will not be posted.)

• If necessary, related changes to documentation will be incorporated into the final RFP release

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

DRAFT PWS Requirements

DRAFT PWS Requirements (cont.)

Paragraph 7.0 Security

• Contractor shall adhere to the Contract’s DD-254, Contract Security Classification Specification (see Section J Attachment 2)

• Note: For this requirement, contractor personnel shall require access to classified information in performance of this contract up to and including Secret, with a safeguarding level of Secret.

• Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) including Covered Defense Information (CDI) (meeting the definition of 48 CFR 252.204–7012(a)) generated and/or provided under this contract shall be marked and safeguarded as specified in DoD Instruction

5200.48, CUI.

Paragraph 9.0 Data Deliverables

CDRL PWS Title Required Data

A001 3.4.1, 3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.6, 9.0

Airworthiness and Related Substantiation Data

Data as outlined in DI‐SAFT‐81905A to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423‐1 Block 16.

A002 3.4.3.1, 9.0 Management Plan / Standard Operating Procedures

Data as outlined in DI‐MGMT‐80004A to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423‐1 Block 16.

A003 4.4, 9.0 Contractor Roster Data as outlined in DI‐MGMT‐81596 to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423‐1 Block 16.

A004 4.2.2, 9.0 Fuel Chit Report / Fuel Tracking Report and Receipts

Data as outlined in DI‐MISC‐81461 to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423‐1 Block 16.

A005 4.2.4, 9.0 Contractor’s Progress, Status and Management Report / Monthly Status Report

Data as outlined in DI‐MGMT‐81904 to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423‐1 Block 16.

A006 5.0, 9.0 Government Furnished Property Inventory and Forecasting Report / GFP Inventory

Data as outlined in DI‐MGMT‐81947B to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423‐1 Block 16.

Paragraph 9.0 Data Deliverables (cont.)

CDRL PWS Title Required Data

A007 3.3.2, 9.0 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Data as outlined in DI‐MISC‐81183A to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423 Block 16.

A008 4.1.12, 9.0 Airworthiness and Related Substantiation Data / Contractor's PAO Flight Schedule Report

Data as outlined in DI‐SAFT‐81905A to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423 Block 16.

A009 4.2.2.1, 9.0 Course Conduct Information Package / Fuel / AIR Card SOU and Training Certificates

Data as outlined in DI‐PSSS‐81522D to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423 Block 16.

A010 4.2.1.1, 9.0 Briefing Material / Post‐Award Conference (PAC) Brief

Data as outlined in DI‐MGMT‐81605 to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423 Block 16.

A011 4.2.1.2, 9.0 Briefing Material / Program Management Reviews (PMR) Brief

Data as outlined in DI‐MGMT‐81605 to include all required content and/or as tailored in the DD1423 Block 16.

DRAFT PWS Appendix

• Appendix A: Definitions and Glossary

• Appendix B: Acronym List

• Appendix C: LATR Shipboard and Rotary Wing (RW) Technology Upgrade (LSRTU) Specification Sheet

• Appendix D: COMET Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Emulator

• Appendix E: TACAN 970

• Appendix F: URC‐200

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

Contract Overview

• Single Award ID/IQ Services Contract

• Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs

• Cost Reimbursable CLIN

• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) PART 15 Source Selection

• 4-year, 364-day Ordering Period (FY24 – FY29) In Compliance with 10 USC 2401

• No Ordering Period Extension Options

• 100% Small Business Set-Aside

NACIS & Size Standard

• NAICS Code: 481219 – Other Nonscheduled Air

Transportation

• Size Standard: $16.5 million

• New size standards were release on 02 May 2022 however, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has told procurement professionals to not use the 2022 codes until the SBA updates its small business size standards

• The SBA anticipates that the 2022 NAICS will be implemented 01 October 2022

DRAFT RFP - Section B CLINs Title Type Description Deliverable

0001 Prop Aircraft Flight Minutes

FFP,

Not To Exceed

(NTE)

The contractor shall include all costs associated with flying aircraft capable of meeting the requirements of the PWS section 3.1, including costs that are specific to the mission associated with this CLIN such as the costs per flight minute. Services shall be provided on a per Task Order (TO) basis. See Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

(Service) 99,000 Minutes

0002 Ferry Flight Minutes FFP, NTE

The contractor shall, when authorized by a TO, ferry aircraft to detachment sites.

Therefore, the contractor shall include variable costs associated with ferrying aircraft in this CLIN. PWS section 6.4 provides a representative listing of potential detachment sites. See Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

(Service) 66,000 Minutes

DRAFT RFP - Section B (cont.)

CLINs Title Type Description Deliverable

0003 Aircraft Modifications FFP, NTE

For use when performing Advanced Technology Modification services, as authorized by a TO, the contractor shall be required to provide advanced technology capabilities for training purposes. These capabilities may include, but are not limited to: installation and removal of additional GFP and mission equipment not previously identified at time of initial contract award for the purpose of enhancing propeller aircraft services. See Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

(Service) 1 Lot, the offeror shall propose the Government provided amount of $1,000,000.00

0004 Administrative/ Technical Data

Not Separa tely Priced

(NSP)

The contractor shall provide technical and administrative data IAW Section C (applicable to all CLINs) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Exhibit A. See also PWS paragraph

9.0 and Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

(Data) 1 Lot NSP

CLIN Title Type Description Deliverable

0005 Travel, Material, and Other Direct Costs

(ODC)

COST,

NTE

For use to capture cost reimbursable travel costs within the Continental United States (CONUS) or Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) locations identified in the PWS for travel conducted for official purposes under the contract in support of CLIN 0001. Travel shall be approved in advance by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). See Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

(Service) 1 Lot, the offeror shall propose the Government provided amount of $2,000,000.00

0006 Non‐Flying Status

(NFS)

FFP,

NTE

This CLIN shall include all costs associated with each flight crew member for days when no flight operations are conducted while an assigned aircraft is in an operational status pursuant to active TO(s).

The contractor may only invoice this CLIN when an assigned aircraft is in an operational status pursuant to at least one active TO and with written advance authorization from the SO. See Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

8,000 Hours

CLIN Title Type Description Deliverable

0007 Monthly Fixed Rate FFP Price per month for operating costs for propeller aircraft services. Shall include fixed costs that the contractor will incur regardless of the number of missions performed. See Solicitation Section C Extended CLIN Descriptions.

60 Months

Draft RFP - Section H

Click to add textClick to add text

RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.3.1

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

Source Selection Objectives

• Select the offeror who’s proposal provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered

• Obtain the best value using a comprehensive evaluation process

• Use evaluation process that provides the fair and consistent evaluation of proposals

Source Selection Organization

SSA

SSEB CHAIR

SSEB Advisors

SSEB

TECHNICAL

ASSISTANT CHAIR

PRICEPAST

PERFORMANCE

Evaluators

Source Selection Process

Generic Source Selection Process

Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach

• ISTRAP/AP/Strategy

• SSP

Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry

• SOO/SOW

• PBWS

• 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)

Technical Past Perf

Evaluate FPRs

Price

Request Final

Proposal Revision (FPRs)

Debrief

Contract

SSEB SSA

SSEB SSA

SSEB SSASSA SSEB

SSEB/L&M

Formal

RFP

Select Source

Award on Initial Proposals?

Draft RFP Sections L & M

• Understanding sections L&M is the key to developing a good proposal

• Section L – Instructions to Offerors:

– Tells offerors what to put in the proposal and how to submit it

• Section M ‐ Evaluation Factors for Award:

– Identifies what will be evaluated

– Identifies relative order of importance of factors

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

Section L: General Instructions

• An “Offeror” is defined as the prime Contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award

• A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation when the prime Contractor consists of more than one legal entity. “JV Team Members” are the entities that make up a JV

• 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 evaluations:

a) The prime Contractor;

b) JV Team Members;

c) Other entities that are proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total price for the contract Offerors are advised that in order to demonstrate work commitment, each principal entity must be identified in Volume 3 Price and associated with a commensurate dollar value.

Section L: Proposal Content and Volumes

• Annexes are used to provide supporting data

• Annexes do not count toward the suggested page count for each

Volume

• * Contractual Documentation Support (CDS) is defined as the documents provided by an offeror (e.g. Statement of Work (SOW), Performance Work Statement (PWS), Statement of Objectives (SOO), Technical Direction Letters (TDL), CDRLs, etc.) to demonstrate an offeror performed the work.

Volume Number Volume/Annex Title Suggested Pages

1 VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL 75

2 VOLUME 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE 25

3 VOLUME 3– PRICE As Many As Needed

Annex 1 Contractual Documentation Support* (CDS) for Past Performance

As Many As Needed

Annex 2 DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations

As Many As Needed

Section L: General Proposal Preparation Guidance

• Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements, inherent risks, and sufficient resources to meet the requirements

• Support your statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate that you have a valid and practical solution for all requirements

– Substantiate, don't simply make claims

– Provide information to allow an independent assessment

• Structure your proposal IAW Section L ‐ Proposal Instructions

• Be consistent from Volume to Volume

• Provide clear and concise descriptions

– Drawings & diagrams complement narratives, but don't replace them

• Help the evaluator quickly find information

– Is it clear and well organized?

• Be attentive to all parts of the RFP

– Requirements, PWS

– Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions

Section L: Typical Proposal Shortfalls

• Proposal Instructions are not followed

– Information not provided in the way it was requested

– Too little information

• Statements in the proposal are not well supported

– Not documenting assumptions

– Not substantiating performance and/or claims

• Proposals are not well organized

– Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure – requires the evaluator search for the information

• Past Performance POCs are not current

• DUNS/CAGE Codes references do not match

• Deficiencies ‐ preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance

– Proposal is non‐compliant to the requirements

• SF‐33 not signed

Section M: DRAFT Order of Importance

Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among offerors’ non-price factors.

Price

(FFP)

Technical (Technical

Compliance Rating and

Technical Risk Rating)

Past Performance (Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating)

Key: > greater than; >> Significantly More Important

Section M: Discussions

• The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions

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

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

– the proposals received provide the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered

• Offerors are advised that their initial offer should contain its best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint since discussions may not be conducted

• The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions

Source Selection Summary

• The Source Selection process will assure that each offeror’s proposal receives a fair and consistent evaluation.

• Sections L&M are intended to help offerors provide the Government with its best value solution and instruct them in preparing a proposal that will facilitate the Government’s evaluation.

• Results in offeror submitting a realistic proposal that demonstrates that the offeror is likely to perform as proposed.

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

Volume 1 DRAFT Section L: Technical

Volume 1 shall provide the offeror’s approach to the following elements under Technical:

2.1: Capability Stand‐Up 2.2: Aircraft Performance Requirements 2.3: Airworthiness Data 2.4: Aircraft Support 2.5: Aircraft Availability

Price Information is not included in this Volume

Volume 1: Technical Cross Reference Matrix

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

DRAFT Section M: Technical

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the offeror's understanding of, approach to and ability to meet the solicitation requirements

The Government will assess the offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s approach

The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's approach to the following elements which are equal in importance:

1) Capability Stand-Up

2) Aircraft Performance Requirements

3) Airworthiness Data

4) Aircraft Support

5) Aircraft Availability

DRAFT Section M: Technical

A separate Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned

The Technical Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the offeror’s technical solution to meeting the Government’s requirement

• Exceeding the threshold in requirements that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government shall be considered a strength.

• Additionally, a proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service, or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the Government, can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government.

The Technical Risk Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the offeror’s technical approach.

Technical Rating Definitions

Technical Risk Rating Definitions

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” or, a Technical Risk Rating of “Unacceptable” or “High” is considered unawardable and will result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable.

Technical - Risk Reducer A Risk Reducer is 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

Technical - 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/mitigate risks inherent in the proposed approach and program

Reduces proposal risk by providing a performance margin

Technical - Significant Weakness

A “Significant Weakness” is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001).

Affects Technical Risk Rating Provides appreciably increased 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

Technical – Significant Weakness Examples

Marginal resources or capability to accomplish the effort

Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the offeror’s full control

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

Untested/unproven approaches

Lack of substantiation or full description of the approach

Lack of information to assess risk

Requirements can only be accomplished by impacting Government operations, capability or resources beyond that which is normal for this effort or system

Technical – Strengths A “Strength” is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

• Affects Technical Rating Provides performance or operational benefits to the

Government Each strength may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the rating differently Used to determine adequacy of approach and understanding of requirement

* Draft RFP Page 91 & 95

Technical – Strengths Examples

Proposal demonstrates performance, operational, or other capability benefit to the Government (Exceeds a requirement)

Proposal contains feature(s) that enhance operational or other program/product capability with appreciable benefits to the Government (Aspect of a proposal that has merit)

Technical - Uncertainty An “Uncertainty” is an aspect of the proposal that affects the Government’s ability to determine if a requirement will be met.

An Uncertainty will result in a Marginal Technical Rating

Affects Technical Rating Not possible to make an assessment of what the offeror is proposing It is unclear that the requirement will be met

Technical – Uncertainty Examples

Inconsistencies in the proposal that bring into question what is being proposed

No enough or unclear information provided to enable the Government to determine if requirements can be met

Technical - Deficiency A “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001).

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

Technical – Deficiency Examples

Proposal states it will not meet a requirement

Approach is assessed to be unable to meet a requirement

Combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level Failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information may be assessed as a significant weakness or multiple significant weaknesses

An approach that relies on Government resources or operations not identified as available in order to comply with the requirement

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

Volume 2 - Past Performance

Experience is what you have done (which is not being evaluated for this requirement).

Performance is how well you did it!

Past Performance Evaluation Concept Look Back Look Forward

• Assess each Contract Referenced

– Determine Recency /

Relevancy

• How did offeror perform on current and/or past contracts?

– Review offerors Past Record, e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Questionnaires

• Assess any additional contracts found through Government research

• Roll up each contract reference assessment into an overall Offeror Assessment

• Based on assessment of offeror’s past performance (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on this requirement?

• Assign a Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for this requirement

Price Information is not included in this Volume

Volume 2 DRAFT Section L:

Past Performance

• Only principal entities will be considered in the past performance evaluation. The following entities are defined as principal entities:

– The Prime Contractor;

– JV Team Members;

– Other entities (such as subcontractors) that are to perform at least 20% of the total proposed price for the contract

• Offerors shall complete Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) (Attachment L‐4) for each Past Performance contract reference (contract or delivery / task order)

Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) (Attachment L-4)

Provide Relevant contract information for the proposed Prime or proposed JV team members (Principal Subcontractor or

Team Member)

PPIF (Attachment L-4) (cont.)

PPIF

Past Performance Relevancy Documentation

• The offeror shall provide a narrative on each PPIF in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions (scope, magnitude and complexity) specified in Section M of the solicitation

• This “Contract Effort Description” should also address the Quality of Performance aspect as defined in Section M

• Within this narrative, offerors should also identify the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs, and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s CDS (Annex A) to clearly identify how past efforts performed are similar to this solicitation’s requirements

PPIF

Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information

For any past performance problems:

• Identify systemic improvement actions taken to resolve any past problems

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

• Describe techniques, elements, and tools used to correct problems on the referenced contract and, if applicable, how these techniques, elements, and tools may be used for the contract to be awarded as the result of this solicitation

• Provide quantifiable evidence or metrics that substantiate or demonstrate claims of improvement and to demonstrate that the past problem will not occur on the contract to be awarded as the result of this solicitation

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

Past Performance Contractual Documentation Support (CDS)

• For Task or Delivery Orders, ensure that the CDS for the order is provided in addition to the basic contract

CDS

• If the offeror performed as a subcontractor, the offeror shall also provide a complete electronic copy of the agreement (as CDS) between the prime and subcontractor that clearly defines the portions of the work effort that the offeror performed as a subcontractor, facilitating the Government’s verification of the Scope, Magnitude and Complexity of the contract references

• Please Do NOT provide self-assessed relevancy ratings; only provide the comparative analysis as stated

Past Performance Feedback

• CPARS and Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) (Attachment L-3) will be the primary customer feedback data used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance

• In the event a CPAR does not exist for a past performance reference, the offeror shall submit a CPAQ (Attachment L-3) to the Program Manager who is the Assessing Official The offeror shall include instructions for the Program

Manager to send completed CPAQs within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to the PCO/Contract Specialist, identified in Section L, Part B, 2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

All CPAQs should be received by the Government concurrently with the offeror’s proposal submission

On the PPIF, identify when and where the CPAQ was sent

Past performance information received will be evaluated on three aspects: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Performance

1. RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

DRAFT Section M:

Past Performance Aspects

2. RELEVANCY: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

Past Performance Aspects (cont.)

3. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) managing the contracted effort; and 4) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems (where applicable). A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Past Performance Aspects (cont.)

Past Performance: Relevancy Ratings

Offerors are advised that contracts assessed as not relevant will not be considered in the Past Performance assessment.

Past Performance: Confidence Assessment

• A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table on the following slide. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

• 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 recent and relevant past performance record.

Past Performance: Confidence Assessment (cont.)

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

DRAFT Section L: Price Price will evaluate the following:

• CLIN 0001 (Prop Aircraft Flight Minutes) » The offeror shall propose the unit price. The proposed unit price multiplied by the quantity of 99,000 minutes shall not exceed the NTE amount shown in Section B

• CLIN 0002 (Ferry Flight Minutes) » The offeror shall propose the unit price. The proposed unit price multiplied by the quantity of 66,000 minutes shall not exceed the NTE amount shown in Section B

• CLIN 0003 (Aircraft Modifications) » The offeror shall propose the Government provided amount of

$1,000,000.00 (See section L Paragraph 3.3.2)

• CLIN 0005 (Travel, Material, and ODCs)

» The offeror shall propose the Government provided amount of $2,000,000.00 (See section L Paragraph 3.3.1).

DRAFT Section L: Price Price will evaluate the following (cont.):

• CLIN 0006 (Non‐Flying Status) » The offeror shall propose the unit price. The proposed unit price multiplied by the quantity of 8,000 hours shall not exceed the NTE amount shown in Section B.

• CLIN 0007 (Monthly Fixed Rate) » The offeror shall propose the unit price. The proposed unit price multiplied by the quantity of 60 months shall not exceed the NTE amount shown in Section B.

DRAFT Section M: Price

DRAFT Section M: Price (cont.)

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

Path Forward

• Any additional DRAFT RFP questions must be submitted to bradley.dioguardo.civ@us.navy.mil, david.s.silverstone.civ@us.navy.mil, rhonda.k.link.civ@us.navy.mil and john.a.dijoseph4.civ@us.navy.mil NLT 12:00 PM EDT on 15 July 2022. Answers to any relevant questions will be posted to https://sam.gov. If necessary, related changes will be incorporated into the final RFP release.

• Anticipated Final RFP release: Q4 of FY 2022

• Approximately 45 Calendar days to respond

Reminder

Disclaimer

• Today’s remarks by Government officials are not a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the project or of a future contract award.

• 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.

• Welcome, Disclaimers, Admin

• Program Overview & Requirements

• Contract Overview

• Source Selection Overview Volume 1 – Technical Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume 3 – Price

BREAK

Schedule One-on-One 1300 – 1330 30-Minute One on One (Both: In Person/Virtual)

Company Name: Construction Helicopters, Inc. (d/b/a CHI Aviation)

1330 – 1345 ---Break---

1345 – 1415 30-Minute One on One (Virtual) Company Name: Air Center Helicopters, Inc.

1415 – 1430 ---Break---

1430 – 1500 30-Minute One on One (Both: In Person/Virtual) Company Name: IAP Worldwide Services

1500 – 1515 ---Break---

1515 – 1545 30-Minute One on One (Virtual) Company Name: Croman Corporation

1545 – 1600 ---Break---

1600 – 1630 30-Minute One on One (Virtual) Company Name: Precision, LLC

1630 ---End of Industry Day---