iCSS Pre-Solicitation Conf Brief_Final.pptx

Internal Contractor Support Services (iCSS) Pre-Solicitation Conference 28 Jan 2025 Distribution Statement A – Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited, as submitted under NAVAIR Public Release Authorization 2014-720.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

AIR-4.10E

Source Selection Office

RFP SECTIONS L&M

RFP SECTIONS A-K

Agenda

REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Fernando Cerpa-Rondon Lead Contract Specialist

LOGO

NAWCTSD Government Team

Alana Nunez-Bennett–Procuring Contracting Officer

Fernando Cerpa-Rondon – Lead Contract Specialist

Michael Yucht – Supporting Contract Specialist

Caitlyn Ersek – Supporting Contract Specialist

Bernard Courtney – Program Manager

Tammy Torres – SSEB Chair

Purpose

To ensure a common understanding of the:

Government’s Requirements Proposal Instructions

Collect questions regarding the RFP; N6134025R0004 (formerly N6134024R0037), specific to Sections L & M.

The Government encourages all interested parties to visit sam.gov for all notices posted related to the subject solicitation.

NOTE: All questions must be submitted in writing or via chat by 30 January 16:00 Est

GROUND RULES

You must have received a Teams invite link from the Government Team to be in this meeting.

If you have not received the invite link, please leave this meeting and reach out to Michael Yucht.

Mute yourself on Teams.

No recordings of any kind.

Questions submitted during brief:

Questions related to this solicitation and/or brief may be provided today via the chatroom. Please type your question in the chat and once the presentation is finished, the Government will provide a verbal response.

Questions and responses, along with the attendee list, will be posted at https://www.sam.gov/ after the event via a special notice.

DISCLAIMER

Nothing discussed here will constitute a change to the terms and conditions in the RFP, unless it appears in the RFP or an amendment to the RFP.

All amendments to this solicitation will be issued via PIEE and posted at https://www.sam.gov/

COMMUNICATIONS

All industry communication for RFP N6134025R0004 will come through the PCO and/or Contract Specialist.

NAVAIR’s points of contact are:

Alana Nunez-Bennett, Contracting Officer

(407) 381-8741, Alana.T.Nunez-Bennett.civ@us.navy.mil

Fernando Cerpa, Lead Contract Specialist

(407) 380-8475, Fernando.A.CerpaRondon.civ@us.navy.mil

Michael Yucht, Supporting Contract Specialist

(407) 380-4894, Michael.Yucht.civ@us.navy.mil

Agenda

RFP SECTIONS A-K

REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

Mr. Bernard Courtney iCSS IPT Lead

Overview The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), Orlando, has a requirement to acquire and manage training devices and systems throughout the acquisition life cycle, from concept refinement through operation and sustainment via the various competencies and laboratories of NAWCTSD’s Program Directorates.

Non-personal Contractor Support Services (CSS) are required to meet a prescribed annual level of effort that is measured in work hours to support life cycle acquisition for a variety of federal and non-federal acquisition efforts by executing the broadly defined support requirements using the appropriate labor categories described in the Statement of Work.

The general requirements include aviation platforms, sea platforms, undersea platforms, schools, research, and other programs that NAWCTSD Program Directorates and Competencies support or manage.

Labor Categories 31 labor categories with varying levels:

Junior, Journeyman, Senior, as well as levels I and II.

The Labor Categories and their descriptions are found in Attachment 1 SOW, starting in Para 4.1.

Preponderance of Labor:

Project Management Engineering Logistics

Labor Categories General and Operations Managers Public Relations Specialist Administrative Services Managers Facilities Managers Training and Development Managers Logisticians Project Management Specialists Management Analysts Training and Development Specialists Financial Specialists Operations Research Analysts Drafter Psychologists Instructional Coordinators Technical Writer Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants

Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants Secretaries and Administrative Assistants Computer Systems Analysts Computer Network Architects Data Scientists Software Developer Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers Aerospace Engineers Electronics Engineers Mechanical Engineers Engineer, All Other Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians Engineering Technologist & Technician, Except Drafters, All Other Industrial-Organizational Psychologists Special Effects Artists and Animators

RFP SECTIONS L&M

Agenda

RFP SECTIONS A-K

Mr. Michael Yucht Supporting Contract Specialist

Acquisition Strategy/Structure Competition: WOSB Set Aside, award to “Best Value Offeror.”

Contract: Single Award IDIQ, Cost Plus Fixed Fee Task Orders.

USG anticipates one or multiple TO's per year broken out by program directorates.

Anticipated amount of hours for this effort is 2,287,136.

Maximum amount of hours for this effort is 2,515,850.

Section B – Supplies or Services

Section C, Descriptions and Specifications

Emphasis on: CLIN 0001 – Mobilization:

The first day of the mobilization period is the Contract Start Date; which is 60 days prior to the Service Start Date (SSD). The SSD is the date that personnel shall begin contract execution and is the start of the Period of Performance for CLIN 0002.

The contractor shall use this period to hire and train personnel, obtain appropriate personnel security clearances, obtain base and building entry passes, and be prepared to begin contract execution on the SSD. See Section J Attachment 1 Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph 5.1.5.

Please read over the CLIN descriptions for the remaining CLINs in Section C carefully.

Section F – Deliveries or Performance The Period Of Performance (PoP) will be detailed at the Task Order level.

Mobilization POP – 60 days Prior to Service Start Date.

Labor, Travel, and Technical Data CLIN POP – 60 months from Service Start Date.

Option Labor CLIN POP – Max of 6 months (FAR 52.217-8).

Section H – Special Contract Requirements HTXT.209-9510 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (SERVICES) (NAVAIR) (MAR 2007):

Note: The restrictions set forth in the clause applies to supplies, services, and other performance rendered with respect to the suppliers and/or equipment program-related efforts issued by NAWCTSD Orlando; UIC N61340.

The contract further specifies the following:

Potential Offerors, their respective subcontractors and/or joint venture team members are advised if a company supports an existing NAWCTSD program-related contract, we believe you may have a conflict of interest for the iCSS recompete effort.

Further, if a company becomes the iCSS contract awardee, you may have a potential conflict of interest that would need to be discussed with the cognizant PCO of that future effort.

Section I and K Please be sure to fill in any clauses in section I and K that are "fill-in."

Agenda Ms. Tammy Torres

SSEB CHAIR

* Draft RFP Page 90 Source Selection Objectives The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method.

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

Generic Source Selection Process

Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach Acquisition Strategy/Plan

SSP

Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry

SOW

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

SSA

SSA

SSA

The Source Selection Process

Formal

RFP

Select Source

SSEB Advisors

SSEB

PAST

PERFORMANCE

PCO

COST/PRICE

Source Selection Organization

Sections L – Instructions to Offerors 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

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

Section M - Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors and Criteria – Section M of the RFP:

Identifies what will be evaluated Identifies relative order of importance of factors Identifies emphasis areas

The relative importance of the factors is as follows: Past Performance is significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Offerors are advised that proposals that meet the solicitation requirements and have the lowest price/cost may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered.

Section M - Evaluation Factors (cont.)

Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a past performance and price/cost standpoint.

The Government reserves the right, and intends, to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Only Offerors that pass the Gate Check will be eligible for discussions.

Written (Evaluation Notices (ENs)):

The Government may issue notification of deficiencies and uncertainties The Government may ask for additional information

The Government may request proposal revisions in the form of change pages, where needed.

Helps to easily identify change

Offerors should pay attention to evaluation criteria as provided in Section M

Agenda

Multi-Step Evaluation

The Government will conduct a two-step evaluation:

Step 1 will be a binary Acceptable / Unacceptable evaluation.

Gate Check Secret or Higher Facility Clearance Approved Cost Accounting System Certification and Agreement(s) WOSB Certification Joint Venture Agreements (if applicable) If a proposal is rated "Unacceptable" for Step 1, then that proposal will receive no further consideration

Step 2 will be the evaluation that will facilitate the best-value trade-off.

- For the best-value trade-off, the Government will evaluate Volumes 2 Past Performance and 3 Price/Cost of the Offeror’s proposal that were deemed Acceptable from the gate check (i.e. Step 1).

RFP SECTIONS L&M

Agenda Ms. Tammy Torres

Proposal Content and Volumes

Cover Letter

L-2 Offeror Workshare Summary Table

Sample Offeror Workshare Summary Table

Section L – Gate Check Gate Check: Secret or Higher Facility Clearance The Offeror shall provide evidence that it holds, at time of proposal submission, a valid Secret, or higher, Facility Clearance (FCL).

This evidence shall be submitted with the proposal at the proposal submission date/time specified on Standard Form 33.

Evidence of the FCL shall be provided in the form of a .pdf copy of the most current FCL from the National Industrial Security System (NISS) system of record maintained by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) https://www.dcsa.mil/Industrial-Security/Entity-Vetting-Facility-Clearances-FOCI/.

Agenda

Section L - Gate Check Cont.

Gate Check: Cost Accounting System The Offeror shall complete Table G.2 (Cost Accounting System Information), which shows the status and determination of the cost accounting system.

The Offeror shall provide evidence that they currently hold, at time of proposal submission, a DCMA approved cost accounting system in accordance with DFARS 252.242-7006.

For a Prime/Subcontractor Teaming Arrangement, the accounting system must be in the name of the legal entity identified in Block 15A of the Offeror’s SF33.

For a Joint Venture, the accounting system must be in the name of either the Prime JV entity in Block 15A of the Offeror’s SF33 or every JV Team Member identified in the Offeror Workshare Summary Table CL-1 (Attachment L-2).

Section L – Gate Check Cont.

Gate Check: Certification and Agreements The Offeror shall provide evidence of a Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) certification or pending application for WOSB certification. In accordance with FAR 19.1505(e) and FAR clause 52.219-30(c)(1), for WOSB set-aside procurements, offers are solicited only from WOSB concerns certified in the System for Award Management (SAM), or WOSB concerns with a pending application for certification status in the Small Business Administration (SBA) Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS). However, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 127.504(a)(3), for WOSB set-aside procurements, offers are solicited only from WOSB concerns certified in SAM and/or the SBA DSBS, or WOSB concerns that provide proof of submission of a complete application for WOSB certification to SBA or a Third-Party Certifier, and has not received a negative determination regarding that application from SBA or the Third-Party Certifier.

Unless the Offeror is designated as WOSB certified or has a pending application in accordance with either FAR 19.1505(e), FAR clause 52.219-30(c)(1), or 13 C.F.R. 127.504(a)(3), the offer is not eligible for award and shall be removed from consideration.

Section L – Gate Check Cont.

Gate Check: Certification and Agreements Continued For this solicitation, if the Offeror is a Joint Venture, in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(1), the Joint Venture must be in writing; must do business under its own name and be identified as a Joint Venture in the System for Award Management (SAM) for the award of a prime contract; and may be in the form of a formal or informal partnership or exist as a separate limited liability company or other separate legal entity.

In addition, if the Offeror is a Women-Owned Small Business Joint Venture, the Offeror shall provide a Joint Venture Agreement that meets the content requirements listed in 13 C.F.R. 127.506(a) through 13 C.F.R. 127.506(c). Furthermore, the Offeror shall submit the Certification of Compliance required in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 127.506(e).

Please note that 13 C.F.R. 127.506(d) states the WOSB partner(s) to the Joint Venture must perform at least 40% of the work performed by the Joint Venture.

The Joint Venture Agreement is NOT a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for contract award. If during the responsibility determination, prior to award, the Government has questions regarding the potential awardee’s Joint Venture Agreement, the communications and questions are NOT considered a part of “Discussions,” as defined in FAR 15.306, Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals.

Failure to submit and resolve questions in the Offeror’s Joint Venture Agreement may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined non-compliant and ineligible for award.

Section M – Gate Check VOLUME 1: Gate Check

Gate check items are required to be provided at time of proposal submission

Gate Check evaluation will be a binary Acceptable/Unacceptable evaluation

PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance – How well you have done “Built 100 but 90 leaked!”

Mr. Bernard Courtney iCSS IPT Lead

LOGO

Look Back

Look Forward

Past Perf Evaluation Concept Based on an assessment of the Offeror's past performance (look back), how do we think they will perform on the program?

Review Offeror’s Past Record, e.g., CPARS, CPAQ Determine Relevancy / Recency Assess each Contact Referenced.

Roll up each 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 the Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

Confidence Assessment Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Neutral Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Past Performance Evaluation Grading - Qualitative

Past Performance Analysis of Findings as related to Future Performance Trends Relevancy of finding /likelihood that findings are a predictor of similar performance Extent to which demonstrated systemic improvement reduces the likelihood of a negative finding from re-occurring Impact: Consequences/severity of poor performance and Benefits of good performance Performance Areas and Confidence Assessments Assessment Of Relevant Past Performance

We provide two rating, a compliance rating and a risk assessment for each criterion/element.

The compliance rating is a determination if the reqmts within the area of the evaluation will be met.

The risk assessment is the likelihood that the reqmts will be met within the period of contract performance.

Section L - Past Performance Attachments

Section L - Past Performance Information Sources of past performance evaluation information include:

Information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation Information obtained from questionnaires Any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to:

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems (FAPIIS) Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

Defense Contract Management Agency Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

Section L - Questionnaires Past Performance Questionnaires Attachment to Section L (Section L, Attachment L-5, Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaires (CPAQ)) Send to contacts within 2 weeks from release date of the RFP where CPARS data is not available Remove RFP number from questionnaires prior to sending out

Request responses back to POC identified within the RFP within two weeks of receipt

Identify in Attachment L-4, Table PP-1, Past Performance Information Form, when and where the questionnaires were sent

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

Section L - Past Performance Evaluation Except for proposals found to be unacceptable in Step 1, the Government will perform a Past Performance evaluation to establish performance confidence.

Three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within three years of the solicitation release date. If there is at least one day of performance within the 3-year timeframe, the performance of the entire contract will be considered. Each order submitted under a single-award IDIQ must independently meet this recency requirement.

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 relevancy of the finding, as well as its associated consequence will be used to determine the Performance Confidence Level Rating.

Based on Relevant Contracts, the Performance Confidence Assessment is influenced by the likelihood of future reoccurrence and associated consequences.

The more relevant the finding, the more likely it will be a predictor of future performance.

Notwithstanding adverse past performance, the degree to which positive past performance is a predictor of future performance will determine whether the Performance Confidence Assessment rises to the level of Substantial.

Note: The contract reference of a particular entity shall relate to that entity’s specific role and responsibility in the proposal, as specified in Attachment L-3 Relevant Contract Summary.

In Annex B, Offerors should provide one electronic copy of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statements (SOW/PWS) from each of the referenced contracts identified in Offeror Workshare Summary. Note: This includes documentation at the order level.

Section L - Past Performance Evaluation cont’d.

Relevancy General Definitions:

Scope: similarity of the past performance work compared to that of the contractor support services defined in Attachment J-1 SOW paragraph 2.0.

Complexity:

(1) similarity of the institutions/organizations for which the past performance was conducted compared to that of the contractor support services defined in Attachment J-1 SOW paragraph 2.0.

- Generally for complexity, DoD contracts are considered more relevant than non-DoD contracts.

(2) Management of personnel with a Secret or higher security clearance.

- The Government will not consider contracts with security clearances below Secret.

Magnitude: similarity of the number of personnel managed simultaneously under the past performance contract, as well as the overall number of personnel managed under the past performance contract compared to that of the contractor support services defined in Attachment J-1 SOW paragraph 2.0. The estimated number of FTEs for the instant contract is 218.

- Generally for magnitude, contracts with higher FTEs are considered more relevant than contracts will less FTEs.

LOGO

Relevancy Ratings:

LOGO

Examples of why a contract may be deemed not relevant:

Offeror-submitted contracts, or any portion of those contracts, that meet any of the conditions below will be assessed as Not Relevant:

Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Offeror Workshare Summary);

Contracts from non-relevant entities;

Contracts from an entity that does not have any work that matches with the entity’s role and responsibility identified in the Offeror Workshare Summary;

Contracts from a different physical location (e.g., with a different CAGE code) than the entity proposed in the Offeror Workshare Summary);

Contracts that involve little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/or complexities required by this solicitation; or Contracts, or those portions of the contract, whose performance is older than 3 years from the proposal due date.

Section M - Past Performance Evaluation cont’d Relevancy and recency of the contract and past performance information, source of information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered.

Government will also evaluate demonstrated past performance in each of the following areas:

Quality of Product or Services Managing the Contracted Effort Cost Control

Government will consider adverse past performance and demonstrated systemic improvements.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned.

Demonstrated Systemic Improvement - Information as it relates to preventing the recurrence of past problems.

The Offeror shall identify those demonstrated improvement actions taken to resolve any performance issues or problems; to include but not limited to, describing the techniques, elements and tools used to correct issues or problems and, if applicable, how these techniques, elements and tools will be employed during performance of this requirement.

In addition, the Offeror shall provide, for any contract, a list of Show Cause Notices, Cure Notices and Terminations for Default received on any contract, task order, or delivery order within the past five (5) years from the solicitation release.

Note: It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided and substantiate that improvements from past performance problems are being made and address any adverse past performance. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror.

Performance Confidence Assessment

Price/Cost

- Michael Yucht

Section L - Price/Cost Evaluation Offerors shall provide a complete the Offeror Summary Workshare Table (L-2), which provides a breakout to demonstrate how the prime contractor and any similarly situated entities will perform at least 50% of the cost of the instant contract.

Limitation on Subcontracting The Offeror shall comply with FAR 52.219-14 (DEVIATION 2021-O0008 Rev 1).

Requires that the WOSB prime contractor not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities (i.e. other WOSBs).

Offerors shall submit their fully completed price/cost proposal utilizing the Cost Summary format (Attachment L-6).

Government Furnished Information:

Estimated travel costs are provided for travel CLINs and shall be used by offeror.

Escalation rate for each year of performance has been provided.

Labor hours estimate is 2,228,095 hours for the entire work effort.

Minimum direct labor rates have been provided in Attachment L-7.

Incumbent contractor and subcontractors.

Section L - Price/Cost Evaluation cont’d.

Section L - Price/Cost Evaluation cont’d Direct and Indirect Rates:

The Offeror shall submit Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs), and Area Wage Determinations (AWDs) as applicable for all proposed personnel. The Offeror shall identify whether the labor rates proposed are FPRAs, CBAs, AWDs, ACO/DCAA recommended rates (FPRRs), or Offeror proposed rates (FPRPs).

If any of the rates utilized by the Offeror or any subcontractors or JV team members differ from the DCAA information and/or payroll verification, a justification shall be provided for the difference. If DCAA has not reviewed the rate information for an Offeror, one of its subcontractors or JV team members, the Offeror must submit a detailed justification of the proposed direct and indirect rates. Offerors shall provide the last three (3) years of actual indirect information.

Note: The Government will conduct a 2-phased evaluation for indirect rates.

Section M – Price/Cost Evaluation cont’d Cost Realism Evaluation:

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable offeror’s proposal.

In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may compare the proposed labor rates (i.e. Offeror’s Attachment L6 [Cost Summary]) to the average labor rates in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone [Florida] where the work is to be performed.

Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), General Schedule (GS), or historical data for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract.

Section M- Price/Cost Evaluation cont’d Direct Rates Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed direct labor rates to ensure no proposed rate is lower than the rates provided in Attachment L-7 Minimum Direct Labor Rates. Proposals with direct labor rates lower than the Attachment L-7 (Minimum Direct Labor Rates) will be considered ineligible for award.

Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to, DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, will be used as necessary and appropriate.

Yucht, Michael D CIV USN NAWCTSD (USA) (Y() - Verbal comment - proposing rates lower than the min direct labor rates will result in a proposal being considered unrealistically low

Indirect Rates:

For Phase 1, the Government will verify proposed indirect rates against Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation, or established Provisional Billing Rate. Any rates that are proposed consistent with these government issued rates will be assessed as realistic and not evaluated further.

FPRAs, FPRRs, and PBRs, in that order, will suffice for realism purposes.

For Phase 2, the Government will conduct a further analysis of any proposed indirect rates that are not verifiable to a FPRA, FPRR, or PBR based on the Offeror’s provided last three (3) years of actual indirect information and supporting documentation.

No other forms of information will be considered to support the cost realism analysis for indirect rates.

The Government will compare an Offeror’s labor category rate to the average labor rate from industry.

Proposals will indirect rates deemed unrealistically low will be considered ineligible for award.

Price Evaluation:

For FFP CLINs, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Price Volume for:

Proposed total price;

Price reasonableness;

Whether the offeror’s proposed CLIN prices are balanced (unbalanced pricing);

Whether the offeror completed the information requested in Section L Unbalanced Pricing: As required by FAR § 15.404-1(g)(2), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items.

A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. This is not a price realism analysis

Total Evaluated Price:

The total evaluated price is the sum of the fixed-price CLIN (i.e. Mobilization) plus the sum of the Base Ordering Period Most Probable Cost (i.e. Labor and ODCs –Travel) for cost reimbursement-type CLINs plus the six-month Option to Extent (52.217-8).

Administrative The Government will evaluate for completeness in accordance with Section L, Part B, paragraph 3.6(a) thru (f).

Offerors shall provide a complete the Offeror Summary Workshare Table (L-2), which provides a breakout to demonstrate how the prime contractor and any similarly situated entities will perform at least 50% of the cost of the instant contract.

PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE

-Fernando Cerpa-Rondon Lead Contract Specialist

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance - Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks

Demonstrate 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 Give us a reason to believe you; provide information to allow an independent assessment

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance – (cont.)

Structure your proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions

Be consistent from Volume to Volume

Provide clear and concise descriptions Drawings & diagrams complement narrative, but don't replace it

Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs Is it clear?

Is it well organized?

Be attentive to all parts of the RFP Requirements, SOW Terms and Conditions Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions

Typical Proposal Shortfalls Proposal Instructions are not followed Information not provided in the way it was requested Too little information Too much information

Statements in the proposal are not well supported

Proposals are not well organized Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information

Typical Proposal Shortfalls (cont.)

Past Performance POCs are not current

CAGE Codes references do not match

Deficiencies - preclude award Information provided does not support claims of compliance Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements Missing or pending gate check documentation

Not signing SF-33

Source Selection Summary The Source Selection process will assure that your proposal will receive a fair and consistent evaluation and selection.

Sections L&M are intended to help you provide us with your best value solution and instruct you in preparing a proposal that will facilitate our evaluation.

Bottom-Line Propose your best value solution, making the non-Price and Price Trade-Offs that are in the best interest of the Government.

Propose a realistic proposal with a high performing team, providing an executable contract that is likely to perform as proposed.

Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution and contract performance plan.

Questions?

Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Day’s Events Mrs. Alana Nunez-Bennett

PCO

image8.png image9.png image10.wmf image11.png image12.png image13.png image14.png image15.png image16.png image17.png image2.png image3.png image4.png image5.png image6.png image1.wmf image7.png