eCASS_Pre-Sol_Conference_Brief_R4_final_after_legal_review_LLB.pdf

electronic Consolidated Automated Support System

(eCASS)

Full Rate Production (FRP) 2

PMA-260

Industry Day/Pre-Solicitation Conference

Presented by:

Contracts

PMA-260

AIR 4.0E Source Selection Office

NAVAIR Public Release 2017-551 - Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited 1

Agenda

NAVAIR Public Release 2017-551 - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

• Ground Rules

• Industry Day Goals

• Contracts Remarks

• Capability Statements

• eCASS Program Requirements

• Background

• Procurement Description and Configurations

• Source Selection Overview distribution is unlimited

Ground Rules

• All attendees must sign-in

• Silence all electronic devices

• No recording

• Meeting is unclassified

• Submit all questions in writing

Use the forms provided

Questions will be answered and posted to FBO

• All communications shall be directed through the Contracting Office

Lisette Behmke or Kate Scott

Lisette.Behmke@navy.mil or Kathryn.Scott@navy.mil mailto:Lisette.Behmke@navy.mil mailto:Kathryn.Scott@navy.mil

NAVAIR Public Release 2017-

551 - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Ground Rules

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.

Industry Day Goals

1. Increase industry’s understanding of the pending requirement for eCASS Full Rate Production (FRP) 2.

2. Afford industry an opportunity to provide feedback & to ask questions regarding the Government’s contemplated requirement.

3. Provide basic contractual information including the cognizant

Contracts personnel, the requirement being contemplated and an estimated timeline should a solicitation be released and a contract awarded.

4. Increase competition and teaming/subcontracting opportunities amongst capable and/or interested vendors

Goals For The eCASS Industry Day

Contracts Remarks

• Contracts Team:

Procuring Contracting Officer: Kate Scott

Contracts Specialist: Lisette Behmke

• Contract Vehicle

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs for Production Hardware/Systems

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs for Engineering Support Services

Cost CLINs for Travel

POP: Base Award and five Option periods

Options with Range Quantities

Follow-On to Contract N68335-17-C-0253 FRP 1

• Product and Service Code: 6625 -Electrical and Electronic Measuring Instruments

• NAICS: 334519 – Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing; Size Standard of

500 employees

• Estimated formal solicitation release August 2017

• Estimated Award July 2018

Capability Statement

A Request for Information (RFI) was posted in February 2017

If you have not submitted a Capability Statement already, please include:

• What type of same or similar work has your company performed?

• Can your company manage a task of this nature?

• Can your company manage a team of subcontractors?

• Skills your company possesses which will ensure capability to perform these tasks?

• Explanation of how your company is able to perform at least 50% of the tasking described in the SOW for the entire effort?

• Provide a statement including current business status and company profile.

• Does your company have the ability to meet the Facility requirements?

eCASS Program Requirement

• Fleet-wide replacement of all Mainframe CASS ATE

(Automatic Test Equipment) systems due to approaching system obsolescence, while:

– Supporting existing weapon systems test requirements,

– Supporting future weapons systems test requirements,

– Preserving Navy investment in CASS TPSs by re-utilizing

(“Migrating”) applicable TPSs to eCASS eCASS Program Background

• ACAT IVM designated

– Milestone B (SDD) Decision Approved 12 MAR 2010

– Milestone C (LRIP) Decision Approved 16 DEC 2013

– Full Rate Production Decision Approved 7 DEC 2016

• AIR-1.0 is the Milestone Decision Authority

• PMA-260 (Aviation Support Equipment) managed distribution is unlimited 9

Procurement Description

• This procurement is for follow-on Full Rate Production eCASS systems

• The Offeror shall:

– Fabricate, manufacture, assemble, integrate, produce, test, demonstrate, and deliver eCASS hardware systems and related equipment

– Re-use the GFE CASS High Power Device Test Set (HPDTS) assets and CASS Electro-Optics (EO) Console distribution is unlimited 10 eCASS CONOPS distribution is unlimited 11

Aviation Platforms

Supported eCASS Locations

CVN

L-Class

AIMD

FRC

V-22

E-2D

F/A-18A-F

H-60

Future Emerging

Requirements

- Fleet support is defined by four eCASS missions areas:

1) Electro-Optic (EO)

2) Hybrid (HYB)

3) Radio Frequency (RF)

4) High Power (HP)

H-53

H-1

AV-8B

T-45

EA-18G

eCASS Core and MEKs distribution is unlimited 12

Figure 1. eCASS Core (4027AS400-01) and MEKs

• eCASS is designed with a common Core and peculiar Mission Equipment Kits

(MEKs) to meet its CONOPS requirements eCASS MEKs & Configurations distribution is unlimited 13

Figure 2. eCASS EO Mission Figure 3. eCASS Hybrid Mission

Figure 4. eCASS RF Mission Figure 5. eCASS HP Mission eCASS EO Configuration distribution is unlimited 14

Core EO MEK Reserved Backup Power Kit

Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy

-5

V d c c c

-1

V d c

-4

V d c

-4

V d c Reflex Chassis #4

Reflex Chassis #2

C o n t

Inverter

V

V

V

UltraCap Storage #2 eCASS Station (EO Configuration)

Inverter Reflex Chassis #3

EO Console Power Supply

V c c c c

W

IU

Transform/Rectifier Unit

VPG

Calibrator

Medium Power VXI Chassis

S y s te m T ri g g e r

A W

F G

V

V

Power Distribution and PCU

C o n t c M

X Ie

C o n tr o ll e r

D M

M F

T

IC

L

W P

L P u ls e G e n e ra to r

A W

F G

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

M X

Ie C n t

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

Rack Server

COMM Chassis

MPSRD

/E n e t

/E n e t

T ri g g e r

/E n e t

R S

/4

W D

D

W F

R D

R S

AGCS PXI Chassis

ULAS/HWPL

UltraCap Charger GPI

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

UltraCap Storage #1

Cisco Switch

Main PC

P o w e r

F e e d

-T h ru C o a x F e e d

-T h ru L

F F e e d

-T h ru A

I- F e e d

-T h ru P o w e r

S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

PXIe Chassis D

I-

D I-

D I-

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

High Power VXI Chassis C o a x S w it c h

L F

S w it c h

L F

S w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

ACPS

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

B I-

Reflex Chassis #1 PXIe Chassis

P X

I

C o n t

D /S

S /D

D /A

C o n t

1-140 VAC 1-140 VAC 1-140 VAC

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

W

IU

D /A

D I-

-U ti li ty

Rubidium Oscillator

UUT Air Flow Unit

HWPL

T ri g g e r

A /D

T

T

EO Console

(GFE)

eCASS Hybrid Configuration distribution is unlimited 15

Core RF MEK Reserved Hybrid MEK Backup Power Kit

Inverter Reflex Chassis #3

Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Filter Assy

Transform/Rectifier Unit

Reflex Chassis #2 c c c

-1

V d c

-4

V d c

-4

V d c c c c c c

W

IU

VPG

Calibrator

S y s te m T ri g g e r

A W

F G

A W

F G

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

UltraCap Storage #2

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

D M

M F

T

IC

L

W P

L P u ls e G e n e ra to r

Power Distribution and PCU Medium Power VXI Chassis

C o n t

Inverter Rack Server

/E n e t

UltraCap Storage #1 COMM Chassis

MPSRD

T ri g g e r

/E n e t

/E n e t

PXIe Chassis

M X

Ie C n t

W D

D

W F

R D

R S

R S

/4

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

L F

S w it c h

L F

S w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

L F

F e e d

-T h ru A

I- F e e d

-T h ru P o w e r

S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

ULAS/HWPL

UltraCap Charger GPI Cisco Switch

Main PC

P o w e r

F e e d

-T h ru C o a x F e e d

-T h ru

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

HWPL

High Power VXI Chassis

1-140 VAC 1-140 VAC

W

IU

Reflex Chassis #1

U L

A S

U L

A S

D I-

D I-

D I-

D I-

D I-

-U ti li ty

A I-

A

I-

A I-

D

I-

D I-eCASS Station (Hybrid Configuration) Rubidium Oscillator

UUT Air Flow Unit

ACPS

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

B I-

4C o n t

1-140 VAC

T eCASS RF Configuration distribution is unlimited 16

Core RF MEK Reserved Hybrid MEK Backup Power Kit eCASS Station (RF Configuration)

Inverter Inverter Reflex Chassis #3

Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy c c c

-1

V d c

-4

V d c

-4

V d c W

IU

Transform/Rectifier Unit

Reflex Chassis #2

C o n t c c c c c

Power Distribution and PCU Medium Power VXI Chassis

VPG

Inverter

/E n e t

UltraCap Storage #1

Rack Server

Calibrator

S y s te m T ri g g e r

A W

F G

A W

F G

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

UltraCap Storage #2

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

D M

M F

T

IC

L

W P

L P u ls e G e n e ra to r

N8201 N8201

Roller Assy

Rack Server IFIU

T ri g g e r

/E n e t

/E n e t

R S

/4

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

L F

F e e d

-T h ru A

I- F e e d

-T h ru

COMM Chassis

MPSRD

C o a x S w it c h

L F

S w it c h

L F

S w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

U L

A S

Main PC

P o w e r

F e e d

-T h ru C o a x F e e d

-T h ru

ULAS/HWPL

RF Interface

UltraCap Charger GPI Cisco Switch

P o w e r

S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

PXIe Chassis

M X

Ie C n t

W D

D

W F

R D

R S

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru

C o n t

D I-

D I-

D I-

D I-

ACPS

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

B I-

A I-

A

I-

1-140 VAC 1-140 VAC

W

IU

A I-

D

I-

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

1-140 VAC

Rubidium Oscillator

UUT Air Flow Unit

Power Meter

Reflex Chassis #1

HWPL

High Power VXI Chassis Medium Power VXI Chassis

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

R F

-S y n th

R F

-S y n th

R F

-S y n th

R F

-S y n th

R E

F D is tr ib u ti o n

D I-

D I-

-U ti li ty

T

RF Meas eCASS HP Configuration distribution is unlimited 17

Core RF MEK Reserved HP MEK Backup Power Kit

Fan Assy (GFE)

Vxi Chassis (GFE)

Inverter Inverter Reflex Chassis #3

Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy Fan/Filter Assy c c c

-1

V d c

-4

V d c

-4

V d c

S lo t

C tr lr

G F

E

A \D

C a rd

G F

E

D \A

C a rd

G F

E

R e la y

C a rd

G F

E

Rack Server

HP Console Power Supply (GFE)

Calibrator

W

IU

AC Power (GFE) Transform/Rectifier Unit

Reflex Chassis #2

C o n t c c c c c

M

IM

G

F E

PIU

COMM Chassis

MPSRD

L F

F e e d

-T h ru A

I- F e e d

-T h ru

N8201

Roller Assy

Rack Server IFIU

T ri g g e r

/E n e t

/E n e t

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

D M

M F

T

IC

L

W P

L P u ls e G e n e ra to r

P o w e r

F e e d

-T h ru C o a x F e e d

-T h ru

/E n e t

VPG

Inverter

L F

S w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d s w it c h

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru Main PC

S y s te m T ri g g e r

A W

F G

A W

F G

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

S y n c h ro G e n

/M e a s

UltraCap Storage #2

Power Distribution and PCU

UltraCap Storage #1

Medium Power VXI Chassis

N8201

C o a x S w it c h

C o a x S w it c h

PXIe Chassis

M X

Ie C n t

W D

D

W F

R D

R S

D T

I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru D

T I/ H y b ri d

F d

-T h ru H

P D

S

In tf c

H P

D T

S

In tf c

C o a x S w it c h

L F

S w it c h

R S

/4

Reflex Chassis #1

HWPL

High Power VXI Chassis Medium Power VXI Chassis

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

R F

-S y n th

R F

-S y n th

R F

-S y n th

R F

-S y n th

R E

F D is tr ib u ti o n

ULAS/HWPL

RF Interface

UltraCap Charger GPI Cisco Switch

P o w e r

S w it c h

D I-

D I-

ACPS

M X

Ie C o n tr o ll e r

B I-

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S

U L

A S eCASS Station (HP Configuration) Rubidium Oscillator

UUT Air Flow Unit

Power Meter

ADU

Arm

LCU

(GFE)

D I-

D I-

-U ti li ty

C o n t

1-140 VAC 1-140 VAC 1-140 VAC

W

IU

T

T

RF Meas eCASS Systems distribution is unlimited 18

EO

RF

HP

(4027AS979-01) (4027AS978-01)

(4027AS977-01)

SOURCE SELECTION OVERVIEW

* Draft RFP Page

Source Selection Objectives

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

• Provide a fair and consistent evaluation of proposals distribution is unlimited 20

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC Advisors

SSEB Advisors

SSEB

TECHNICAL

SSAC Members

ASSISTANT CHAIR

PAST

PERFORMANCE

COST/PRICE

Source Selection Organization

PCO

distribution is unlimited 21

Sections L and M

• Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP:

– Identifies what to put in the proposal and in what format

– Understanding and following the Proposal Instructions in Section L will ensure that Offerors develop a good proposal

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

• Evaluation Factors for Award – Section M of the RFP:

– Identifies what will be evaluated

– Understanding the importance of each factor is key

PRICE

TECHNICAL

(Rating &

Proposal Risk) PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Confidence Assessment Rating) distribution is unlimited 22

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors

-General-

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

• The Government intends to award based on initial proposals

– Offerors are advised that the initial offer should contain the

Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and cost/price standpoint since discussions may not be conducted

• The Government may establish a Competitive Range with the most highly rated proposals if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government distribution is unlimited 23

Proposal Content and Volumes

• Annexes are used to provide supporting data

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

Volume

• Annex B electronic only

Volume / Annex Volume Title

Volume 1 Executive Summary

Volume 2 Technical

Volume 3 Past Performance

Volume 4 Price

Annex A Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Annex B Relevant Portions of Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs for

Past Performance

Annex C Preliminary Manufacturing and Production Plan

Annex D Subcontract Management Plan distribution is unlimited 24

Volume 1 – Executive Summary

• Provide the Government with an overview of the entire proposal, excluding price

a. Offeror Summary (Table ES-1):

b. Relevant Contract Summary (Table ES-2)

c. Technical

d. Contract Administration

– Signed SF33 for basic solicitation and each amendment;

– Signed Representations, Certifications and Acknowledgements or

System for Award Management (SAM) reference;

– Section F Delivery/Performance proposed dates per CLIN/unit

(base year and options).

e. Exceptions and Deviations

Price information should not be included in this Volume distribution is unlimited 25

Draft Section L, Part A General

- Entities -

• 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 evaluation: (a) the prime contractor; (b) JV Team Members; and (c) other entities that are proposed to perform at least 35% of the proposed total price for the contract within the areas of integration, test, or manufacturing.

distribution is unlimited 26

Entity Name Physical

Location of

Entity

CAGE Codes/DUNS Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description

% Total

Proposed Price

XYZ Corporation (Prime) Happy Valley, MD

DUNS #: 12-565-xxxx Cage Code: 12xxx

Systems Integration, T&E, Training, Field Services and Support

49%

UAV Shop LTD (Principal Subcontractor)

Victoria, OH

DUNS #: #75-549-xxxx Cage Code: 2xxxx

Airframe Design, Engineering and Manufacturing

25%

Payload Technology, INC (Principal Subcontractor)

Littleton, AZ

DUNS #: 12-600-xxxx Cage Code: 3xxxx

Payload Supplier Production and Deployment

10%

Orbital Australia PTY LTD (Critical Subcontractor)

Jamestown, PA

DUNS #: 00-305-xxxx Cage Code: 1xxxx

Integration & Test Support 9%

Big Ship Information Systems (BSIS) (Critical Subcontractor)

Dunkirk, MN

DUNS #: 00-486-xxxx Cage Code: 9xxxx

Supply Chain Management 5%

MNP Group LLC (Other Subcontractor)

Uptown, TN DUNS#: 36-267-xxxx Cage Code: 8xxxx

Field Services Support 2%

Total Proposed cost/price (must add up to 100%) 100%

Volume 1 - Executive Summary

Sample Offeror Summary Table ES-1

Past Performance references should not be provided for subcontractors that are not principal subcontractors distribution is unlimited 27

Volume 1 - Executive Summary

Sample Relevant Contract Summary Table ES-2

Offeror:

Entity Name Contract

Reference

Contract

Number

Contract

Type

Contract

Title

*Description of

Changes/Addition s from Early

Information

Prime or Joint Venture

Company

P1 FFP X

P2 CPFF X

P3 FFP X

JV team member A

(where applicable)

T1 FFP X

T2 FPI X

T3 FFP X

T4 CPFF X

JV team member N (where Applicable)

T5 FFP X

Subcontractor A

S1 FFP X

S2 FFP X

S3 FPI X

PP references should only be provided for principal entities distribution is unlimited 28

Volume 2 - Technical

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

• Technical Evaluation Elements:

– 2.1 Manufacturing

– 2.2 Obsolescence Management

– 2.3 Program Management

– 2.4 Small Business Management distribution is unlimited 29

Volume 2 – Technical

Section L Guidance

• Throughout the Technical Volume the Offeror should identify any proposed capability, approach or feature that exceeds a requirement or provides merit associated with a performance or operational benefit to the Government

• The Offeror should also identify any proposed capability, approach or feature that reduces risk inherent in the program

• Specifically, explain the benefits to the Government in technical terms and the degree of impact it will have to performance, operations and/or risk

• Any offer to exceed a requirement or to provide a feature with performance and/or operational benefits may be included in the resulting applicable Contract within the proposed price distribution is unlimited 30

Volume 2 - Technical

Cross Reference Matrix

• Provided in Section L as guidance to Offerors

• Road map to RFP and proposal

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

Section L Section L - Paragraph Title SOW Other

Proposal

Reference

Volume 2 Technical

2.1 Manufacturing 3.1.4, 3.1.6.1 - 3.1.6.3.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.9 Att 4 - TDP

2.2 Obsolescence

Management 3.2.12, 3.2.13

2.3 Program Management 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.6

2.4 Small Business

Management distribution is unlimited 31

Deficiencies

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Assessment Of Technical Proposals

Strengths Risk Reducers and Significant Weaknesses

- Review for accuracy and “common threads”

- Assess type of and degree of benefit/impact

Technical Evaluation Process

- RISK -

Assessment of likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Technical Rating (Compliance)

Potential Strengths, Potential Risk Reducers, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

- COMPLIANCE -

Assessment of the Offeror’s solution for meeting requirements

Technical Risk Rating

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable distribution is unlimited 32

Technical Compliance Rating Definitions

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

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

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

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

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

distribution is unlimited 33

Technical Strength

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

• Affects Technical Compliance Rating

– Appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government

– Each strength may provide different degrees of benefit, thereby affecting the rating differently

– Used to determine adequacy of approach and understanding of requirement

• Section M: “The degree of benefit to the Government associated with a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional.”

distribution is unlimited 34

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: “… a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” or “Marginal”, or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” is considered unawardable and may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition..”

distribution is unlimited 35

Technical Deficiency (cont’)

• Deficiency Examples

– Proposal states an exception or deviation

– Failure to meet a requirement

– 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 distribution is unlimited 36

Risk Rating Definitions

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

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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 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 or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

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

distribution is unlimited 37

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 distribution is unlimited 38

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

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

distribution is unlimited 39

Significant Weakness (cont’)

• Significant Weakness Examples

– Marginal resources or capability to accomplish the effort

– Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the

Offeror’s full control

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

– Untested/unproven approaches

– Lacks substantiation or full description of the approach

– Lacks information to assess risk distribution is unlimited 40

Past Performance Process

Assess overall

Offeror Team

Performance

Receive Early Past

Performance

Information

Assess Contract Recency/

Relevancy for Past

Performance

Assess Individual

Contract

Performance

Performance

Confidence

Assessment

(PCA)

Substantial

Satisfactory

Limited

No

Unknown

Review trends and predictors of future performance to assign PCA

Rating for each Offeror Team

Technical, Schedule, Management Performance, and

Small Business Utilization

Look Back

Look Forward distribution is unlimited 41

Recency No

Not Relevant

Complexity:

Multiple rack system or multiple instrument single rack system or multiple instrument benchtop system

Scope:

Production of military or commercial

Automated Test Equipment (ATE)

Magnitude:

The annual production quantity of

13 or more systems .

Similarity

Yes

Contract Relevancy Assessment

Contracts assessed as not relevant by the

Government will not be considered in the Past

Performance assessment distribution is unlimited 42

Past Performance Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) 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.

distribution is unlimited 43

Volume 4 - Price

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

– Firm Fixed Price CLINs: Evaluated for reasonableness

– Cost Plus Fixed Fee: Evaluated for reasonableness

– Cost CLINs: Evaluated for reasonableness

– Total Evaluated Contract Cost/Price: All CLINs will be included in the total evaluated price, inclusive of Options.

The total evaluated price will be the sum of all base year and Option year CLINs.

distribution is unlimited 44

Typical Proposal Shortfalls

• Proposals are not well organized / information is not provided in the way it was requested

– Proposal does not follow proposal structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information

• Too little information / lack of substantiation – statements or claims in the proposal are not well supported

• Too much information (e.g., marketing material)

• Not signing SF-33

• Past Performance POCs are not current

• CAGE/DUNS Codes references do not match

• Deficiencies - preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance

– Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements distribution is unlimited 45

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance -

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

– Substantiate, don't simply make claims

– Provide enough information to allow an independent assessment

• Be consistent from Volume to Volume

• Make appropriate trade-offs to provide the very best value that you can offer

– Point out strengths, risk reducers and associated benefits

– Address risks with mitigating approaches

– Show balance between Cost/Price and Technical benefits

• Drawings & diagrams complement narrative; don’t replace it distribution is unlimited 46

Proposal Preparation

- Guidance -

• Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs

– Structure the proposal in accordance with the Proposal

Instructions

– The Cross Reference Matrix can be a good proposal development tool

• Be clear and concise

• Be attentive to all parts of the RFP

– Requirements, SOW, TDP

– Section L Attachments

– Terms and Conditions

– Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions

• Avoid marketing material distribution is unlimited 47

Bottom Line

• Propose the best value solution, making the appropriate

Technical and Cost/Price Trade-Offs to provide the very best value

• Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution distribution is unlimited 48

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

TECHNICAL

Andrea Roderick

PMA-260

Technical Factor

Volume 2.0

2.1 Manufacturing

2.2 Obsolescence Management

2.3 Program Management

2.4 Small Business Management

Evaluation Flow distribution is unlimited 50

• 2.1 Manufacturing

– Overview

• Manufacturing Capability

• Manufacturing Quality

• Production Throughput

• Manpower

• Calibration distribution is unlimited 51

• 2.1 Manufacturing (cont’d)

– a. Manufacturing Capability

• Describe overall Manufacturing Management Program

– Manufacturing program planning

– Manufacturing operational management

• Describe approach to overall planning, procurement, inventory, storage, and incoming inspection of procured components and assemblies.

• Describe the overall production capability

– Facilities

– Plant layout

– Major equipment

• Address the availability and utilization of production resources in performance of full-rate production efforts.

• Submit a preliminary Manufacturing and Production Plan distribution is unlimited 52

– b. Manufacturing Quality

• Describe approach for assuring continuous identification, evaluation and timely resolution of manufacturing operations that adversely impact product quality, delivery, or performance.

• Describe proposed approach to establish, implement, document and maintain a Quality

Management System (QMS).

• Provide detailed information on quality assurance program and the ability to implement and conform to SAE International Standard (SAE) AS9100, AS9102 and AS9103, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001-2008 or (9001-2015) or

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASQC-Q9001.

• Describe processes and controls to achieve defect free product and provide continuous improvement examples resulting in reductions of defects.

• Describe procedures for the identification, reporting, analysis and corrective action for system integration problems and non-conforming material.

• Describe procedures to assure that the complete system, including all parts and assemblies, conform to all requirements to the technical data package.

• Describe the adequacy of available trained and qualified personnel required to produce eCASS in accordance with the requirements of the TDP and Contractors QMS.

• Describe the overall approach to configuration management and control during the production process, to include drawing control.

distribution is unlimited 53

– c. Production Throughput

• State maximum achievable production rate of eCASS annually, with available manufacturing resources

• Describe the overall approach to allocate existing and planned facility usage for procurement, wiring/harnessing, assembly, integration and acceptance testing in order to satisfy the production throughput requirements of this contract.

• Integration and test planning should also include component, subassembly and rack assembly staging, test, and burn-in facility as required.

distribution is unlimited 54

– d. Manpower

• Document the projected manpower requirements, including management, engineering, artisan, and administrative support to be utilized to meet the requirements of this solicitation and the plan to meet those requirements.

• Describe the detailed phased plans for adequacy of available trained and qualified personnel required to produce eCASS in accordance with the requirements of the TDP and Contractors QMS,

– include any Risk Mitigation strategies required for retaining manpower

– e. Calibration

• Describe approach to establishing, implementing, documenting and maintaining a calibration program, obtaining CommSp certification and provide previous CommSP certifications within this section.

• Describe their internal process of the calibration of production test equipment.

distribution is unlimited 55

• 2.2 Obsolescence Management

– Describe approach to proactively survey suppliers, monitor and identify any DMSMS issues with the potential to impact eCASS production affecting availability, application, operation or compatibility.

– Address parts counterfeiting prevention.

distribution is unlimited 56

• 2.3 Program Management

– a. Program and Schedule (IMS)

• Provide resource loaded Execution IMS to WBS level 3 for base year effort.

• Portray a time-phased schedule that logically portrays how all events in the manufacturing process will occur (in time) to assure contract requirements are met.

• Describe a realistic and supportable schedule, illustrating the plan to meet all program requirements to achieve the base year delivery schedule, including risk management approaches being used and Schedule Visibility Tasks.

• Include proposed delivery schedule and any incremental delivery and dates per CLIN/unit.

distribution is unlimited 57

Technical (cont’d)

• 2.3 Program Management (cont’d)

– b. Subcontractor Management and Supportability

• Describe plan for subcontract management and control in the performance of contract. Describe approach to subcontract management and the complexity and variety of the work the subcontractors are to perform and identify what portions of the contract will be allocated to subcontractors.

• Describe the subcontractors’ roles and responsibilities. Describe the extent the Offeror has worked with proposed subcontractors prior to this solicitation.

• Describe the methods and resources to be used to ensure subcontractor compliance with contract technical performance and schedule requirements.

Identify metrics and indicators used to monitor subcontractor performance.

• Describe of the quality control plan, risk mitigation plan, and conflict resolution plan that will be used for subcontract management.

• Provide details and requirements to be used as the basis for future agreements with subcontractors to include work assignments and requirements flow down. For existing agreements provide copies with the

Subcontract Management Plan. Describe any long-term agreements already established with potential subcontractors.

distribution is unlimited 58

• 2.4 Small Business Management

– SB Utilization Strategy

• Describe approach to identifying SB concerns

• Describe extent of participation with detailed description of supplies and services for each SB Concern subcategory

• Identify processes to correct inabilities to meet proposed goals with corresponding improvements

• Describe specific efforts and new initiatives to ensure meeting or exceeding proposed SB goals

• Demonstrate SB Utilization Strategy is consistent with SB Subcontracting

Plan goals (Ref PWS 3.14)

– SB Subcontracting Plan

• Large Businesses Only - Provide SB Subcontracting Plan

• IAW FAR 19.7 & DFARS 219.7 as part of Annex A

• Plan will be incorporated into awarded contract distribution is unlimited 59

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

PAST PERFORMANCE

Patrick Hawkins

PMA-260

-Evaluation Concept-

Look Back Look Forward

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

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

• Assess each contract referenced

– Determine Relevancy / Recency

• Assess each relevant contract found through an independent Government search

• Roll up each relevant reference assessed into an overall Offeror assessment

• Based on Offeror’s assessment (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program?

• Final Product is the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating distribution is unlimited 61

- Past Performance -

• The Government will evaluate the Prime’s and other principal entities’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements for Full

Rate Production (FRP) in each of the following areas:

– 1) meeting technical requirements;

– 2) meeting schedule requirements;

– 3) managing the contracted effort on similar programs; and

– 4) Small Business Utilization.

• Demonstrated systemic improvement

– Consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement distribution is unlimited 62

Past Performance Proposal

• Provide past performance information, at least 2 weeks prior to proposal due date

– Attachment L-1, Table ES-1 “Offeror’s Summary” and Table ES-2 “Relevant Contract Summary”

– Annex B, “Final versions of previous SOW/PWS/Other Supporting Documentation for Past Performance”

– Attachment L-6, Table PP-1 “Past Performance Contract Data’

• Provide agreements between you and your subs/team members to allow us to coordinate past performance issues distribution is unlimited 63

Past Performance Questionnaires

• Attachment L-5, “Past Performance Questionnaires”

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

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data is not available

– Do not include RFP number on Questionnaires

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

• Identify in Attachment L-6, “Past Performance Contract Data” when and to whom the questionnaires were sent

• DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on Questionnaires; the Government will perform all follow-up actions

– Ensure that all points of contacts (POCs) are current distribution is unlimited 64

Section L Past Performance

Contract Data (Attachment L-6)

Summary of Relevant Contract Data for the eCASS Program

1 Offeror Name

2 Entity Name

3 Contract Reference

4 Title of Contract

5 Contract Number

6 Contract Type

7 Relevant Delivery/Task Order Numbers (if applicable)

8 Subcontract Number/PO Number

9 Procuring agency

10 Description of product or service

Period of performance - Start Date

Period of performance - End Date

12 CAGE Code (if not the same as Offeror, explain)

Proposed for eCASS

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

Place of Performance

Contract of the prime

Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference distribution is unlimited 65

Section L Past Performance Volume

Relevant Contract Data (Cont’d)

Summary of Relevant Contract Data for the eCASS Program

13 Dollar value of contract (Total and annualized)

Brief Work Description and/or Program

Responsibility for this past contract.

a. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Scope: Production of

Automated Test Equipment (ATE).

b. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Magnitude: Annual

Production Quantity.

c. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Complexity: Multiple rack system or multiple instrument single rack system or multiple instrument benchtop system.

(State whether multiple rack system or multiple instrument single rack system or multiple instrument benchtop system.)

Role on referenced contract distribution is unlimited 66

Section L Past Performance Volume

Relevant Contract Data (Cont’d)

Summary of Relevant Contract Data for the eCASS Program

15 Date of Last Completed CPARS

Date past performance questionnaires were sent

Points of Contact who can validate performance on the past performance contract, specific delivery order or task order number referenced above.

18 Gov't PCO or Commercial Purchasing Agent

Name:

Phone:

Email:

19 Gov't ACO if applicable

Name:

Phone:

Email:

20 Gov't PM

Name:

Phone:

Email:

21 Other POC:

Name:

Phone:

Email:

Ensure all contact info is current!!

distribution is unlimited 67

Contract Relevancy

• The Government will assess the degree of relevancy. Referenced contracts will be assessed as Very Relevant (VR), Relevant (R), Somewhat Relevant

(SR) or Not Relevant (NR).

– Very Relevant (VR) – Present/past performance effort involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have essentially the same scope, magnitude and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved production of military Automated Test Equipment (ATE) and the magnitude is an annual production quantity of 22 or more systems and complexity is a multiple rack system similar to the solicitation requirements.

– Relevant (R) - Present/past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have similar scope, magnitude and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved the production of military or commercial Automated Test Equipment (ATE) and magnitude is an annual production quantity of 17 or more systems and complexity is a multiple rack system or multiple instrument single rack system.

distribution is unlimited 68

Contract Relevancy (cont’d)

– Somewhat Relevant (SR) – Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have some of the scope, magnitude and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved the production of a military or commercial Automated

Test Equipment (ATE) and magnitude is an annual production quantity of 13 or more systems and complexity is a multiple rack system or multiple instrument single rack system or multiple instrument benchtop system.

distribution is unlimited 69

Contract Relevancy (cont’d)

– Not Relevant (NR) - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (i.e., does not meet the above definitions of VR, R or SR); or contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet any of the conditions below:

• Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

• Contracts from an entity that does not have any work that matches the entity’s role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

• Contracts from a different physical location (e.g., with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

• Contracts, or those portions of contracts, whose performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date. (If only a portion of a contract is older than 5 years, then only that portion is not relevant for reasons of recency);

• Contracts from a non-relevant entity; or

• Contracts that do not include production of Automated Test Equipment.

distribution is unlimited 70

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

– Identification of the root cause of problem

– Corrective action plan that systemically addresses the past problem

– How and when the plan was implemented

– Documented timeframe to demonstrated corrective action was implemented and successful

– Performance data, preferably through Government records, to show performance improvements demonstrated systemic improvement

– Bottom-line: Demonstrate that the problem will not reoccur or the extent that the likelihood of reoccurrence is reduced distribution is unlimited 71

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

PRICE

Letitia Baker

AIR-4.2.2

Section M Evaluation Factors

- Price -

• The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs, Cost Plus Fixed Fee

(CPFF), and Cost CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness and to determine that the CLINs contain no material imbalances

• The Total Evaluated Price is the sum of:

– All CLINs, inclusive of Options. The total evaluated price will be the sum of all base year and Option year CLINs.

– Options with Range Quantities, will be evaluated at the stated

‘evaluated quantity’ within the CLIN distribution is unlimited 73

Price

– All price/cost and price/cost supporting information to be contained in RFP Section B, Annex A (Small Business

Subcontracting Plan), and Price proposal.

– No price or pricing information included in any other volume including cover letters.

– Offeror responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate Price proposal distribution is unlimited 74

Price

– Volume contains the information requested and include a copy of Attachment L7- Price

Tables and Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN)/SubLine Items (SLIN) and

Total Prices/Cost filled in (Supplies and/or Services and Prices ) for evaluation purposes.

– CLINS with range quantities to be evaluated at the stated, evaluation quantity.

– Any numerical data shall be in an MS Excel 2010 spreadsheet; and any narrative shall be in MS Word 2010 format. Files received in a format other than requested are unacceptable. Portable Document Format (PDF) is not acceptable.

– Within all Excel spreadsheets, the use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using “value only” cells. If external links are utilized, supply those referenced files.

– Do not protect Spreadsheets. The price proposal to be unprotected and unlocked, with formulas intact to show mathematical operations. Use the “round” function in

Excel and truncate all fractional dollars to two decimal places (e.g., $47.24).

distribution is unlimited 75

NAVAIR Public Release 2017-

551 - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

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.