CNC RM FINAL_Presentation_26Aug2020.pdf

Air Force Sustainment Center

Computer Numerically Controlled Remedial

Maintenance (CNC RM)

Pre-Solicitation Virtual Industry Day

27 August 2020

Agenda

0830-0845: Introduction and Opening Remarks 0845-0900: Program Background 0900-0930: Solicitation Overview 0930-0945: Break 0945-1030: Source Selection Training 1030-1100: Keys to Developing a Good Proposal 1100-1130: Open Question & Answer Session

Introduction

CMXG: Troy Templeton (Chief), Jeremy Roof (Lead) Program Manager (PM): Mr. Roger Farris MXSG: Clint Gill (Chief), Tyler Streeter (Lead) Procurement Contracting Officer: Ms. Carrie Brown Contract Specialist: Ms. Shelli Simmons Source Selection Advisor: Mr. Van Garmon

Disclaimer

This briefing/training is to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

This conference does not constitute a contract, a promise to contract, or a commitment of any kind on the part of the Government nor does it constitute as a change to the RFP Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting are for discussion purposes only

Rules of Engagement Where possible, ask questions in writing

Submit questions only to the PCO, Ms. Carrie Brown at Carrie.Brown.8@us.af.mil, and Contract Specialist, Ms.

Shelli Simmons at Shelli.Simmons@us.af.mil

Official written responses will be posted on Beta.Sam.Gov on a non-attribution basis

Verbal questions and answers are not binding Government reserves the right to contact respondent for further clarification of submitted questions Clarification questions to the briefer are permissible when it applies to the general audience and not a specific condition/arrangement for you or your company

Government may limit or stop oral questions at their discretion mailto:Robert.Westerman.4@us.af.mil mailto:malita.green@us.af.mil

Opening Remarks

Ms. Carrie Brown Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIMA

Presenter Presentation Notes When speaking, please identify Name, Organization/Company

Intended to assist in preparation of well-developed, robust competition for effort.

Save questions until end, will answer if possible. Some may need further analysis and will be answered in written format, CNC RM

Program Background

Mr. Roger Farris

OC-ALC/OBCA

CMXG Engr Support Tyler Streeter/ Jeremy Roof

Program Background Tinker Air Force Base maintains a commodity manufacturing center to support the on going production maintenance program on the KC-135, E-3, B52, and B-1

The 553 Commodity Maintenance Squadron utilizes Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machines daily to keep up with the demand for precision machined Components

The consistent use and age of machines requires extensive Preventative Maintenance and repairs at a high level of technical expertise to keep these machines within OEM specifications

To minimize downtime Tinker AFB requires annual

Health Assessment (HA), Preventative Maintenance (PM) Assessment and annual Remedial Maintenance (RM) support contract to continue to provide manufacturing capability

Prospective Contractors shall be expected to provide an annual HA, continuing PM Assessments, and RM support for organic personnel/ repairs on the equipment listed below Cincinnati 800 with Siemens-Acramatic 900 controls SNK RB-200 with Fanuc 15i-MB controls SNK 150 with Fanuc 31i-MB-A5 controls SNK 120A with Fanuc 31i-MB-A5 controls Two (2) Giddings & Lewis HMC-1250 with Fanuc

31i-MB-A5 controls Cinfron HMC 1250 Pallet Shuttle for the Giddings and Lewis HMC-1250 Cincinatti 30v Siemens-Acramatic 900 controls

Equipment List (Continued) Starrag-Heckert STC1250-130 Siemens Sinumerik

840D controls Two (2) Makino A82M with Fanuc Professional 5 controls SNK FSP-80v with Fanuc 31i-MB-A5 controls Okuma Macturn 250-W2S with OSP-E100L controls SNK RB-300 with Fanuc 30i controls Starrag-Heckert STC 1000 with Siemens Sinumerik

840D controls Hermle C52U with Siemens Sinumerik 840D controls

Annual HA – This requirement is to provide an in depth look at each machine with the intent to spot item wear before the machine fails and to give an overall assessment of the general health of the machine

PM Assessment – This shall be done annually in conjunction with the HA to update organic personnel of continuing PM requirements for each machine

NOTE: Updated timeline for task completion in PWS published 8/24/20

RM support/repair – This is separated into three categories:

Level 1 – Technical telephone support for Organic repairs Level 2 – On site Repair by Contractor Level 3 – On site Repair by OEM personnel

CNC RM

Solicitation Overview

Mr. Roger Farris Program Manager

OC-ALC/OBCB

Ms. Carrie Brown Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIMA

The Government plans to award a single IDIQ contract for the CNC RM effort

The CNC RM effort will support 16 CNC machines located on Tinker AFB in Bldgs 3001 and 9001

The CNC RM effort includes Annual HA / PM Assessment Service Tiered RM Services

Level 1 – Telephone Support Only Level 2 – Contractor On-site Support Level 3 – Proprietary / OEM On-Site Support

Solicitation Overview

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements Terms and conditions Representations and certifications PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors, and elements Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award

Solicitation Requirements

Presenter Presentation Notes Solicitation Response does not need to address all elements of PWS individually. Response addresses the material in Section L Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors.

Contract Information This acquisition is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite

Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract Contract Type: Firm Fixed-Price and T&M Period of Performance*

15 Jan 2021 – 14 Jan 2026 Base Year (15 Jan 2021 – 14 Jan 2022)

Option Years (12 Mo. Options 15 Jan XX – 14 Jan X+)

*These dates will change depending on date of award

CLIN TYPE DESC QTY U/I

X001 FFP Annual Health Assessment and Preventative Maintenance Assessment

1 LO

X002 T&M Level 1 – Telephone Support 1 LO Award will include a maximum negotiated hourly rate that is fully burdened with all General & Administrative fees included. Orders will be issued with a maximum Not To Exceed number of hours.

X003 T&M Level 2 – Contractor Onsite Support 1 LO Award will include a maximum negotiated hourly rate that is fully burdened with all General & Administrative fees included. Orders will be issued with a maximum Not To Exceed number of hours and Material.

X004 T&M Level 3 –OEM-Specific Onsite Support 1 LO Award will include a maximum negotiated hourly rate that is fully burdened with all General & Administrative fees included. Orders will be issued with a maximum Not To Exceed number of hours and Material.

Quantity of hours may change in final RFP and will be used for evaluation purposes only. Contract award is intended to include only the negotiated maximum hourly rate; individual orders will include maximum NTE hourly quantities for CLINs X002, X003, and X004.

CLIN Structure

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach HA and PM Assessments

Processes, tools, and reporting methods to develop and present the HA / PM Assessments

Level 1 – Telephone Support Process; description of skills, certifications, and training

Level 2 – Contractor On-Site Support Processes for diagnosis, repair, test, calibration, and elevation; description of skills, certifications, and training Level 3 – Proprietary / OEM On-Site Support

Processes for obtaining/managing subcontractors;

description of skills, certifications, and training

Subfactor 2: Program Management OEM Vendor Relationships

Establish and maintain relationships for L3 efforts

Personnel Management Plan Plan to include all required skillsets for L1-L3 personnel Small Business Subcontracting Plan

IAW FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003

Subfactor 3: Scenario Development Spindle Repair

Describe processes, parts procurement, test equipment, materials, subcontractor work definition; Explain assumptions, tradeoffs, and risks

Tool Changer Failure Describe processes, parts procurement, test equipment, materials, subcontractor work definition; Explain assumptions, tradeoffs, and risks

HMI Touchscreen Repair Describe processes, parts procurement, test equipment, materials, subcontractor work definition; Explain assumptions, tradeoffs, and risks

Factor 2 – Technical Risk

Assessed only on Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (Technical Approach – Scenario Development)

Identify risks with potential to disrupt schedule, degrade performance, require increased Government oversight, or increase likelihood of unsuccessful performance

Provide rationale, impacts to schedule/performance, and potential to impact successful contract performance

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products

Recency – within 3 years Relevancy – same Scope, Magnitude, Complexity Performance Quality – PPIF, CPARs, etc.

Provided information and information obtained from other sources

Factor 4 - Price

Government shall assess all technically acceptable offers for price reasonableness (including completeness), unbalanced pricing, price realism, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing will be evaluated using Part I – The Schedule, Section B

All proposed CLIN unit pricing shall be input into the SF1449, Part 1 – The Schedule, Section B All periods of performance must be priced

Estimated quantities per CLIN are provided in the CLIN descriptions for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government

Preliminary Milestones

EVENT MILESTONE ACTUAL

Draft PWS/RFP to Industry 24 Aug 2020 Pre-Solicitation Conference 27 Aug 2020 Release Formal RFP 4 Sep 2020 Receipt of Proposals 5 Oct 2020 Award (with discussions) 15 Jan 2021

Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC)

Remedial Maintenance (RM) Source Selection

Training

Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

SOURCE SELECTION

What Is It

Best Value

Main Members

Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

Factor 1 – Technical

Factor 2 – Technical Risk

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

Topics

Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority

(SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal with superior technical risk and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities Technical Risk Past Performance Price

Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

Source Selection Authority (SSA) Makes the award decision Approves entering and closing discussions

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) Directs the evaluation of proposals Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Evaluate Proposals Assign ratings Documents evaluation results

Source Selection Team Main Members

Source Selection Evaluation

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

Offeror

A

Offeror

B

Offeror

C

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other

SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

SSA does compare proposals against each other

SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical acceptability for each offeror

Technical Risk rating (along with supporting rationale), Past Performance rating (along with supporting rationale) and total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Factor rating definitions Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria

INSTRUCTIONS

TO

OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND FORMAT

Describe technical approach Provide technical risk assessments Provide pricing data Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc

SECTION

L

SECTION

M

Request for Proposal

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL RISK*

FACTOR 4

PRICE

Subfactors

1 Technical Approach

2 Program Management

3 Scenario Development

FACTOR 3

Past Performance

*The Government will evaluate risk inherently for Factor 1 – Technical, Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach and Subfactor 2 – Program Management as part of acceptability. Subfactor 3 – Scenario Development will be evaluated for Factor 2 - Technical Risk and will receive a single risk rating.

Section M, paragraph 2.1.1 For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price. The order of importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 – Technical Risk and Factor 3 – Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other. Factor 2 – Technical Risk and Factor 3 – Past Performance are individually more important than Factor 4 – Price. When combined, Factor 2 – Technical Risk and Factor 3 – Past Performance are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Price.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process

Factor 1 Technical will not include trade-off considerations Acceptable or Unacceptable

Factor 2 Technical Risk will include trade-off consideration Low, Moderate, High or Unacceptable

Factor 3 Past Performance will include trade-off consideration Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited

Confidence, or No Confidence

Factor 4 Price will include trade-off consideration Total Evaluated Price Reasonable, Realism, Balance

Section M, paragraph 2.1.3

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals

Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range

Technical will be evaluated IAW para 2.2

Technical Risk will be evaluated IAW para 2.3

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.5

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value.

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP

Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Three types of ENs Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection

Difference Between Technical and Technical Risk

TECHNICAL RISKTECHNICAL

Depicts whether or not the proposal meets the Subfactor criteria

Acceptable Unacceptable

Deficiencies Weaknesses / Significant Weaknesses

Low Moderate

High Unacceptable

Proposal aspects evaluated as Proposal aspects evaluated as

Assesses the risks associated with a proposed approach as it relates to the Subfactor criteria

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

A Deficiency is defined as 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.

Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1 – Technical Approach – 4 elements (a – d) 2 – Program Management – 3 elements (a – c) 3 – Scenario Development – 3 elements (a – c)

In order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor

Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor

An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor

TECHNICAL

APPROACH

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

a) b) c) d)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

SCENARIO

DEVELOPMENT

a) Deficiency b) c)

a) Deficiency b)

c) Deficiency

Technical Additional Notes

To be Acceptable, the technical approach must…

– Address the details listed in Section L (Instructions to Offerors)

– Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

– Provide convincing rationale of how the approach will meet requirements.

– Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding PWS paragraphs) are met.

Section L (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach. Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award) provides Measures of Merit for technical acceptability.

The technical approach does not have to address all PWS requirements. The technical evaluation will only include the PWS paragraphs which are listed with each subfactor.

Technical Additional Notes

Make sure the technical proposal stays within the required page limit. Additional pages beyond the page limit can not be considered by the Government evaluation team.

The Government evaluation team can only consider information contained in the proposal.

The proposal should not merely agree to meet requirements. It should describe the offeror’s approach to successfully accomplish the requirements

The Technical evaluation does not consider Past Performance information Company awards Price

FACTOR 2

TECHNICAL RISK

Technical Risk Evaluation

Technical Risk evaluation focuses on weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for the following:

Subfactor 3 Scenario Development (elements a-c)

Risk considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the probability and impact to the program if the weakness/significant weakness were to occur and the Offeror's proposed mitigation

Offerors will receive a single risk rating for Subfactor 3

Technical Risk Definitions

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: 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.

Technical Risk Definitions Rating Definition

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.

TECHNICAL

APPROACH

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

a) b) c) d)

TECHNICAL RISK FACTOR

RATED AS

LOW, MODERATE, HIGH OR UNACCEPTABLE

SCENARIO

DEVELOPMENT

a) Weakness b)

c) Significant

Weakness

a) b) c)

Technical Risk Additional Notes

The Offeror has the opportunity to address all technical risks which the Offeror considers to have potential for disruption to schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

For each risk identified, the Offeror shall provide the rationale for the risk, including quantitative estimates, and potential impacts on schedule and performance, and the potential of each risk to interfere with, or prevent the successful accomplishment of contract requirements

The Offeror shall also outline a mitigation approach describing how each risk is eliminated or reduced to a manageable level

The Offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Section L paragraph

5.0 will be evaluated by the Government in addition to any Government-assessed risk.

FACTOR 3

PAST PERFORMANCE

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.

Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.

Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

Emphasis is on demonstrated performance

Recency

Recency, as stated in the RFP

– The effort must have been performed during the past three

(3) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP

– If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance

– For example, if a contract was completed within the recency timeframe, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract, which may have occurred seven years ago.

Relevancy

Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and Price for this requirement

Relevancy considerations

– Similar service

– Breadth and depth of skills

Similar…

– Scope

– Magnitude

– Complexity

– Price – Contract Type

Confidence Definitions Rating Definition

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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE QUALITYRELEVANCY

Reflects how similar the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition

Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT UNKNOWN

Past Performance Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance Information Forms (Prime and Subcontractors)

– Provided by contractor as part of proposal

Questionnaires

– Included as part of the RFP package

– Completed by contractor references

– Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

– Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Other sources as needed

Additional Notes

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 4 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2.

Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors

– Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team

List

– Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria.

– Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform.

Additional Notes

Provide details regarding any known adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions. Also discuss if the corrective actions were effective.

Past Performance page limits are preferences and not requirements. Offerors are requested to keep narratives within the page limits. However, offerors may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

Past Performance Evaluation

Technical Price

Program Title PPQ / CPARs

SF 1

TA

SF 2

PM

SF3

SD

Contract Type AMT REL PF

BETA, INC (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAAAA-12-C-0004

2 / 3 R S R S R S FFP / IDIQ $200M R S

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-13-0500

2 / 0 SR S SR M R S T&M / FFP $45M SR M

VFY AFB

FAAAB-13-C-0005

1 / 1 R S SR S R S FFP / T&M $125M R S

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Beta, Inc 13313-06-45

1 / 0 R S SR S NR NR N/A

ABC AFB

FAAAA-10-C-0014

1 / 4 R M R M R S N/A

TOTAL: 7 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown -- RelevantR -- Somewhat RelevantSR -- Not RelevantNR -- UnknownUK

FACTOR 4

PRICE

Price Evaluation

Reasonableness To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Realism Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance

To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Provide rationale to support price

Balance Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year.

Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5%.

FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) includes seven price analysis techniques

i. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price

ii. Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications

iii. Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry

FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) includes seven price analysis techniques

iv. Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangement

v. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates (IGE)

vi. Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items

vii. Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the offeror http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P14_695

Price Additional Notes

Provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed, such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc

Describe how the proposed price is generally consistent with the technical approach.

SOURCE SELECTION PHASES

AND

AWARD

Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation

Initial Evaluation offeror’s proposal

ENs prepared and finalized

Evaluation of EN responses

Follow-up ENs

Initial Ratings established

Ratings adjusted Based on

EN responses

Award w/o Discussions Competitive Range

Send ENs to Offerors

Request for Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established

Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION DISCUSSIONS FINAL

EVALUATION

RESULT RESULT RESULT

Factor 1 Technical Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Technical Approach A

Subfactor 2 Program Management A

Subfactor 3 Scenario Development A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Factor 2 Technical Risk LOW

Factor 3 Past Performance

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Factor 4 Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Evaluation Summary

Factor 1 Technical Alpha, Inc. Beta, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Technical Approach A A

Subfactor 2 Program Management A A

Subfactor 3 Scenario Development A A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Factor 2 Technical Risk LOW MODERATE

Factor 3 Past Performance

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Factor 4 Price $XXX,XXX,XXX $XXX,XXX,XXX

Evaluation Summary

Technical Risk Tradeoff Analysis

3a Weakness

MODERATE

LOW No Weaknesses

Alpha, Inc.

Beta, Inc. Impact 3a

Risk Rating

Risk Rating

Tradeoff considerations are not based strictly on a comparison of risk ratings. They are based on specific weaknesses and significant weaknesses. The tradeoff considers the potential for each weakness to occur, and the potential impact to the contract program if they do occur.

Trade-off consideration

3c Significant Weakness

Impact 3c

Trade-off Considerations

Very Relevant in all areas

LIMITED

SATISFACTORY

Alpha, Inc.

Beta, Inc.

Overall Satisfactory Performance.

No adverse issues

Marginal performance on 2 contracts

Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating

Trade-off considerations are not based on a comparison of Confidence ratings.

They are based on specific relevancy and performance aspects.

Trade-off consideration

Note: All offerors rated as Satisfactory Confidence are considered equal

Very Relevant in all areas except Program Mmgt, and low magnitude

Source Selection is a Subjective process

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) strives for consistency with each offeror

SSEB evaluation is based on stated factors and written criteria listed in the RFP, not a comparison of offeror proposals

SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria

Summary

What’s Next

28 Aug: Government will post questions and answers to BETA.SAM

1 Sep: Follow-on questions due to Government 4 Sep: Government will post answers to follow-on questions 11 Sep: Tentative date to release formal solicitation

Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting is for discussion only. Verbal questions and answers are not binding. The final solicitation is the guiding direction for your solicitation response.

Summary

This briefing/training was designed to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions

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

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

Submit questions only to the PCO, Ms. Carrie Brown at Carrie.Brown.8@us.af.mil, and Contract Specialist, Ms. Shelli Simmons at Shelli.Simmons@us.af.mil;

questions and answers will be posted to www.BETA.SAM.gov mailto:Robert.Westerman.4@us.af.mil mailto:Robert.Westerman.4@us.af.mil http://www.fbo.gov/

Open Question & Answer Session