Attachment_0006_PASS-SB_Sample_Task_24_September_2015.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMPETITION SENSITIVE

W15QKN‐16‐R‐0027

PASS-SB SAMPLE TASK

Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) Operations and Support (O&S) Cost Reduction

1.0 SAMPLE TASK INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS.

This Sample Task is provided as Attachment 0006to Section J of the Program and Systems Support (PASS) Small Business (SB) Solicitation Number W15QKN-16-R-0027. The Sample Task provides a context in which the Government can evaluate the Offeror’s expertise, innovation and solution capabilities to respond to actual task orders resulting from this solicitation. The PASS-SB Offeror will prepare an appropriate technical narrative response that will demonstrate a thorough understanding of the task requirements, and provide a viable approach to meeting the technical, management, scheduling and staffing needs.

Responses to the Sample Task must include the technical narrative response described above, including an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) covering the full performance period of the Sample Task, as well as a discussion of the specific risks (technical, schedule and cost) and proposed mitigations. In addition, the responses must include the completed Personnel Resource Matrix (PRM) and the resumes of key/senior personnel who would support the Sample Task.

This is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) sample task. For this Sample Task, the Period of Performance (PoP) will be 30 months. The Offeror shall populate the Government provided spreadsheet in Volume IV – Cost/Price Factor, with all labor costs for this Sample Task. The proposal for the Sample Task shall only include the labor associated with addressing the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) Operations and Support (O&S) Cost Reduction requirements listed in section 2.3 below not material or equipment costs and no material or actual products shall be delivered. The Offeror shall complete the PRM for the Sample Task which includes all personnel/labor categories and hours to support the Sample Task. The Offeror shall complete an IMS covering the entire PoP using MS Project 2010. The Sample Task technical response is limited to 30 pages. Key resumes are limited to 2 pages each. The PRM, IMS, and key resumes do not count against the technical response page count. Times New Roman 12 font shall be used for the technical narrative response and key resumes. There are no specific font sizes or print layouts required for the IMS, PRM or Pricing spreadsheets but all information must be legible.

The proposal evaluation will determine both the adequacy of the response and the feasibility of the approach of the sample task. The adequacy will be determined by whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined and satisfied the task requirements. Feasibility will be determined by the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and end results achievable and the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach that would be expected to achieve success within the required schedule. The technical evaluation will focus on the offerors detailed and thorough approach to meet desired outcomes including these key areas and how they specifically relate to the Sample Task:

Adequacy, Feasibility, and completeness of the following:

Overall Logistics Approach

Business Analytics Process

Information Technology Methodologies

Program Management Concepts including the IMS, scheduling constraints, and risk management principles.

The staffing resources proposed to support the Sample Task.

This Sample Task Order describes a fictional program titled the NAE O&S Cost Reduction which consists of two primary focus areas; Equipment Readiness and Cost Assessment (ERCA). This Sample Task Order is provided for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded.

The Offeror’s ERCA solution must be standardized to fit all types of weapons systems and performed across all 14 Program Offices and 26 Type/Model/Series (TMS) in the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) portfolio (both fixed wing and rotary wing) that are in varying stages of the acquisition life cycle. The solution shall include a detailed technical approach and supporting IMS that outlines a 30 month PoP. It would typically take the Government two (2) months to perform each TMS assessment which includes 30 days for the data triage process (approximately six (6) Full Time Equivalents (FTE’s)) and 30 days for the data analysis (approximately six (6) FTE’s) then the build of the ERCA workbook and brief out. The Detailed Technical Approach and the IMS are going to be an important program management tool that will provide significant assistance in the planning, scheduling and execution of the large and complex equipment readiness and cost assessments. The detailed technical approach and supporting IMS shall consist of the following, including but not limited to:

Event-driven plan that documents the significant processes, tasks and accomplishments necessary to complete the work and ties each accomplishment to a key program event Plan that shows progress, interrelationships and dependencies that helps to ensure on-time delivery dates are achieved, and that tracking and status tool are used during program execution Tracks program technical, schedule and cost status for each task, including risk mitigation efforts Utilizes a methodology of decomposing events into a logical series of accomplishments having measurable criteria to demonstrate the completion and/or quality of accomplishments Focus on realistic task durations, predecessor/successor relationships and identification of tasks with viable risk mitigation and contingency plans

2.0 NAE O&S Cost Reduction Introduction

When assessing the strength of today’s NAE weapons and aviation systems, affordability is just as important as performance. This is especially important in the sustainment phase, where history has shown that 70% percent of programs’ life-cycle costs are borne. Facing an estimated $3.5 billion O&S funding shortfall between FY 2013 and FY 2019, Naval Aviation must renew its emphasis on “cost-wise readiness” and develop a dynamic “should cost” perspective. Historically, however, controlling and reducing weapon system sustainment costs have proven difficult, thus an effort of this magnitude must include a vigorous O&S cost reduction strategy.

2.1 NAE O&S Cost Reduction Background

NAVAIR has a need to conduct timely readiness and cost assessments in support of technical and programmatic reviews for their Program Offices. Previously, in-service readiness analyses were conducted by individual programs and relied on government and Contractor Support Services (CSS) analysts to pull data from disparate transactional systems. Programs also generated unique desktop and Information Technology (IT) solutions to analyze the connected data. Programs did not have the necessary visibility into cost degraders affecting the success of individual weapon systems to systematically optimize life cycle costs. NAVAIR Senior leadership insists on standardizing our cost and readiness assessment processes, properly training our analysis teams and holding provider organizations and resource sponsors accountable so costs are driven down and readiness is not compromised. The benefits will include, but won’t be limited to:

a) Increasing awareness and understanding of those factors causing readiness gaps and driving costs

b) Providing actionable awareness and information that address readiness and cost barriers

c) Developing, improving and standardizing the tools and processes necessary to perform the function

NAVAIR has to improve affordability by reducing readiness gaps and O&S cost in fielded systems and introducing life-cycle cost reduction initiatives in new systems. NAVAIR seeks a standardized solution that takes into consideration all 26 Type/Model/Series (TMS) with the following focus areas:

a) Current Readiness: Focuses on meeting current and future operational requirements at an optimal O&S cost

b) Future Readiness: Highlights and provides roadmap to tackle future readiness and cost issues that optimize Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and future sustainability of new and legacy systems

2.2 Assumptions

a) NAVAIR expects an increase in oversight of O&S costs to enable the visibility of actionable data and intelligence to apply resources that will generate cost reduction opportunities. This applies to 14 Program Offices that own 26 TMS in varying stages of the Acquisition life cycle.

b) The NAE was directed to reduce the overall Flying Hour Program (FHP) Cost Per Flight Hour (CPFH) across all TMS by 10%. A typical NAVAIR Program has the following O&S cost profile as shown below:

c) The focus of the equipment readiness and cost assessment process will be solely on the equipment pillar of the readiness PESTO (people, equipment, supply, training, ordnance) equation.

2.3 Tasks

NAVAIR seeks the development of verified and validated ERCA processes that are compatible with the current business environment, ERCA process execution for 26 TMS and planning for the development of an automated business solution that will enable fact-based root cause analyses and provide information for the development of Business Case Analyses (BCA’s) to identify and assess Ready For Tasking (RFT) gaps and O&S cost drivers.

2.3.1 The Contractor shall investigate, analyze, develop and document ERCA processes.

Expenditures FY13 YTD FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

Notional Platform Flight Hours Executed 69,906 29,154 51,542 36,837 31,889 31,758 27,681 Required Hours 66,813 29,158 54,552 46,543 40,793 41,044 39,160 Aircraft Inventory 232.5 205.5 183.5 162 153.5 149 138.5 AVDLR Cost 286,732,948$ 100,713,606$ 212,690,209$ 153,303,828$ 131,562,183$ 128,374,039$ 119,350,750$ Maintenance Cost 129,992,637$ 47,928,809$ 75,920,127$ 57,050,357$ 50,530,399$ 49,963,846$ 45,282,855$ Fuel Cost 289,789,827$ 115,183,222$ 190,744,137$ 135,211,875$ 117,055,579$ 116,607,554$ 101,982,851$ Contracts Cost 19,863,650$ 7,008,635$ 15,917,250$ 15,325,275$ 16,558,829$ 20,458,658$ 20,434,148$ Other Cost #N/A -$ #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Adjustment #N/A -$ #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Fuel Consumption (Barrels) 1894887 753422 1247680 884429 765666 762736 667077

2.3.2 The ERCA shall utilize a data triage process focusing on equipment and components.

This data triage process shall be supported by advanced analytical capabilities and improved access to aggregated data. This data triage process shall consist of the following activities for each TMS:

2.3.2.1 Review overall Ready for Tasking (RFT) gap by percentage and number of aircraft including unit, phase and Red/Yellow/Green (RYG)

2.3.2.2 Review flight line aircraft deficits including number and percentage of flight line deficits by unit and RYG

2.3.2.3 Conduct an inventory and depot pipeline analysis and follow-on distribution analysis

2.3.2.4 Review Ready Basic Aircraft (RBA) deficits including number and percentage of RBA deficits by unit and RYG

2.3.2.5 Conduct Non-Mission Capable (NMC) analysis, mission capable non-RBA analysis and Engine Readiness Goal (ERG) analysis

2.3.2.6 Review mission systems deficits including number and percentage of mission systems deficits by unit and RYG

2.3.2.7 Conduct equipment cost analysis complete with drivers relative to a historical baseline

2.3.2.8 Review maintainability and supportability metrics to determine drivers at the system, subsystem and component level

2.3.2.9 Review component degrader methodologies and system performance with respect to a historical baseline

2.3.3 The contractor shall utilize the information gathered and resulting findings (data analysis) from the completion of the ERCA as a basis for the development of a TMS level readiness and cost focused Barrier Identification Document and Action Item capture, coordination and resolution. This shall include the following activities:

2.3.3.1 Review data findings and provide a list of issues to the program

2.3.3.2 Analyze risk level and recommend mitigation plan for each finding

2.3.3.3 Recommend issues that require NAE level attention

2.3.3.4 Identify and engage barrier removal teams as needed to develop root cause analyses

2.3.3.5 Evaluate fleet and program cost drivers at the component level

2.3.3.6 Develop Courses of Action (COA) and action plans with the appropriate TMS Points of Contact (POC’s)

2.3.4 The contractor shall develop a program specific NAE ERCA workbook and leadership briefing (brief out) after successful completion of each TMS ERCA process to include, but not be limited to, the following:

2.3.4.1 Issue identification and resolution

2.3.4.2 Readiness and cost gap assessments including projected impact

2.3.4.3 Cost and readiness assessment reports

2.3.4.4 Clear and concise Operation and Support (O&S) affordability opportunities

2.3.4.5 O&S “Should Cost” initiatives

2.3.4.6 Impact of cost reduction initiatives

2.3.4.7 Cost reduction initiative investment requirement

2.3.5 The Government desires to acquire a detailed requirement analysis for the acquisition of a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) business solution that would provide an automated systematic method in performing ERCA functions. The solution will be a key enabler in addressing cost and readiness degraders with platform teams and resource sponsors to implement changes that reduce cost and will not negatively affect operational readiness. The solution will have the following attributes:

2.3.5.1 Performs root-cause and business-case analyses necessary to identify crucial linkage to reducing readiness and cost degraders

2.3.5.2 Establishes a cost and performance baseline and identify components that are performing outside of established cost and readiness degraders

2.3.5.3 Provides early indicators of potential component level readiness or cost degraders and allow for mitigation plans with provider organizations before they become degraders

2.3.5.4 Develops and document top-level metrics, with detailed transactional data behind them, to assist in trend analysis

2.3.5.5Identifies systemic readiness and cost degrader issues across the enterprise

2.3.5.6 Capability to present the information graphically, making it easier to identify trends and indicators

2.3.5.7Effective identification of components that drive cost and readiness

2.3.5.8 Provides a utilization-based parts/components forecasting model to identify Fleet demand for repairable and consumable items

2.3.5.9 Provides the capability to perform multi-system analysis of RFT gap drivers

2.3.5.10 Performs top down systems analysis to the component level

2.3.5.11 Modular in nature and flexible enough to add new requirements and able to adapt to the ever changing needs of the NAE

2.3.5.12 Provides algorithms to crunch the data and provide actionable data to the user in a standardized and consistent format

2.3.5.13 Flexible front end design to allow for ease of implementing user requirements

2.3.5.14 Enable more efficient and faster analysis and repeatable data triage in a trusted business solution

The contractor shall develop detailed requirements derived from the above attributes. The contractor shall document current NAVAIR business environment constraints (such as disparate transactional systems and unique solutions for data analysis) and COTS IT compliance requirements. Upon completion of the detailed requirement analysis, the contractor shall query industry and investigate potential COTS solution(s) availability that meet ERCA functional and technical requirements in a common and standardized methodology. This information will be utilized in the government Market Research process.

2.4 ERCA Sample Task Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs)

These are the CDRLs associated with execution of the fictional ERCA Sample Task. They shall be planned for and taken into consideration in responding to the ERCA Sample Task proposal but should not be included in the Sample Task submission.

A001 Status Report Planning Documentation 3.1.1

B001 Technical Report- Study/Services

Requirements Analysis 3.1.2

C001 Design to Cost/Life Cycle Cost and Variance Analysis Report

Monitoring and Cost Control Documentation

3.1.3

A003 Contractor’s Risk Management Plan

Risk Management Documentation

3.1.5

B002 Technical Report- Study/Services

Business Analytics Support Documentation

3.5

B003 Technical Report- Study/Services

IT Strategy Documentation 3.6.1.1

A010 Status Report Requirements Management Documentation

3.6.1.9, 3.9

A011 Status Report Technical/Functional Documentation

3.6.1.10

A014 Contractor’s Progress, Status and Management Report

Monthly Status Report 3.1 – 3.10

ACRONYM DEFINITION

AFM Aviation Fleet Maintenance Funds

AVDLR Aviation Depot Level Repairable

Average Daily RBA Average Daily RBA

BCA Business Case Analysis

BCM Beyond Capability of Maintenance

BRT Barrier Removal Team

BUNO Bureau Number

C$ Constant Dollar

CAVTS Cost Adjustment and Visibility Tracking System

CFT Cross-Functional Team

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf

CPFH Cost Per Flight Hour

CPH Cost Per Hour

CPI Cost Performance Index

CR Inventory Current Readiness Inventory

CRCFT Current Readiness Cross Functional Team

CY Calendar Year

Cycle Time Dynamic or Dynamic Cycle Time, or dCT

Cycle Time Dynamic or Dynamic Cycle Time, or dCT

Driver Driver

Enterprise CFT Enterprise Cross Functional Team

ERG Engine Readiness Group

FHP Flying Hour Program

FLA Flightline Aircraft

FLA DEF Flight Line Aircraft Deficit

FLA ENT Flight Line Aircraft Entitlement

FLE Fatigue Life Expenditure

Flightline Aircraft Flightline Aircraft

Flying Hour Standard Flying Hour Standard

FMC Full Mission Capable

FMCM Full Mission Capable Maintenance

FMCs Full Mission Capable Supply

FR Future Readiness

FRTP Fleet Response Training Plan

M&SCM Maintenance & Supply Chain Management

MC Mission Capable

MCNRBA Mission Capable Non Ready Base Aircraft

MESM Mission-Essential Subsystems Matrix/Matrices

MESM EOC

Mission-Essential Subsystems Matrix/Matrices Equipment Operational Capability

Mission-Essential Subsystems Mission-Essential Subsystems

Mission System(s) Mission System(s)

Mission System Actual Mission System Actual

Mission System Deficit Mission System Deficit

Mission System Contributing to RFT gap

Mission System Contributing to RFT gap

Mission Set(s) Mission Set(s)

Mission System and Set availability Mission System and Set availability

MRG Module Readiness Group

NAE Naval Aviation Enterprise

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command

NMC Not Mission Capable

NMCM Not Mission Capable Maintenance

NMCMS

Not Mission Capable Maintenance Schedule Maintenance

NMCMU

Not Mission Capable Maintenance Unscheduled Maintenance

NMCS Not Mission Capable Supply

O&S Operations and Support

PAA Planned Aircraft Allowance

PESTO Pillars Personal, Equipment, Supplies, Training & Ordnance

PMC Partial Mission Capable

PMCM Partial Mission Capable Maintenance

PMCS Partial Mission Capable Supply

PMP Program Management Plan

Process Map Process Map

R&M Reliability and Maintainability

RBA Ready Base Aircraft

RBA Deficit Ready Base Aircraft Deficit

RBA Entitlement Ready Base Aircraft Entitlement

RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance

Readiness and Cost Readiness and Cost

(RFT) Sets Ready for Tasking Sets

Ready Mission System Standard Ready Mission System Standard

RFT Ready for Tasking

RFT Gap Analysis Ready for Tasking Gap Analysis

RFT Mission System Sets Ready for Tasking Mission System Sets

RFTA Ready for Tasking Actual

RFTR Ready for Tasking Requirement

RFT Sets Ready for Tasking Sets

SCIR Subsystem Capability Impact Reporting

SIPOC Supplier Input Process Output Customer

SM&R Maintenance and Recoverability

T/M/S Type/Model/Series

TRW Type/Model/Series Readiness Workshop

WRA Weapons Repairable Assembly

WUC Work Unit Code