Self Awareness Training PrePropoal Conference Self-Awareness 07Nov2019.pdf

Pre-Proposal Conference Self-Awareness Training

W81K04-20-R-0013

07 November 2019

Presented By:

Yvonne Camarce, Contacting Officer and Ken Marsh, Contract Specialist

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 2 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 2 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Clarifications and Questions related to the RFP

– Must be submitted in writing

• To be Posted on FedBizOpps after Conference:

– Briefing Slides and Attendees List

– Official responses to clarifications and questions

• Company and authors’ names excluded

• Unauthorized Activities

– Sidebars with Government Personnel

– Photos of Government Facilities

– Use of Recording Devices

Administrative Announcements

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 3 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 3 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Introduction of Government Team

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Procuring and Administrative

– Contracting Officer – Ms. Yvonne Camarce

– Contract Specialist – Mr. Ken Marsh

• Technical Representative

– Contracting Officer Representative – Scott Putzier

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 4 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 4 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• FAR 12 Commercial Terms and Standards

• Contract Type

• Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Single Award Task

Order Contract (SATOC) issuing Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) Task Orders

• Competitive, Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures

• Instructions to Offerors (FAR 52.212-1)

• Evaluation of Offers (FAR 52.212-2)

• Proposal Due Date: 02 December 2019

Solicitation Terms and Conditions

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 5 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 5 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Basis of Award.

– The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: Technical Approach, Present and Past Performance and Price.

– To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Approach factor, and a rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for the Past Performance factor.

– The price factor will be evaluated to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price, but will not receive an evaluation rating.

– Offerors are responsible for submitting offers, and any modifications, revisions, or withdrawals, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation.

Basis of Award

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 6 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 6 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1

• A tradeoff source selection approach

• The relative importance of cost or price may vary in relation to other evaluation factors as communicated by the Government to potential offerors in the solicitation per FAR Subpart 15.304(d) and (e).

• For this solicitation, the Technical Approach factor is more important than the Present and Past Performance factor, which is more important than the Price factor. The Technical Approach factor and the Present and Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor. Offerors are cautioned that the awards may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offers.

Best Value FAR 15.101

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 7 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 7 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

General Instructions

• Offerors are required to submit all documentation/information detailed herein, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

• Failure to submit all required documentation/information may result in a proposal being ineligible for award.

• In submitting a proposal, offerors are agreeing to the terms and conditions as written in the entire solicitation.

FAR Provision 52.212-1

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 8 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 8 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

General Instructions continued

• The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.

• The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale methods, processes and procedures to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.

• Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

FAR Provision 52.212-1

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 9 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 9 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

FAR Provision 52.212-1

Volume ITO Paragraph

Number Volume Title Copies Page Limit

I 2(a) Administrative 1 Un-sanitized 10* Section A 2.a.(1) Completed/signed SF1449 Section B 2.a.(2) Acknowledged/signed amendments **See Below Section C 2.a.(3) Completed Provisions **See Below Section D 2.a.(4) Statement of Offerors Section E 2.a.(5) Responsibility Determination Section F 2.a.(6) Contractor Team Arrangement (if applicable)

II 2. c. Factor 1 - Technical Approach 1 Un-sanitized 1 Sanitized

55***

Section A 2.c.(6)(a) General Requirements, PWS Section 1 25 Supplement A-1 2.c.(6)(a) Sample Quality Control Plan **See Below

Section B 2.c.(6)(b) Contractor-Furnished Supplies/Property Requirement, PWS Section 4 5

Supplement B-1 2.c.(6)(b) Sample COTS and Customized COTS Supply List **See Below

Section C 2.c.(6)(c) Specific Task Requirements, PWS Section 5 25

Supplement C-1 2.b.(6)(c) Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Self-Awareness Training Program (Uncustomized)

**See Below

Supplement C-2 2.b.(6)(c) Sample Senior Executive Coaching Approach (Customized) **See Below

II! 2.b. Factor 2–Past Performance 1 Un-sanitized No Limit

IV 2.d. Factor 3 – Price 1 Un-sanitized No Limit

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 10 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 10 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

FAR Provision 52.212-1

• Volume I – Administrative

– SF 1449

– Amendments

– Completed Provisions

– Statement of Offeror

– Responsibility Determination

– Contractor Team Arrangements

– Contractor Information Sheet

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 11 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 11 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

FAR Provision 52.212-1

• Volume II, Factor 1 – Technical Approach

– Sanitized and Unsanitized

– No reference to Price Data

– A positive statement to the effect that you will accomplish all requirements per the solicitation is not acceptable.

– The technical proposal shall not merely offer to perform work in accordance with the solicitation but shall outline the actual methods proposed as specifically as possible.

– The government will not assume that an offeror understands, complies, or clearly meets the minimum solicitation requirements unless described and specified in the technical proposal.

– All requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 12 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 12 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

FAR Provision 52.212-1

• Volume III, Factor 2 – Present and Past Performance

– Past performance information for up to three (3) contracts the offeror considers recent (within the last three years) and relevant in demonstrating satisfactory past performance.

– “Contract": A single contract or a single TO/DO on an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. It does not mean basic IDIQ contract, for the purpose of past performance submissions under this solicitation.

– Performed by the prime and any major subcontractor(s) projected to perform on any resultant contract.

– Major subcontractors: Performing more than 25% of any resultant contract arising from this solicitation.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 13 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 13 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

FAR Provision 52.212-2

• Volume IV, Factor 3 – Price

– Complete the Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 3). Instructions are listed on the “Instruction” tab. Offerors are to enter pricing in the green areas only. Do NOT change the formulas or any other numbers.

– An offeror's total proposed price includes the sum of all prices (based on maximum quantities) for all CLINs for the three-year ordering period. This is an estimate for pricing purposes only and is NOT a guarantee of the quantities.

– Offeror’s shall not provide pricing for the following CLINs since they are established by the Government:

• CLIN 0005 – Travel

• CLIN 0006 – Shipping

• CLIN 0007 – Post Award Conference. Offerors shall not provide separate pricing for post-award conference (minimum guaranteed amount) as it is priced by the Government ($1,500).

– An offeror’s Total Evaluated Price includes the sum of all prices for all CLINs for the one three-year ordering period with the exception of:

• CLIN 0008 - Contractor Manpower Reporting (CMR). Offerors shall not provide separate pricing for annual CMR requirements. CMR appears as Not Separately Priced “NSP” CLIN.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 14 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 14 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• A tradeoff source selection approach will be used in evaluation of proposals.

• The relative importance of cost or price may vary in relation to other evaluation factors as communicated by the Government to potential offerors in the solicitation per FAR Subpart 15.304(d) and (e).

• Technical Approach factor is more important than the Present and Past Performance factor, which is more important than the Price factor. The Technical Approach factor and the Present and Past Performance factor, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor.

• Offerors are cautioned that the awards may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offers.

FAR Provision 52.212-2

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 15 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 15 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Evaluation Approach. Each proposal received will be evaluated with the criteria outlined in the solicitation for the purpose of assessing the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully.

– Technical factors will be assigned an adjectival rating using the combined technical/risk ratings from the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016.

– The Present and Past Performance factor, on the basis of “recent” past performance information, will be assigned a relevancy rating and a performance confidence assessment.

– The Price factor will be evaluated to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price and will not receive an evaluation rating.

– All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is adequacy of response and feasibility of approach.

FAR Provision 52.212-2

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 16 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 16 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Table 1. Combined Technical Risk/Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Combined Technical Risk

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 17 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 17 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Technical Risk Description

Table 2. Technical Risk Descriptions Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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, increased cost 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 of a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 18 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 18 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Table 3. Present and Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Present and Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 19 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 19 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Performance Confidence Assessment

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 20 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 20 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Performance Risk Assessment

Table 5. Performance Risk Assessment Rating Definition

High Significant doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance record and demonstrated ability to effectively identify and take actions to abate performance risks, that the offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Moderate Some doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance record and demonstrated ability to effectively identify and take actions to abate performance risks, that the offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Low Little doubt exists, based on the offeror's performance record and demonstrated ability to effectively identify and take actions to abate performance risks, that the offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 21 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 21 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Price Factor

• The contract will be an IDIQ contract under which Firm-Fixed Price task orders will be issued for required services.

• The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort.

• The entire three-year ordering period shall be included in the price calculation.

• Adequate price competition pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness of the Price factor.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 22 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 22 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Price Factor

• The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness:

– comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation;

– comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items or services;

– comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates;

– comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through with market research; and/or, analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 23 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 23 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Given that FAR Clause 52.217-8 provides the Government may exercise the option to extend services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the option to extend services, the KO will consider the prices submitted for the one three-year ordering period as binding should the option to extend services be exercised.

• In accordance with DFARS Clause 252.216-7006 Ordering (May 2011) - Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule. Such orders may be issued from 01 March 2020 through 28 February 2023 (31 August 2023 if FAR 52.217-8 is exercised).

FAR Clause 52.217-8

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 24 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 24 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Offerors are to read and follow the solicitation and amendments.

• Any Questions

Reminder

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 25 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 25 of 20

Guidance