AWG_IndustryDay_Brief_MICC.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Asymmetric Warfare Group

(AWG)

Operations Support Industry Day

Name: LaTanya Johnson Contracting Officer Date: 18 September 2012

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

AGENDA

9:00 – 9:30 AM Registration

• MICC – Fort Eustis

9:30 – 9:45 AM Welcome and Introductions

• Contracting Officer MICC – Fort Eustis

9:45 – 10:15 AM AWG Command Brief

• Deputy, AWG

10:15 – 10: 30 AM Break

10:30 – 11:00 AM MICC “Draft” RFP Overview

• Contracting Officer MICC – Fort Eustis

11:00 – 12:30 PM Open Discussion – Questions and Answers Panel Discussion – Addressing Questions Submitted by Industry Reference Topics: “Draft” RFP and Performance Work Statement Panel:

• Contracting Officer MICC – Fort Eustis

• Contract Specialist MICC– Fort Eustis

• Technical Experts AWG

12:30 – 12:55 PM Closing Remarks

Administrative Remarks

• Copies of the slides presented at the AWG Operations Support Industry Day will be made available on the AWG Website:

http://www.awg.army.mil/id/default.aspx

• Questions should be written down on the index cards provided. Simple questions will be answered during the Question and Answer Session. Complex questions will be answered in a Q&A Document posted to FBO and the AWG Website.

3 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

http://www.awg.army.mil/id/default.aspx�

Industry Day Goals

• To further the dialogue with industry regarding the Draft Request For Proposal (RFP)for the AWG Operations Support mission.

• To gain industry input and feedback regarding the composition of Sections L and M of the RFP.

• To provide answers to questions submitted by industry

• To encourage Industry to be an active participant in the acquisition process

• To allow industry to network and form teams

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Industry Day Disclaimer

5 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

• The answers we provide today reflect things as we know them today and things may change as the acquisition process moves forward.

• Participation is not mandatory and a video of Industry Day will be posted to the AWG website at http://www.awg.army.mil/.

• Attendance does not confer preference for contract award http://www.awg.army.mil/�

Conceptual Business Arrangement

• Full and Open (Unrestricted) Competition

– NAICS: 541690,Other Scientific and Technical

Consulting Services

• Single Award Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract

• Labor Hour CLINs for Surge Requirements

• Cost Reimbursable CLINs for Travel and ODCs

• POP: 13 Apr 2013 – 12 Apr 2016 (incl. options)

6 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Conceptual Proposal Format

• Volume I: General (RFP Documents); 1 hard copy binder; 1 CD ROM copy; No page limits

• Volume II: Price; 1 hard copy binder; 1 CD ROM copy; No page limits

• Volume III: Mission Capability/Risk; 1 hard copy binder; 5 CD ROM copies; page limit: 75 pages

• Volume IV: Past Performance; 1 hard copy binder; 5 CD ROM copies; page limit: 15 (not including Past Performance Questionnaires)

7 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Conceptual Proposal Format

8 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

• Volume I: RFP Documents

– TAB A: Exceptions/Assumptions

– TAB B: SF33, fully completed with original signature;

acknowledgement of any amendments to the RFP; Coversheet containing the name, title and phone number of the company/division POC regarding decisions made with respect to its proposal and who can obligate the Offeror contractually. Other individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government should also be identified.

– TAB C: Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs)

– TAB D: Section K (Representations, Certifications and Other

Statements of Offerors)

– TAB E: Small Business Participation Proposal

Conceptual Proposal Format

• Volume II: Price

– Contractor Pricing Matrix:

• Unit price indicated for each labor category on the pricing matrix for the Base Period and two (2) Option Periods

• Labor Category rates are fully-burdened.

• Pricing shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-20

Requirements for cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data

• Rates propose for each performance period cannot be adjusted except for instances where the labor categories are subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA) and a revision is permitted under the provision of FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act – Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts)

Conceptual Proposal Format

• Volume III: Mission Capability / Risk

– The Offeror’s submission will be evaluated against the Mission

Capability/Risk subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.

– The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

– The Mission Capability/Risk Volume shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the PWS and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Section M of this solicitation.

– The Offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology it will use for accomplishing the PWS requirements.

Conceptual Proposal Format

• Volume III (continued):

– General organization of Volume III:

• Table of Contents

• List of Table and Drawings

• Cross Reference Matrix

• Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the proposal.)

• Mission Capability/Risk

– Subfactor 1 – Specialized Experience

– Subfactor 2 – Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention

– Subfactor 3 – Management

– Subfactor 4 – Quality Control

– Subfactor 5 – Phase-In/Transition

Conceptual Proposal Format

• Volume IV: Past Performance

– Past Performance information is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 20% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. The Offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter, executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance.

– In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

– The Offeror SHALL NOT go back any farther than 36 months for the submitted data.

Conceptual Evaluation Approach

• This acquisition will be a formal source selection evaluated using the best value Full Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS).

• The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability/Risk, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price Factors.

• As part of making the assessment, a best value analysis will be performed determining whether or not exceeding the minimum requirements at an associated price provides the best value to the Government.

• As a basis for award, tradeoffs between price and non-price factors are permitted.

• Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price.

Conceptual Evaluation Approach

• Relative Importance of each Factor

– Mission Capability/Risk is more important than Past

Performance.

– Past Performance is more important than Small

Business Participation.

– Mission Capability/Risk and Past Performance combined are significantly more important than Small Business Participation.

– Small Business Participation is more important than Price.

Conceptual Evaluation Approach

• Within the Mission Capability/Risk Factor, the subfactors’ relative importance is as follows:

– Specialized Experience is more important than all other Mission Capability/Risk subfactors when combined.

– Specialized Experience is significantly more important than Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention.

– Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention is more important than Management, Quality Control, and Phase-In / Transition when combined.

– Management, Quality Control, and Phase-In / Transition are listed in descending order.

Other Award Considerations

• Contemplate award without discussions

• Competitive range will be established if discussions are conducted.

16 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

What We Need From Industry

• Your continued support of the dialogue between Government and Industry on this acquisition.

• Comments/questions on what you heard at this event

17 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

MICC – Fort Eustis POCs

LaTanya Johnson Contracting Officer latanya.e.johnson.civ@mail.mil

Michael Adams Contract Specialist michael.o.adams.civ@mail.mil

18 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Milestones

Issue Solicitation 01 Oct 12

Receive Proposals 31 Oct 12

Evaluate Proposals Nov/Dec 12

Award Contract 01 Mar 13

Mission and Installation Contracting Command