PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE FOR AV-8B CONTRACTOR AUGMENTED ...

872 views
739 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
872
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Does not include VMAT-203 aircraft – T and B birds are accounted differently.
  • These are the official DoD CPAR and questionnaire definitions. Notice the key words within the definitions that define the rating. On the whole the definitions are very subjective. One PMs Marginal is another’s Satisfactory. Cloaking Device - Laws of Physics say you can do it but it has never been done before and is extremely high risk. CPAR has a Blue rating but words only say contractor met reqmnts. When PM developed CPAR, he/she took into account complexity of work and even though the definitions don’t quite match the words, in the PMs mind it was a Blue. In this case meeting reqmts is likely to be very significant.
  • These are the official DoD CPAR and questionnaire definitions. Notice the key words within the definitions that define the rating. On the whole the definitions are very subjective. One PMs Marginal is another’s Satisfactory. Cloaking Device - Laws of Physics say you can do it but it has never been done before and is extremely high risk. CPAR has a Blue rating but words only say contractor met reqmnts. When PM developed CPAR, he/she took into account complexity of work and even though the definitions don’t quite match the words, in the PMs mind it was a Blue. In this case meeting reqmts is likely to be very significant.
  • READ SLIDE * “Means” especially if there is some factor which impacts the price which is not apparent in the data provided (management decisions; implementation of new technology) ** STREAMLINING: NOT SUBSTANTIATING WHY THE SUGGESTION IS “A GOOD DEAL” FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND HOW IT RELATES TO AND IMPACTS ON THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. NEXT SLIDE
  • FINALLY, Be concise is your explanation - quality is more important than quantity. REMEMBER: THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PRICE CREDIBILITY RESTS WITH THE OFFEROR.
  • DMMH (O’Level Manhours) per Flight Hour.
  • Ex.. 2001 – 15.5 percent of the aircraft were Not Mission Capable because of NMC Maintenance. Record 79 Data (AIIRS)
  • Ex.. 2001 – 20.7 percent of the aircraft were Not Full Mission Capable because of NFMC Maintenance. Record 79 Data (AIIRS)
  • Ex.. 2001 – 9.0 percent of the aircraft were Not Full Mission Capable because of NFMC Maintenance for the Flight Control System. Maintenance/Supply Data documented on the Vids/MAF for the System.
  • Ex.. 2001 – 11.4 percent of the aircraft were Not Mission Capable because of NMC Maintenance for the Flight Control System. Maintenance/Supply Data documented on the Vids/MAF for the System.
  • PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE FOR AV-8B CONTRACTOR AUGMENTED ...

    1. 1. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE FOR AV-8B CONTRACTOR AUGMENTED MAINTENANCE AND TRAINING (CAM&T) REQUIREMENT N00019-08-R-0060 24 June 08 AV-8B INDUSTRY DAY
    2. 2. AGENDA - DAY 1 <ul><li>0800 – 0830 Arrival/Sign-In </li></ul><ul><li>0830 – 0845 Introductions – Al Hensler </li></ul><ul><li>0845 – 0900 Welcome Maj Melchior </li></ul><ul><li>0900 – 0930 Contract Overview – Al Hensler </li></ul><ul><li>0930 – 1000 CAM&T Overview – Nick Smith </li></ul><ul><li>1000 – 1015 Break/Submit questions </li></ul><ul><li>1015 – 1045 Source Selection Process Overview – Al Hensler </li></ul><ul><li>1045 – 1100 Submit Questions </li></ul><ul><li>1100 – 1130 Answers to Questions Submitted prior to conference – Al Hensler supported by others as needed </li></ul><ul><li>1130 – 1330 Lunch </li></ul><ul><li>1330 – 1430 Answers to Submitted Questions Provided </li></ul><ul><li>– Al Hensler supported by others as needed </li></ul><ul><li>1430 – 1445 Concluding Remarks, Adjourn– Col Bauman and Al Hensler </li></ul>
    3. 3. PURPOSE <ul><li>To ensure a common understanding of the Government’s Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>To answer questions regarding the Draft RFP </li></ul><ul><li>FAR 15.201 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Exchanges of information among all interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals, are encouraged…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The purpose of exchanging information is to improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities…and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, negotiation, and contract award…” </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. GROUND RULES <ul><li>Provide all questions in writing (use provided form) </li></ul><ul><li>Official answers to questions will be published on the NAVAIR web site ( www.navair.navy.mil ) </li></ul><ul><li>NAVAIR’s points of contact are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mr. Al Hensler, (301) 757-7078 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms Vicki Dean, (301) 757-5209 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. GROUND RULES <ul><li>Nothing said here today will qualify the terms and conditions of the RFP and the terms of the RFP remain unchanged unless it is amended in writing. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No final decisions have been made in regard to the RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use info obtained from Industry Day and Draft RFP package for GENERAL planning purposes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>You should not rely on this info for proposal preparation purposes. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Info that can be relied upon for that purpose will be released in the Official RFP package to the NAVAIR homepage (Following Industry Day). </li></ul></ul></ul>
    6. 6. CONTRACT OVERVIEW
    7. 7. CONTRACT OVERVIEW <ul><li>Number of Sites </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MAGS-13 &14 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Type of Contract </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance Based </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Term of Contract </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 years (base plus four one-year options) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Base year POP 1 Jan 09 - 31 Dec 09 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If all options are exercised, will extend to December 2013 </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. SECTIONS B & C <ul><li>SECTION B </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A CLIN each year at each site (MAG 13 & 14) for: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CAM&T Support (Offeror to fill in monthly unit price and total price) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Over/Above Labor (Govt provided NTE) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Over/Above Travel, Matl, and ODCs (Govt provided NTE) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data (CDRLs) (NSP) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Award Incentives (Offerors to fill in dollar value of incentive) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SECTION C </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scope of Work (PWS attached to the RFP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorporation of the Contractor’s Technical Proposal (NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9509) </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Sections D-G <ul><li>Section D- Packaging/Marking </li></ul><ul><li>Section E- Inspection/Acceptance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Destination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By COR via WAWF </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Section F- Deliveries/Performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 January through 31 December </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Place of performance will be Cherry Point, NC and Yuma Arizona. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Section G- Contract Administration Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>COR assignment/responsibilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding data will be located here </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Section H <ul><li>SECTION H </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Award Incentives (H-1) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Successful offeror will have opportunity to earn award incentives ($) based on performance. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Award incentives outlined in Section H-1 clause and QASP </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Over & Above Work Authorizations (H-2) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Formal process for Over & Above CLINs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A sample Over & Above Work Authorization letter will be attached to the RFP. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OCI Clause </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>This contract cannot be used to help write SOWs, Specs, etc…and if so, the contractor recuses themselves from that resulting competition. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Govt Installation Work Schedule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lists the Govts’ holidays </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Service Contract Act </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>References Attachments 7&8 of the RFP package </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key Personnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pertains to the Over & Above CLINs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Associate Contractor Agreement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Successful offeror needs to establish a relationship with AV-8B prime contractor. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Sections I & J <ul><ul><li>Section I - Clauses are standard for FFP Service requirements of this size. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Section J: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachment 1 (PWS) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lists metrics and AQLs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachment 2 (Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tool for COR to use in performance evaluation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lists metrics, AQLs, and Incentives </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachment 3 (Personnel Resource Matrix) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lists Govt’s expectations & Offerors fill in the matrix with proposed personnel </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachment 4 (Relevant Experience Matrix) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachments 5 & 6 (Past Performance Matrix and Questionnaire) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachments 7 & 8 (Area Wage Determinations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Attachment 9 (Sample Over and Above Work Authorization) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. CAM&T PROJECT OVERVIEW
    13. 13. Aircraft Requirement = 98 Aircraft In-Reporting = 87 AV-8B SQUADRON INVENTORY (as of 03/31/2008) VMA MISSION STATEMENT Support the MAGTF Commander by destroying surface targets and escorting friendly aircraft, day or night under all weather conditions during expeditionary, joint or combined operations. Requirement FMF: 7 Sqdns x 14 aircraft = 98 MAG - 13 MCAS Yuma DISTRIBUTION* ASSIGNED / IR / OOR DEPLOYED UNITS VMA – 211 21 / 16 / 5 HMM-166 (6) Plane VMA – 214 13 / 9 / 4 VMA – 311 18 / 16 / 2 VMA – 513 10 / 8 / 2 WESTPAC (8) Plane MAG - 14 MCAS Cherry Point VMA – 223 15 / 12 / 3 VMA – 231 14 / 10 / 4 VMA – 542 16 / 16 / 0 OIF (10) Plane/HMM-365 (6) Plane 107 / 87 / 20 Totals
    14. 14. CAM&T (Vision and Mission) <ul><li>Vision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To provide comprehensive AV-8B Organizational level maintenance training, maintenance management core competency training, and AirSpeed training that will increase the experience level of E-1 to E-6 Marines. This T/AV-8B specific training will be provided to USMC “O-level” maintenance personnel, at Marine Aircraft Groups (MAGs) 13 and 14, by executing required maintenance core competency training requirements as outlined in the PWS and defined by USMC Maintenance Training Management and Evaluation Program (MATMEP). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mission </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The expectation is the contractor will provide a combination of classroom training (scheduled formal training) and hands-on flightline maintenance training that targets aircraft/system maintenance and troubleshooting requirements in both scheduled and unscheduled training settings, in a combination of both individualized and small group settings. </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. CAM&T <ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increase the experience level O-level Marines by targeting required MATMEP training standards and targeting training deficiencies by squadron & MOS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve Maintenance Management proficiency within the Staff Non Commissioned Officers (SNCOs) and Work Center Supervisor workforce. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promote a culture of Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) within each squadron and identify squadron best business practices that can be shared with other squadrons and within both MAGs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Respond to Squadron Maintenance Material Control Officer (MMCO) “emergency training assists”. </li></ul></ul>The Contractor will be required to meet the above goals by satisfying established metrics
    16. 16. TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL <ul><li>Satisfying these training objectives will require the Contractor to develop a training strategy that encompasses creative solutions that will provide cost effective, timely and efficient maintenance training for the T/AV-8B O-level Fleet. </li></ul>Increase the experience level of E-1 to E-6 Marines .
    17. 17. FLEET FOCUS <ul><li>What are the anticipated efficiencies? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common training within both MAGs with a focus on training MATMEP requirements & known training deficiencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CPI focus that will share existing best practices & implement additional process improvement where required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PWS & metrics will allow for a more effective solution to support the govt’s concerns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Base year with 4 option years will create a more stable Contractor workforce </li></ul></ul>Ability to meet an RBA requirement of 74 A/C of the flight line is the overarching goal that the AV-8B TMS Team is striving to meet!
    18. 18. AV-8B TMS MAINTAINER CORE COMPETENCY ALERTS (INSP) ALERTS (MATMEP) ALERTS (SE) ALERTS (HI/LOW PWR) ALERTS (PC) ALERTS (SFF) MATMEP PERFORMANCE IS REPORTED DURING THE TMS MEETINGS!
    19. 19. AV-8B Oct 02 – Apr 08
    20. 20. FLEET FOCUS SCHEDULE May 08 Issue Draft RFP June 08 Industry Day (Pax River) Issue Official RFP Close RFP Sep 08 Oct 08 (Receipt of Proposals) Jan 09 New Contract POP 1 Jan 09 31 Dec 09 Base Year Oct-Dec 08 MAG/Key Stakeholder Participation in PWS Development & Source Selection Revisions to RFP Based on Govt. & Industry Comments Award July 08 Proposal Evaluation Conclude Proposal Evaluation
    21. 21. GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY/PROCESS <ul><li>Provide licensing qualifications and access to normal MAG flight-line required Support Equipment, special/common tools, publications, etc. necessary to support A/C maintenance training events. </li></ul><ul><li>Provide adequate office space within each MALS Maint Dept to include NMCI seat and Class A phone for official business </li></ul><ul><li>Access to required OOMA and Deckplate data </li></ul><ul><li>Provide personnel passes, ID’s and vehicle permits required for access to work </li></ul><ul><li>Provide emergency medical care to contractor personnel while on govt property </li></ul>
    22. 22. OVERALL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY <ul><li>Provide a knowledgeable and effective maintenance and training workforce </li></ul><ul><li>Comply will all aviation maintenance training policies outlined in COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 series and other MAG policies </li></ul><ul><li>Support a standard 40 hour work week (5 eight hour days). This may require non-standard workdays /shifts to support MAG/squadron requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>Support MAG deployments as required. Both CONUS & OCONUS are considered “over & above” and approval is required from the COR. </li></ul>
    23. 23. CONTRACTOR’S WORKFORCE
    24. 24. LABOR CATEGORY & MOS EXPECTATIONS Aircraft Avionics Technician T/AV-8B (Equivalent to MOS 6312 and 6332) -Skill Summary: Aircraft avionics systems technicians test, troubleshoot, install, remove, inspect, maintain and repair systems components and ancillary equipment of installed communications/navigation/ electrical/weapon/radar/display/flight control systems. Possess a minimum of 10 years experience in the assigned skill designator or other applicable experience. Airframe Technician T/AV-8B (Equivalent to MOS 6252) -Skill Summary: Airframe technicians test, troubleshoot, install, remove, inspect, maintain, repair, align/rig system components and ancillary equipment of installed flight control/fuel/hydraulic/aircraft structure/landing gear/steering/braking systems. Possess a minimum of 10 years experience in the assigned skill designator or other applicable experience. Powerline Technician T/AV-8B (Equivalent to MOS 6212) -Skill Summary: Powerline technicians test, troubleshoot, install, remove, inspect, maintain, repair, align/rig system components and ancillary equipment of installed flight (nozzle) control/fuel/engine/water/aircraft structure systems. Possess a minimum of 10 years experience in the assigned skill designator.
    25. 25. LABOR CATEGORY & MOS EXPECTATIONS <ul><li>Egress/Environmental Control Technician T/AV-8B (Equivalent to MOS 6282) </li></ul><ul><li>Skill Summary: Egress/Environmental Control technicians test, troubleshoot, install, remove, inspect, maintain, repair, align/rig system components and ancillary equipment of installed ejection seat/canopy/ECS systems. Possess a minimum of 10 years experience in the assigned skill designator or other applicable experience. </li></ul><ul><li>Supply Support Technician </li></ul><ul><li>Skill Summary: Supply support technicians will assist MALS supply to resolve high priority requisitions that impact aircraft readiness. Additionally they will perform technical research as required to validate part number and NSN relationships and determine sources of supply. </li></ul><ul><li>Black Belt </li></ul><ul><li>Skill Summary: Requires Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Certified Through: American Society for Quality (ASQ) Minimum Certification of: ASQ Certified ASQ/DON Lean Six Sigma Black Belt </li></ul>Offerors will propose the workforce and will be evaluated on this proposed workforce
    26. 26. SOURCE SELECTION OVERVIEW
    27. 27. SOURCE SELECTION OBJECTIVES <ul><li>Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Marine Corps, all factors considered in a Tradeoff Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Plain English translation: Get the best packaged deal we can for the MAGs-13 /14 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resolve any issues prior to contract award </li></ul>
    28. 28. SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION SSA SSEB CHAIR SSEB Advisors SSEB MAG 13 REP PMA 257 REP MAG 14 REP EVALUATION PANEL (EP) CHAIRPERSON AND EP
    29. 29. SOURCE SELECTION ROADMAP Generic Source Selection Process Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach <ul><li>Acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>Strategy/Plan </li></ul><ul><li>SSP </li></ul>Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry <ul><li>PWS </li></ul><ul><li>CDRLS </li></ul><ul><li>Draft RFPs </li></ul><ul><li>Sources Sought </li></ul><ul><li>Industry Day </li></ul>Receive Proposals SSEB Recommends Award to SSA Discussions w/ Offerors (ENs) Complete Discussions Evaluate Proposals Competitive Range (or SSA Selects Source) Offeror Capability Price Evaluate FPRs Request Final Proposal Revision (FPRs) Debriefs Contract SSEB SSA SSEB SSA SSEB SSA SSA SSEB DECISION Formal RFP
    30. 30. SELECTION <ul><li>Best Value Tradeoff Process, all factors considered. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror is capable of successfully performing the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposals that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Take exceptions to any terms/conditions of the RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propose additional terms/conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fail to manifest the unconditional assent to a term/condition of the RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CONSTITUTE A DEFICIENCY (FAR 15.301) </li></ul><ul><li>*The only way to correct a deficiency is through Discussions. </li></ul>
    31. 31. Section L <ul><li>There are Two (2) Volumes to Submit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Volume I: Offer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Volume II: Offeror Capability Information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Follow the specific instructions listed in L.1 of the RFP (N00019-08-R-0060) </li></ul>
    32. 32. Volume I: The Offer <ul><li>Submit Original and Two (2) Copies </li></ul><ul><li>Consists of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Page 1 of RFP (SF 33) w/ Blocks 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18 completed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completed Section B of RFP ( Supplies or Services & Prices/Costs ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completed Section K of RFP ( Reps & Certs ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A financial statement showing responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completed Small Business Subcontracting Plan ( Large businesses only) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acknowledgement of any/all RFP amendments by signature on each applicable SF 30 </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Volume II: Offeror Capability Info <ul><li>Submit Original and Seven (7) Copies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding of the Work: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide an OVERVIEW of what will be presented during the Oral Presentation. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The overview is to be limited to 15 pages (not including graphs, charts, or diagrams). </li></ul></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Volume II: Offeror Capability Info <ul><ul><li>Personnel Resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Complete the Personnel Resource Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a maximum of One (1) page Key Personnel Summary for each personnel proposed as “Key” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a Utilization Summary (no more than 2 pages not including graphs, charts or tables) on how the proposed personnel will be utilized in the performance of this contract </li></ul></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Volume II: Offeror Capability Info <ul><li>Relevant Experience </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Complete the Relevant Experience Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a supportive narrative shall (not exceeding fifteen (15) pages) for all references identified. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Summarize your experience in each task area of the PWS and address the direct relevancy to the PWS task areas. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>You may also provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions taken. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Volume II: Offeror Capability Info <ul><li>Past Performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a list of references (and have subs provide a list too) using the Past Performance Matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Performance during the last three (3) years on your: </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Quality/Timeliness of work </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonableness of prices, costs, & claims </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonableness of business behavior </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Concern for the interests of customers </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integrity </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Submit a Past Performance Questionnaire to each reference listed on the Past Performance Matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum of Three (3) references </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provide confirmation & date that these were sent to each ref. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instruct them to return the questionnaire to Vicki Dean ( by proposal due date ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fax: (301) 757-7054 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Email: [email_address] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    37. 37. Volume II: Offeror Capability Info <ul><li>Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Strategy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a Small Business and SDB Subcontracting Strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Address strategy for using SB and SDB </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Describe: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>extent, complexity and variety of work that SBs and SDBs will perform </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>list targets in whole dollars </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>percentages of total contract value </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>applicable No. American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>past experience in meeting proposed goals and processes to correct inability to meet proposed goals. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The SB and SDB Subcontracting Strategy will also be evaluated on its consistency with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as required in Volume I (Subcontracting Plan only required of Large Businesses). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Small Business and SDB Subcontracting Strategy Limited to 10 pages (not including graphs, charts, or diagrams) </li></ul></ul>
    38. 38. Oral Presentations <ul><li>Understanding of the Work (only) </li></ul><ul><li>Consists of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Oral Presentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Limited to 60 minutes (strictly enforced) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>~15 minute recess </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>After recess, come back for a Q&A session (clarify info) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Three (3) “Pop Quiz” sample tasks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Three (3) hour recess to prepare oral responses to ALL </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Offerors limited to 45 minutes (15 minutes/sample task) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Optional ~10 minute recess after each presentation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A Q&A session will follow each recess </li></ul></ul></ul>
    39. 39. Oral Presentations <ul><li>Do not mention Price, Past Performance, Relevant Experience, Small Business Subcontracting Strategy, or Personnel Resources. </li></ul><ul><li>Use Computer Presentation Programs or Slides/Transparencies (No limit to # of slides) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>You must provide all of the equipment necessary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You will be responsible for video taping all required presentations and provide a copy to the Govt. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mark your presentation media IAW FAR 52.215-1(e) </li></ul></ul>
    40. 40. Oral Presentations <ul><li>One or More of the personnel who will manage/supervise contract performance on a full time basis (i.e. Program Manager or Key Personnel) must make the presentation. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NO Consultants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NO more than Ten (10) attendees </li></ul></ul>
    41. 41. Section M <ul><li>The Evaluation Factors (and subfactors) are listed in Descending order of Importance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Offeror Capability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding of the Work (Oral Presentation) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Personnel Resources </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relevant Experience </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Past Performance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subcontracting Strategy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Price </li></ul></ul><ul><li>*Offeror Capability is significantly more important than Price (Tradeoff Process) </li></ul>
    42. 42. Offeror Capability <ul><li>Understanding of the Work (Oral Presentation) </li></ul>The presenter’s analysis indicated a thorough understanding of the work to be accomplished. The presenter correctly identified all resources (including staffing), labor mix, scheduling/timeliness, efficiencies, documentation, and potential problems as well as proposed solutions in a highly insightful manner. Responses to special issues and problems associated with the performance of each sample task were addressed with optimum clarity and completeness and indicate a very high probability of successful accomplishment of the requirements/metrics specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). There were no significant omissions or redundancies The presenter’s analysis indicated a lack of understanding of the work to be accomplished. The presenter correctly identified some resources (including staffing), labor mix, scheduling/timeliness, efficiencies, documentation, and potential problems as well as proposed solutions but missed others. Responses to special issues and problems associated with the performance of each sample task were not addressed with any clarity or completeness and indicate low probability of successful accomplishment of the requirements/metrics in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). There were some significant omissions or redundancies. The presenter’s analysis indicated an above average understanding of the work to be accomplished. The presenter correctly identified all resources (including staffing), labor mix, scheduling/timeliness, efficiencies, documentation, and potential problems as well as proposed solutions in an adequate manner. Responses to special issues and problems associated with the performance of each sample task were addressed with clarity and completeness and indicate a high probability of successful accomplishment of the requirements/metrics specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). There were no significant omissions or redundancies. Good Excellent Poor Average The presenter’s analysis indicated a satisfactory understanding of the work to be accomplished. The presenter correctly identified all resources (including staffing), labor mix, scheduling/timeliness, efficiencies, documentation, and potential problems as well as proposed solutions in an adequate manner. Responses to special issues and problems associated with the performance of each sample task were addressed with adequate clarity and completeness and indicate moderate probability of successful accomplishment of the requirements/metrics specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). There were no significant omissions or redundancies.
    43. 43. Offeror Capability <ul><li>Personnel Resources </li></ul>The majority of personnel proposed for each labor category/MOS exceed the qualification expectations listed in the Personnel Resource Matrix. A vast majority of proposed key personnel are currently employed with the prime contractor or subcontractor (e.g. majority not proposed under a letter of intent). The offeror’s core team requirements (minimum/squadron) totally match or exceed the utilization expectations of the Government identified in the Personnel Resource Matrix. The majority of personnel proposed for each labor category/MOS do not meet the qualification expectations listed in the Personnel Resource Matrix and/or are proposed under a letter of intent to the prime contractor or a subcontractor. The offeror’s core team requirements (minimum/squadron) do not match the utilization expectations of the Government identified in the Personnel Resource Matrix. The majority of personnel proposed for each labor category/MOS meet and some exceed the qualification expectations listed in the Personnel Resource Matrix. A majority of proposed key personnel are currently employed with the prime contractor or subcontractor. The offeror’s core team requirements (minimum/squadron) mostly match the utilization expectations of the Government identified in the Personnel Resource Matrix. Good Excellent Poor Average The majority of personnel proposed for each labor category/MOS meet the qualification expectations listed in the Personnel Resource Matrix. A majority of proposed key personnel are either currently employed with the prime contractor or subcontractor(s), or under a letter of intent. The offeror’s core team requirements (minimum/squadron) somewhat match the utilization expectations of the Government identified in the Personnel Resource Matrix.
    44. 44. Offeror Capability <ul><li>Relevant Experience </li></ul>Previous contract work efforts demonstrates relevant experience, indicating exceptional knowledge with performance processes and procedures, no difficulties and uncertainties associated with performing, and developing and enacting problem solving techniques. Previous contract work efforts demonstrates no experience or indicates a lack of knowledge with performance processes and procedures, routine difficulties and uncertainties associated with performing and developing and enacting problem solving techniques. Previous contract work efforts demonstrates relevant experience, indicating above average knowledge with performance processes and procedures, rare difficulties and uncertainties associated with performing and developing and enacting problem solving techniques. Good Excellent Poor Average Previous contract work efforts demonstrates experience, indicating some knowledge with performance processes and procedures, some difficulties and uncertainties associated with performing and developing and enacting problem solving techniques.
    45. 45. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SHEET The sources of information state that the offeror’s performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the offeror again. Complaints are negligible or unfounded. No record exists. The sources of information state that the offeror’s performance was satisfactory and that they may do business with the offeror again. Complaints, though perhaps well founded, are few. The sources of information state that the offeror’s performance was unsatisfactory and either expressed some reservation about doing business with the offeror again or state that they would refuse to do so. The sources of information state that the offeror’s performance was highly satisfactory and that they would willingly do business with the offeror again. Complaints, though perhaps well founded, are few and relatively minor. Good Excellent Neutral Poor Average
    46. 46. Past Performance Information Primary PPI Sources : Offerors’ Proposals PPIRS Questionnaires Phone Interviews DACO/DCMA Other Past Performance Information
    47. 47. Offeror Capability <ul><li>Small Business Subcontracting Strategy and SDB Subcontracting Strategy (Large Businesses) </li></ul>The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a wide variety of, and in highly complex, performance areas (i.e. Senior level labor categories, etc…). The extent of small business and SDB participation highly exceeds the requirements listed in Section L.2.1(e). The offeror has exceptional past experience in meeting their proposed small business subcontracting goals and currently has processes in place to correct any inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. Their small business subcontracting strategy is overwhelmingly consistent with their proposed small business subcontracting plan. The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a very limited variety of, and in non-complex performance areas (i.e. Junior level labor categories, etc…). The extent of small business and SDB participation does not meet the requirements listed in Section L.2.1(e). The offeror has very little past experience in meeting their proposed small business subcontracting goals and does not currently have processes in place to correct their inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. Their small business subcontracting strategy is not consistent with their proposed small business subcontracting plan. The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a variety of, and in complex, performance areas (i.e. Senior level labor categories, etc…). The extent of small business and SDB participation exceeds the requirements listed in Section L.2.1(e). The offeror has past experience in meeting their proposed small business subcontracting goals and currently has processes in place to correct any inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. Their small business subcontracting strategy is mostly consistent with their proposed small business subcontracting plan. Good Excellent Poor Average The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a limited variety, and in moderately complex performance areas (i.e. Mid level labor categories, etc…). The extent of small business and SDB participation meets the requirements listed in Section L.2.1(e). The offeror has some past experience in meeting their proposed small business subcontracting goals and proposes to have processes in place in the near future to correct any inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. Their small business subcontracting strategy is somewhat consistent with their proposed small business subcontracting plan.
    48. 48. Offeror Capability <ul><li>Small Business Subcontracting Strategy and SDB Subcontracting Strategy (Small Businesses) </li></ul>The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a wide variety of, and in highly complex, performance areas (i.e. Senior level labor categories, etc…). The offeror has exceptional past experience in meeting their proposed small business and/or SDB subcontracting goals and currently has processes in place to correct any inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a very limited variety of, and in non-complex performance areas (i.e. Junior level labor categories, etc…). The offeror has very little past experience in meeting their proposed small business and/or SDB subcontracting goals and does not currently have processes in place to correct their inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a variety of, and in complex, performance areas (i.e. Senior level labor categories, etc…). The offeror has past experience in meeting their proposed small business and/or SDB subcontracting goals and currently has processes in place to correct any inabilities in meeting their proposed goals. Good Excellent Poor Average The offeror proposes to use small businesses and SDBs in a limited variety, and in moderately complex performance areas (i.e. Mid level labor categories, etc…). The offeror has some past experience in meeting their proposed small business and/or SDB subcontracting goals and proposes to have processes in place in the near future to correct any inabilities in meeting their proposed goals.
    49. 49. LOCAR <ul><li>What is LOCAR? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>L evel O f C onfidence A ssessment R ating </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Streamlined Source Selection approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantially reduces proposal size </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Best Value Technique using the Tradeoff Process </li></ul></ul>
    50. 50. LOCAR <ul><li>Source Selection Decision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Made by comparing and ranking offers against Section M criteria on the basis of their chances of success and their prices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher the LOCAR the better chance of success, and the lower the risk of doing business with that firm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide for a selection of the contractor on the basis of a tradeoff between expected value and price </li></ul></ul>
    51. 51. Advantages of LOCAR <ul><li>Streamlines procurement process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimize transaction costs and administrative lead-time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>reduced proposal preparation time (eliminates sometimes lengthy technical and management proposals by using matrices) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>reduced Government evaluation time </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>uses fewer evaluation factors </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assigns overall risk assessment vs. individual factor/subfactor risk rating </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Offeror’s experience and how it applies to the PWS is evaluated </li></ul>
    52. 52. LOCAR Rating Scale High + High – High Moderate Low- Low Low + Most Confident (Most likely to succeed) More Confident (More likely to succeed) Neutral (Equally likely to succeed as fail) Less Confident (Less likely to succeed)
    53. 53. Assigning a LOCAR Poor Excellent Good Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Strategy None *Offeror D’s submission was unacceptable, therefore, no LOCAR assigned D* Moderate None Poor Good Good C High Excellent Good Excellent Good B High + Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent A LOCAR Past Performance Relevant Experience Personnel Resources Understanding of the Work (Oral Presentation) Offeror Offeror Capability/LOCAR Determination
    54. 54. Price Evaluation <ul><li>Your Price will be evaluated considering the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The proposed total price for the CAM&T CLINs (0001, 0005, 0101, 0105, 0201, 0205, 0301, 0305, 0401, and 0405) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The proposed Over & Above price IAW Section M.3.b </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Your composite weighted rate applied to base of 2,500 hrs. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Built from the O&A rates proposed in Section B table </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A wedge of $250,000 (total) for O&A material/ODCs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The proposed amounts for the award incentive CLINs (0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409) </li></ul></ul>
    55. 55. Best Overall Value <ul><li>The Government will make a series of paired comparisons among the offerors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trade-offs between the non-price factors and the price </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If one offeror has both the higher LOCAR and the lower price, then they’re the best overall value. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If one offeror has the higher LOCAR and the higher price, then the Government must decide whether the margin of the higher LOCAR (i.e. greater prospects for success) is worth the higher price (Tradeoff) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This will continue until the Government decides which offeror is the best overall value. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SSEB makes recommendation to the SSA using the LOCAR tool above. </li></ul></ul></ul>$54M None D $56M Moderate C $49M High B $52M High + A Price LOCAR Offeror Best Overall Value
    56. 56. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT <ul><li>Understand program objectives/Acquisition Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Be attentive to all parts of the RFP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PWS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Terms and Conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate the ability to comply with requirements and implement the approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrate that sufficient resources (e.g. manning) and capabilities will be applied </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Be consistent from Volume to Volume </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Substantiate all claims </li></ul>
    57. 57. PROPOSAL PREPARATION CONSIDERATIONS <ul><li>Structure your proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can an evaluator quickly find what he/she needs? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it clear? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drawings & diagrams complement narrative, but don't replace it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantiate, don't simply make claims </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Give us a reason to believe you; Provide information to allow an independent assessment </li></ul></ul>
    58. 58. TYPICAL PROPOSAL SHORTFALLS <ul><li>Not being Responsive to the RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Deficiencies - preclude award </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information provided does not support claims of compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal is non-compliant with the requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adding statements that obviates the promise of compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inattention to new/different requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Saying too much or saying too little </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Regurgitating the PWS </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal Instructions not followed </li></ul><ul><li>Statements in the proposal are not well supported </li></ul><ul><li>Proposals are not well organized </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Past Performance POCs are not current </li></ul><ul><li>Not signing RFP </li></ul>
    59. 59. TYPICAL PRICE PROPOSAL SHORTFALLS <ul><li>Lack of current DCAA/DCMA contact information </li></ul><ul><li>Arithmetic and/or spreadsheet formulas are incorrect </li></ul><ul><li>Not relating contractor labor categories to wage determination labor categories </li></ul><ul><li>Not explaining pricing approach </li></ul><ul><li>Not providing all RFP sections completed (e.g., Section G Contract Administration information, Section K Reps/Certs etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Discrepancies between labor priced in price proposal and what is stated in technical proposal </li></ul>
    60. 60. SUMMARY <ul><li>Keys to Developing a Good Proposal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the RFP requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the Evaluation Criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Follow the Proposal Instructions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ensure that your proposal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Helps the evaluator evaluate - don’t make them have to guess or search for answers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides traceability throughout the proposal between price and PWS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Substantiates all claims </li></ul></ul>
    61. 61. SCHEDULE <ul><li>Formal Solicitation Released to Industry </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anticipated NLT 18 July 08 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposals Due to Govt- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>15 September 08 </li></ul></ul>
    62. 62. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
    63. 63. CONCLUDING REMARKS
    64. 64. <ul><li>Back-ups </li></ul>
    65. 65. DMMH/Flight Hour
    66. 66. Not Mission Capable Maintenance
    67. 67. Not Full Mission Capable Maintenance
    68. 68. Not Full Mission Capable Maintenance (Flight Control System)
    69. 69. Not Mission Capable Maintenance (Flight Control System)

    ×