C-12 Pre-Solicitation Conference Brief 051309

2,050 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,050
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 17 We provide two rating, a compliance rating and a risk assessment for each criterion/element. The compliance rating is a determination if the reqmts within the area of the evaluation will be met. The risk assessment is the likelihood that the reqmts will be met within the period of contract performance.
  • 17 We provide two rating, a compliance rating and a risk assessment for each criterion/element. The compliance rating is a determination if the reqmts within the area of the evaluation will be met. The risk assessment is the likelihood that the reqmts will be met within the period of contract performance.
  • 17 We provide two rating, a compliance rating and a risk assessment for each criterion/element. The compliance rating is a determination if the reqmts within the area of the evaluation will be met. The risk assessment is the likelihood that the reqmts will be met within the period of contract performance.
  • C-12 Pre-Solicitation Conference Brief 051309

    1. 1. C-12 Contractor Logistics Support Pre-Solicitation Conference CLS for Navy and Air Force C-12 Aircraft N00019-09-R-0243 13 -14 May 2009
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Arrival / Sign-In </li></ul><ul><li>Introductions </li></ul><ul><li>Program Overview </li></ul><ul><li>Contract Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Source Selection Process </li></ul><ul><li>Adjourn </li></ul><ul><li>C-12 Site Visit </li></ul><ul><li>One on Ones </li></ul>
    3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>VR/OSA Program Managers (Tier II) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CDR John Pasch & Mr. Ron Tucker </li></ul></ul><ul><li>C-12 IPT Lead (Tier III) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms. Susan Leach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Procurement Contracting Officer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mr. Jim Smith </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Contracts Team Lead </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms. Maxine Birst </li></ul></ul><ul><li>C-12 CLS Contract Specialist </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms. Valisa Harris </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Source Selection Office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mr. Jim Stanford </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Introduction <ul><li>AF C-12 Progam Manager </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms. Lori Brown </li></ul></ul><ul><li>AF C-12 Program Office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms. Sara Pope </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Procurement Contracting Officer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ms. Jackie Catrow </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Purpose <ul><li>To ensure a common understanding of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government’s Requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The C-12 Program and our CLS approach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To gather questions and/or comments regarding the RFP </li></ul>
    6. 6. Ground Rules <ul><li>Please sign in at entrance </li></ul><ul><li>No recording devices & silence cell phones </li></ul><ul><li>Provide all questions in writing on provided forms or via e-mail to the following address: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Government presentations and answers to written questions will be made available within 30 days after this Industry Day at the following site: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_business/open_solicitations/index.cfm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Notification provided via FedBizOps </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Terms and Conditions will have adjudicating authority over anything discussed here that may be inconsistent with the RFP </li></ul>
    7. 7. Disclaimer <ul><li>Today’s remarks by Government officials involved in the C-12 CLS Pre-Solicitation Conference should not be considered a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the program. The information shared today reflects current Government intentions and is subject to change based on a variety of circumstances including internal and external comments. The formal solicitation, when issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Program Description <ul><li>Ms. Susan Leach </li></ul><ul><li>IPT Lead for Utility Lift Program </li></ul><ul><li>C-12 & C-12W </li></ul>
    9. 9. Program Description <ul><li>Mission Description </li></ul><ul><li>USN/USAF C-12s operate from worldwide locations to </li></ul><ul><li>provide: </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid, Time-Sensitive or High-Priority Movement of Personnel/Cargo </li></ul><ul><li>Testing Assets </li></ul><ul><li>Other Support to Include Courier Flights, Medical Evacuation, and Humanitarian Rescue </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Engine Pilot Training (25 TC-12s at CNATRA Corpus Christi, TX) </li></ul>
    10. 10. Program Description <ul><li>Aircraft Description </li></ul><ul><li>USN/USAF C-12 Aircraft are FAA Certified Commercially Manufactured HBC King Air 200/1900 Series Aircraft </li></ul><ul><li>UC-12W is a FAA Certified Commercially Manufactured HBC King Air 350 Series Aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UC-12W Aircraft will have Aircraft Survivability Equipment (Missile Warning System AN/AAR-47 and Counter Measures Dispensing System AN/ALE-47) </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Program Description <ul><li>Aircraft Inventory/Locations </li></ul><ul><li>65 Navy C-12 T/M/S Aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>21 Sites Located Worldwide </li></ul></ul><ul><li>28 Air Force C-12 MDS Aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>19 Sites Located Worldwide </li></ul></ul><ul><li>6 C-12W Aircraft being Procured to Replace 6 Marine UC-12B Aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 Navy Sites anticipated Jun-Dec 2010 </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Navy C-12 Aircraft Basing Plan <ul><li>PMA-264 1 </li></ul><ul><li>NAVAIR 2 </li></ul><ul><li>MANASSAS 1 </li></ul><ul><li>NRL (VXS-1) 2 </li></ul><ul><li>CNAFLANT 8 </li></ul><ul><li>CNAFPAC 9 </li></ul><ul><li>MARFORPAC 7 </li></ul><ul><li>MARFORLANT 3 </li></ul><ul><li>RESERVES (N) 5 </li></ul><ul><li>RESERVES (M) 2 </li></ul><ul><li>CNATRA 25 </li></ul>NAS North Island: 1 UC-12B, 3 UC-12F, 1 NC-12B (PMA-264) MCAS Yuma: 2 UC-12B MCAS Miramar: 1 UC-12F Corpus Christi : 25 UC-12B NAF Andrews/Washington DC: 2 UC-12B NAS Patuxent River: 2 UC-12B, 1 RC-12F (VXS-1), 1 RC-12M (VXS-1) NAS Norfolk: 1 UC-12B, 2 UC-12M JRB Willow Grove, PA: 1 UC-12B JRB Belle Chasse, New Orleans, LA: 2 UC-12B JRB Ft. Worth, TX: 2 UC-12B MCAS Beaufort, SC: 1 UC-12B MCAS New River, NC: 2 UC-12B Manassas, 1 UC-12B NSA Bahrain: 3 UC-12M NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: 2 UC-12M Atsugi, JA: 3 UC-12M Misawa, JA: 1 UC-12F Kadena, JA: 2 UC-12F Futenma, JA: 1 UC-12F Iwakuni, JA: 2 UC-12F
    13. 13. USAF C-12 Locations AFMC 5 PACAF 5 DIA 14 DSCA 4 Bogota Andrews Accra Islamabad Jakarta Budapest Nairobi Bangkok Tegucigalpa Elmendorf Yokota Edwards Holloman Manila Ankara Riyadh Cairo Buenos Aires Brasilia
    14. 14. Program Description <ul><li>Support Concept </li></ul><ul><li>FAA Commercial Maintenance at Organizational through Depot Level (14 CFR Parts 43, 91, 135 and 145) </li></ul><ul><li>FAA Maintenance Plan developed by OEM as amended by Government MEDs/TOs </li></ul><ul><li>Repair and Overhaul of C-12 Aircraft, Engines, Propellers, Avionics, and Related Components IAW FAA Regulations at appropriately rated FAA Certified Repair Stations </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum use of Best Commercial Practices </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial-Off-the Shelf (COTS) Parts and Material </li></ul>
    15. 15. Program Description <ul><li>Support Concept (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>ISO 9001-2008 Compliant, Certified, and Registered Quality Management System </li></ul><ul><li>FAA Certified Repair Facility for Aircraft Condition Inspection (ACI) and Major Aircraft Depot Repairs/ Modifications </li></ul><ul><li>CLS Contractor Responsible for Establishing Agreements with OEMs to Obtain Access to Proprietary Data and Drawings Needed to Perform Contract Requirements (Letter of Intent for OEM Licensing Agreement with Proposal Submission) </li></ul>
    16. 16. Program Description <ul><li>Scope of Work </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Launch and Recovery Services </li></ul><ul><li>Scheduled/Unscheduled Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Off-Site Recovery </li></ul><ul><li>Over and Above Maintenance and Repair </li></ul><ul><li>Support Equipment Maintenance/Calibration </li></ul><ul><li>ALSS Inventory, Issue, and Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Detachment Support </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Condition Inspection (ACI) & Strip and Paint </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Overhaul and Repair </li></ul>
    17. 17. Program Description <ul><li>Scope of Work (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Propeller Overhaul </li></ul><ul><li>Parts and Material Management </li></ul><ul><li>Quality Assurance </li></ul><ul><li>Configuration Management </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering Support </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Modifications </li></ul><ul><li>Site Activation/De-Activation/Relocation </li></ul><ul><li>Management of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Transition Phase In/Phase Out </li></ul>
    18. 18. Program Description <ul><li>Performance Metrics </li></ul><ul><li>Navy and Air Force C-12s (Excluding TC-12s) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Monthly Mission Capable (MC) Rate of 80% per Aircraft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Payment Reduction to Base Operations Support CLIN for Failure to Meet MC Rate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>TC-12s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Daily Ready for Training (RFT) of 75% or Meet 100% of Daily Flight Schedule, Whichever is Less </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monthly Ground Abort Rate of not more than 5% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Payment Reduction to Base Operations Support CLIN for Failure to Meet RFT Rate (if 100% of the Flight Schedule is not met) </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Program Description <ul><li>Personnel Security Clearance Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Contractor Personnel Assigned to Sites with the UC-12W or other ASE Equipped Aircraft will be required to have Secret Clearances </li></ul><ul><li>Some Navy C-12 Sites Require Contractor Personnel to have a Secret Clearance </li></ul><ul><li>All Air Force C-12 Sites Require Contractor Personnel to have a Secret Clearance </li></ul><ul><li>Security Offices at some OCONUS C-12 Sites may Require Contractor Personnel to have a National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) or National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACL) Background Check Prior to Issuance of a CAC ID </li></ul>
    20. 20. Program Description <ul><li>Item Unique Identification (IUID) Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Navy C-12 Aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Navy C-12 Aircraft will Implement IUID at the Aircraft Platform Level IAW with the PMA-207 IUID Program Implementation Plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Previously Fielded C-12 Aircraft have been marked at the Aircraft Platform Level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Air Force C-12 Aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement IUID Policy as Outlined in the General PWS, Section 7.6 </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Program Description <ul><li>Air Force OCONUS Site Visit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For interested vendors, a site visit of Tegucigalpa, Honduras is being offered </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendor is responsible for all costs associated with the visit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Timeframe will be 23-25 June </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Notify Maxine Birst if interested and the trip will be arranged </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. <ul><li>Contract Overview </li></ul><ul><li>Ms. Maxine Birst </li></ul><ul><li>(Contracting Officer) </li></ul>
    23. 23. Contract Overview <ul><li>Proposal Submission </li></ul><ul><li>Submit and sign fully-executed RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Complete Sections B (prices) through K </li></ul><ul><li>Include Small Business Plan, if applicable </li></ul><ul><li>Submit proposals in accordance with Section L of the RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Release of final RFP anticipated late Jul 09 </li></ul><ul><li>Turn-around of 45 to 60 days for proposal submission </li></ul><ul><li>Award March 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anticipated 60-90 Day Phase in/transition period </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Contract Structure <ul><li>Single RFP, Single Proposal, One Awardee, Two Contracts will be awarded (One Navy, One Air Force) </li></ul><ul><li>Firm Fixed Price with Cost Reimbursable CLINs, Delivery Order Contract </li></ul><ul><li>Extended (Longer Term) Contract (i.e. 10 years) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Base year with 4 option years vs. Base year with 9 option years </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Contract Overview <ul><li>Navy CLIN Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Transition / Phase-In and Phase-Out </li></ul><ul><li>Base Site Support (Currently 21 sites) </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Material </li></ul><ul><li>Excess Flight Hour (FH) Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Data </li></ul><ul><li>Propeller Overhaul </li></ul>
    26. 26. Contract Overview <ul><li>Navy CLIN Structure (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Condition Inspection (ACI) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Overhaul (PT6A-41, PT6A-42, PT6A-60A) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Rental (Per Day Rate) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Rental (Per FH Rate) </li></ul><ul><li>Strip and Repaint </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering and Technical Services (Aircraft) </li></ul><ul><li>Over and Above Maintenance (Aircraft) </li></ul><ul><li>Over and Above Requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Repair (Labor) </li></ul>
    27. 27. Contract Overview <ul><li>Navy CLIN Structure (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering and Technical Services (Engines) </li></ul><ul><li>Parts & Materials for Over and Above Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Over and Above Support Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Parts and Materials </li></ul><ul><li>Publications, Updates/Revisions </li></ul><ul><li>Options </li></ul>
    28. 28. Contract Overview <ul><li>Air Force CLIN Structure </li></ul><ul><li>Firm-Fixed Price CLINs </li></ul><ul><li>Base Site Support (Currently 19 sites) </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed Price per Occurrence CLINs </li></ul><ul><li>Flying Hour </li></ul><ul><li>Data (Not Separately Priced) </li></ul><ul><li>Propeller Overhaul </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Condition Inspection (ACI) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Overhaul (PT6A-41) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Overhaul (PT6A-42) </li></ul>
    29. 29. Contract Overview <ul><li>Air Force CLIN Structure (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Overhaul (PT6A-65) </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft Paint </li></ul><ul><li>Interior Refurbishment </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed Hourly Rate Over & Above CLINS </li></ul><ul><li>Over & Above Aircraft Maintenance (Depot Labor) </li></ul><ul><li>Over & Above Aircraft Maintenance (non-Depot Labor) </li></ul><ul><li>Engine Repair Labor </li></ul>
    30. 30. Contract Overview <ul><li>Air Force CLIN Structure (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed Price Over & Above CLINs </li></ul><ul><li>Over & Above Requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Cost-Reimbursable Over & Above CLINs </li></ul><ul><li>Travel & Per Diem </li></ul><ul><li>Over & Above Parts & Materials (Aircraft) </li></ul><ul><li>Over & Above Parts & Materials (Engines) </li></ul><ul><li>Over & Above Efforts </li></ul><ul><li>Time Compliance Technical Orders </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities </li></ul>
    31. 31. Contract Overview <ul><li>Air Force CLIN Structure (cont’d) </li></ul><ul><li>Transitions CLINs (Firm-Fixed Price) </li></ul><ul><li>Phase-Out </li></ul><ul><li>Phase-In </li></ul>
    32. 32. <ul><li>Formal Source Selection Process Overview </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Jim Stanford (SSO) </li></ul>
    33. 33. <ul><li>Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered </li></ul><ul><li>Obtain through use of a comprehensive evaluation process, a high quality, fair and consistent evaluation of proposals </li></ul><ul><li>Government intends to award contract based on initial evaluation of proposals, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if it will result in best value to the government </li></ul>Source Selection Objectives
    34. 34. Notional Source Selection Organization SSEB SSA SSEB CHAIR EXPERIENCE SSEB Advisors SSEB COST PAST PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL SSEB ASSISTANT CHAIR PCO
    35. 35. Typical RFP Evaluation Factors FOR INFORMATION ONLY TECHNICAL (Rating & Proposal Risk) PAST PERFORMANCE (Performance Risk) EXPERIENCE (Performance Risk) PRICE ($$$$) > = > <ul><li>This slide is provided for informational purposes only and is an example of what the criteria could potentially look like. </li></ul><ul><li>The exact factors and associated criteria language will be approved by the SSA and released in the final RFP. </li></ul>Approach Capability =
    36. 36. Evaluation Grading <ul><li>We use a “Qualitative” and NOT a “Quantitative” system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal Rating (Technical) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Outstanding, Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal Risk (Technical) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Low, Medium, High </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance Risk (Past Performance and Experience) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High, Unknown (Past Performance Only) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    37. 37. Technical Evaluation <ul><li>Assesses Offeror's understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal Compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal Risk </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does the proposal meet or exceed requirements? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If exceeds requirement, does it benefit Government? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does proposal provide enhancing features that benefit Government? </li></ul><ul><li>Does proposal provide benefits that reduce risk of schedule disruption, cost increase or performance degradation? </li></ul>
    38. 38. <ul><li>Proposal Compliance Rating </li></ul><ul><li>Outstanding </li></ul><ul><li>Highly Satisfactory </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfactory </li></ul><ul><li>Marginal </li></ul><ul><li>Unsatisfactory </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal Risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Medium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low </li></ul></ul>Assessment Of Proposals Technical Factor and Sub Factors Technical Evaluation Grading - Qualitative - - COMPLIANCE - Offeror’s approach to meeting requirements *Significant Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies <ul><ul><li>* Strengths and weaknesses can impact Compliance, Risk or both </li></ul></ul>- PROPOSAL RISK - Likelihood of achieving cost, schedule, performance
    39. 39. Technical - Proposal Rating Definitions - Highly Sat. Outstanding Proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government or meets requirements and contains at least one exceptional enhancing feature that benefits the Government. Any weakness is minor. Proposal meets requirements . Any weaknesses are minor and will have little or no impact on contract performance. Proposal contains weaknesses or minor deficiencies that could have some impact if accepted. Proposal does not comply substantially with requirements. Proposal exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government or meets requirements and contains enhancing features that benefit the Government. Any weakness is minor. Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory
    40. 40. Technical - Proposal Risk Definitions - Has little or no potential to cause disruption of schedule , increase in cost, or degradation of performance . Normal contractor effort will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Likely to cause significant serious disruption of schedule , increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis. Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule , increase in cost, or degradation of performance . However, special contractor emphasis will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Low High Medium
    41. 41. Technical Strength Examples <ul><li>Exceeds mandatory / minimum requirement with benefit to the Government (compliance) </li></ul><ul><li>Approach contains a feature that enhances operational or other program/product capability with benefits to the Government (compliance) </li></ul><ul><li>Reduces proposal risk by providing more than sufficient resources in order to respond to unknown conditions/situations (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Reduces proposal risk by providing resources/capabilities that are in-place and ready to be used (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Reduces proposal risk by providing plans that reduce/mitigates risks inherent in the proposed approach and program (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Reduces proposal risk by providing performance margin (Risk) </li></ul>
    42. 42. Technical Deficiency Examples <ul><li>Deficiency Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal states exception or deviation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approach is assessed to be unable to meet a requirement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gross lack or critical lack of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Combination of weaknesses that raise the risk of performance to an unacceptable level </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A Deficiency affects Compliance and may also affect Risk, but in any case results in an unawardable contract </li></ul>
    43. 43. Technical Weakness Examples <ul><li>Marginal resources or capability to accomplished the effort (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Approaches that rely on resources or actions not within the Offeror’s full control (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Approaches that rely heavily on a single action or resource (aka single point failure) (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Design based on inadequate or unfounded assumptions (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Untested/unproven approaches (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Lacks substantiation or full description of the approach (Risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements can only be accomplished by impacting Government operations, capability or resources beyond that which is normal for this effort or system (Compliance; can also affect Cost to the Government in the Cost Factor) </li></ul><ul><li>Lacks information to assess requirements capability (Compliance) </li></ul><ul><li>Lacks information to assess risk (Risk) </li></ul>
    44. 44. Past Performance Evaluation Concept <ul><li>How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine Relevancy / Recency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assess each Contact Referenced </li></ul><ul><li>Assess each relevant contract found through an independent Government search </li></ul><ul><li>Roll up each reference assessment into an overall Offeror Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Based on Offeror’s assessment (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program? </li></ul><ul><li>Final product is the Past Performance Risk Assessment </li></ul>Look Back Look Forward
    45. 45. Past Performance Instructions <ul><li>For each recent relevant contract identified in your proposal, provide: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contract Data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Past Performance and Systemic Improvement Info </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Relate Past Performance to RFP requirements and proposed approach </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposal Information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CPARS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer Feedback through Questionnaires </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Submission of Past Performance information will be due approximately 2 to 3 weeks before proposals are due; this facilitates the evaluation process </li></ul><ul><li>This slide is provided for informational purposes only and is an example of what the criteria could potentially look like. </li></ul><ul><li>The exact factors and associated criteria language will be approved by the SSA and released in the final RFP. </li></ul>FOR INFORMATION ONLY
    46. 46. <ul><li>Performance Risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Very Low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moderate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very High </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unknown (only for Past Performance) </li></ul></ul>Past Performance Evaluation Grading - Qualitative - Significant Strengths and Significant Weaknesses Assessment Of Past Performance - PERFORMANCE RISK - Amount of doubt that the offeror will perform
    47. 47. Past Performance and Experience - Performance Risk Definitions - Low (L) Based on the offeror's experience or past performance, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort Based on the offeror's experience or past performance, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror's experience or past performance, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror's experience or past performance, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offeror's experience or past performance, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No past performance record identifiable. This applies only to Past Performance Very Low (VL) Moderate (M) High (H) Very High (VH) Unknown (U)
    48. 48. <ul><li>Provide contracts that demonstrate experience relevant to this program and your proposed approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For each prime and subcontractor as it relates to their assigned responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t give credit for experience in an area that the prime or subcontractor will not be performing as per the Technical Proposal Volume </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provide a comparative analysis between your experience and the effort required by the solicitation </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate that there are no gaps in experience regarding SOW tasks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where there is a gap, address plan to compensate for the risk </li></ul></ul>Experience Proposal
    49. 49. Experience Considerations <ul><li>Recency and Relevancy will be taken into consideration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FAA Certified Maintenance of C-12 or similar Aircraft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Include Program Management and Subcontractor Management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinating with Government program and contracting teams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting flight operations </li></ul></ul>FOR INFORMATION ONLY <ul><li>This slide is provided for informational purposes only and is an example of what the criteria could potentially look like. </li></ul><ul><li>The exact factors and associated criteria language will be approved by the SSA and released in the final RFP. </li></ul>
    50. 50. Experience Evaluation Grading - Qualitative - Assessment Of Experience (Gap Analysis) <ul><li>Performance Risk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Very Low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moderate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very High </li></ul></ul>- PERFORMANCE RISK - Amount of doubt that the offeror will perform Significant Strengths and Significant Weaknesses
    51. 51. Price <ul><li>Evaluate Price </li></ul><ul><ul><li>– Is it Complete and Reasonable? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is it Consistent with Technical Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the price reflect the proposed approach and reflect a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Balanced Price </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are CLIN Prices consistent across option periods? </li></ul></ul>FOR INFORMATION ONLY <ul><li>This slide is provided for informational purposes only and is an example of what the criteria could potentially look like. </li></ul><ul><li>The exact factors and associated criteria language will be approved by the SSA and released in the final RFP. </li></ul>
    52. 52. Proposal Preparation Guidance <ul><li>Demonstrate the offeror has a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks and is able to devote resources to meet the requirements and has a valid and practical solution for all requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Support your statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate that your approach is realistic and reasonable </li></ul><ul><li>Provide clear and concise descriptions / justifications. </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding the evaluation criteria will help you know where to place emphasis in your proposal </li></ul>
    53. 53. Proposal Preparation Guidance <ul><li>Typical Proposal Shortfalls </li></ul><ul><li>Not being responsive to RFP instructions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information not provided as requested in the RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information provided does not support claims </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deviation requests </li></ul><ul><ul><li>H-Clauses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spec (except where tailoring is permitted) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deficiencies - may 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 to the requirements </li></ul></ul>
    54. 54. Proposal Preparation Considerations <ul><li>Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Instructions, and proposal should track </li></ul><ul><li>Can an evaluator quickly find what he/she needs? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it clear? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it well organized? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Drawings and diagrams complement narrative, but don't replace it </li></ul><ul><li>Substantiate, do not simply make claims </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Making statements such as &quot;we understand, we are committed, we are capable, our experience ensures, we comply” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Show how experience is applied, results and benefits, prove the level of capability, and provide the basis and substantiating data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Give us a reason to believe you </li></ul></ul></ul>
    55. 55. Evaluation Criteria Reminders <ul><li>Best Value </li></ul><ul><li>Use of Non-Proposal Information </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>“ Unsatisfactory” Proposal Rating and/or “High” Proposal Risk may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition </li></ul>
    56. 56. Summary <ul><li>Looking for the best value package </li></ul><ul><li>Objective is to make the process mutually beneficial, so that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>You provide the best possible proposal, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We have better proposals to choose from </li></ul></ul>
    57. 57. <ul><li>Please provide any questions in writing via </li></ul><ul><li>e-mail to: </li></ul><ul><li>Maxine.Birst@navy.mil </li></ul>
    58. 58. Site Visit & One on Ones <ul><li>Tour is scheduled for 11:30 </li></ul><ul><li>Limited to Two Representatives per Prime Contractor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some walking will be required from Parking Lot to Hangar 101 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>One on One Discussions will begin at 1:30 at the NTA Building </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time period will be one hour (change) </li></ul></ul>
    59. 59. Revised One on One Schedule 14 May at 4:30-5:30 PM 8:30-1000AM Fri 15-May-09 3:00-4:00 PM 3:30-5:00 PM Thu 14-May-09 1:30-2:30 PM 2:00-3:30 PM Thu 14-May-09 12:00-1:00 PM 12:30-2:00 PM Thu 14-May-09 10:00-11:00 AM 10:00-11:30 AM Thu 14-May-09 8:30-9:30 AM 8:30-10:00 AM Thu 14-May-09 7:00-8:00 AM 7:00-8:30 AM Thu 14-May-09 4:30-5:30 PM 4:30-6:00PM Wed 13-May-09 3:00-4:00 PM 3:00-4:30 PM Wed 13-May-09 1:30-2:30 PM 1:30-3:00 PM Wed 13-May-09 New Time Old Time Date
    60. 60. http://foia.navair.navy.mil/rroom.html Contract Number N00019-00-D-0272

    ×