pre-proposal conference for av-8b contractor augmented

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

AGENDA - DAY 1

0800 – 0830 Arrival/Sign-In0830 – 0845 Introductions – Al Hensler0845 – 0900 Welcome Maj Melchior0900 – 0930 Contract Overview – Al Hensler0930 – 1000 CAM&T Overview – Nick Smith1000 – 1015 Break/Submit questions1015 – 1045 Source Selection Process Overview – Al

Hensler1045 – 1100 Submit Questions 1100 – 1130 Answers to Questions Submitted prior to

conference – Al Hensler supported by others as needed

1130 – 1330 Lunch

1330 – 1430 Answers to Submitted Questions Provided – Al Hensler supported by others as

needed1430 – 1445 Concluding Remarks, Adjourn– Col Bauman

and Al Hensler

3

PURPOSE

• To ensure a common understanding of the Government’s Requirements

• To answer questions regarding the Draft RFP• FAR 15.201

– “Exchanges of information among all interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals, are encouraged…”

– “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…”

4

GROUND RULES• Provide all questions in writing (use provided form)

• Official answers to questions will be published on the NAVAIR web site (www.navair.navy.mil)

• NAVAIR’s points of contact are: – Mr. Al Hensler, (301) 757-7078

• [email protected]– Ms Vicki Dean, (301) 757-5209

• [email protected]

http://www.navair.navy.mil/

5

GROUND RULES

• 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.– No final decisions have been made in regard to the

RFP– Use info obtained from Industry Day and Draft RFP

package for GENERAL planning purposes.• You should not rely on this info for proposal preparation

purposes.• Info that can be relied upon for that purpose will be released

in the Official RFP package to the NAVAIR homepage (Following Industry Day).

6

CONTRACT OVERVIEW

7

CONTRACT OVERVIEW • Number of Sites

– MAGS-13 &14

• Type of Contract– FFP – Performance Based

• Term of Contract– 5 years (base plus four one-year options)– Base year POP 1 Jan 09 - 31 Dec 09– If all options are exercised, will extend to December

2013

8

SECTIONSB & C

• SECTION B– A CLIN each year at each site (MAG 13 & 14) for:

• CAM&T Support (Offeror to fill in monthly unit price and total price)• Over/Above Labor (Govt provided NTE)• Over/Above Travel, Matl, and ODCs (Govt provided NTE)• Data (CDRLs) (NSP)

– Award Incentives (Offerors to fill in dollar value of incentive)

• SECTION C– Scope of Work (PWS attached to the RFP)– Incorporation of the Contractor’s Technical Proposal

(NAVAIR Clause 5252.211-9509)

9

Sections D-G

• Section D- Packaging/Marking• Section E- Inspection/Acceptance

– Destination– By COR via WAWF

• Section F- Deliveries/Performance– 1 January through 31 December– Place of performance will be Cherry Point, NC and

Yuma Arizona.• Section G- Contract Administration Data

– COR assignment/responsibilities– Funding data will be located here

10

Section H• SECTION H

– Award Incentives (H-1)• Successful offeror will have opportunity to earn award incentives ($) based on

performance.• Award incentives outlined in Section H-1 clause and QASP

– Over & Above Work Authorizations (H-2)• Formal process for Over & Above CLINs• A sample Over & Above Work Authorization letter will be attached to the RFP.

– OCI Clause• This contract cannot be used to help write SOWs, Specs, etc…and if so, the contractor

recuses themselves from that resulting competition.– Govt Installation Work Schedule

• Lists the Govts’ holidays– Service Contract Act

• References Attachments 7&8 of the RFP package– Key Personnel

• Pertains to the Over & Above CLINs– Associate Contractor Agreement

• Successful offeror needs to establish a relationship with AV-8B prime contractor.

11

Sections I & J

– Section I - Clauses are standard for FFP Service requirements of this size.

– Section J:• Attachment 1 (PWS)

– Lists metrics and AQLs

• Attachment 2 (Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)– Tool for COR to use in performance evaluation– Lists metrics, AQLs, and Incentives

• Attachment 3 (Personnel Resource Matrix)– Lists Govt’s expectations & Offerors fill in the matrix with proposed

personnel

• Attachment 4 (Relevant Experience Matrix)• Attachments 5 & 6 (Past Performance Matrix and Questionnaire)• Attachments 7 & 8 (Area Wage Determinations)• Attachment 9 (Sample Over and Above Work Authorization)

12

CAM&T PROJECT OVERVIEW

13 Aircraft Requirement = 98 Aircraft In-Reporting = 87

Aircraft Requirement = 98 Aircraft In-Reporting = 87

AV-8B SQUADRON INVENTORY (as of 03/31/2008)

VMA MISSION STATEMENTSupport the MAGTF Commander by destroying surface targets

and escorting friendly aircraft, day or night under all weather conditionsduring expeditionary, joint or combined operations.

RequirementFMF: 7 Sqdns x 14 aircraft = 98

MAG - 13 MCAS YumaDISTRIBUTION* ASSIGNED / IR / OOR DEPLOYED UNITSVMA – 211 21 / 16 / 5 HMM-166 (6) PlaneVMA – 214 13 / 9 / 4VMA – 311 18 / 16 / 2VMA – 513 10 / 8 / 2 WESTPAC (8) Plane

MAG - 14 MCAS Cherry PointVMA – 223 15 / 12 / 3 VMA – 231 14 / 10 / 4VMA – 542 16 / 16 / 0 OIF (10) Plane/HMM-365 (6) Plane

107 / 87 / 20 Totals

14

CAM&T (Vision and Mission)

• Vision– 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).

• Mission

– 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.

15

CAM&T

• Objectives:– Increase the experience level O-level Marines by targeting required

MATMEP training standards and targeting training deficiencies by

squadron & MOS

– Improve Maintenance Management proficiency within the Staff Non

Commissioned Officers (SNCOs) and Work Center Supervisor

workforce.

– 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.

– Respond to Squadron Maintenance Material Control Officer (MMCO)

“emergency training assists”.

The Contractor will be required to meet the above goals by satisfying established metrics

16

TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL

• 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.

Increase the experience level of E-1 to E-6 Marines.

17

FLEET FOCUS

• What are the anticipated efficiencies?– Common training within both MAGs with a focus on training

MATMEP requirements & known training deficiencies

– CPI focus that will share existing best practices & implement additional process improvement where required

– PWS & metrics will allow for a more effective solution to support the govt’s concerns

– Base year with 4 option years will create a more stable Contractor workforce

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

AV-8B TMS MAINTAINER CORE COMPETENCY

ALERTS (INSP) ALERTS (MATMEP) ALERTS (SE)

ALERTS (HI/LOW PWR)ALERTS (PC)ALERTS (SFF)

-8-6-4-202468

O N D J F M

Squa

dron

s

L-1,2 L-3 L-4

-8-6-4-202468

O N D J F M

Squa

dron

s

L-1,2 L-3 L-4

-8-6-4-202468

O N D J F M

Squa

dron

s

L-1,2 L-3 L-4

-8-6-4-202468

O N D J F M

Squa

dron

s

L-1,2 L-3 L-4

-8-6-4-202468

O N D J F M

Squa

dron

sL-1,2 L-3 L-4

-8-6-4-202468

O N D J F M

Squa

dron

s

L-1,2 L-3 L-4

MATMEP PERFORMANCE IS REPORTED DURING THE TMS MEETINGS!

19

AV-8BOct 02 – Apr 08

AV-8B(FY 2003 - FY 2008)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

DM

MH

/ F

H

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

NM

CM

Ho

urs

DMMH/FH NMCM

20

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

FLEET FOCUS SCHEDULE

Proposal

Evaluation

Conclude Proposal

Evaluation

21

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY/PROCESS

• 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.

• Provide adequate office space within each MALS Maint Dept to include NMCI seat and Class A phone for official business

• Access to required OOMA and Deckplate data

• Provide personnel passes, ID’s and vehicle permits required for access to work

• Provide emergency medical care to contractor personnel while on govt property

22

OVERALL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY

• Provide a knowledgeable and effective maintenance and training workforce

• Comply will all aviation maintenance training policies outlined in COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 series and other MAG policies

• Support a standard 40 hour work week (5 eight hour days). This may require non-standard workdays /shifts to support MAG/squadron requirements.

• Support MAG deployments as required. Both CONUS & OCONUS are considered “over & above” and approval is required from the COR.

23

CONTRACTOR’S WORKFORCE

Core Team Requirements MOS Min Per Squadron

Support Team Requirements MOS Per Group

Government Labor Category/MOS and Utilization Expectations

1

No min Govt Expectations

Maintenance Management Training Core Competency Lead N/A No min Govt Expectations

Senior Technician Lead N/A


Black Belt (BB) N/A No min Govt Expectations

Supply Support Technician 6672


Egress/Environmental Technician 6282 No min Govt Expectations

Airframe Technician 6252

1

Aircraft Avionics Technician 6312/6332 No min Govt Expectations

Powerline Technician 6212

1

Airframe Technician 6252

Aircraft Avionics Technician 6312/6332

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

LABOR CATEGORY & MOS EXPECTATIONS

Egress/Environmental Control Technician T/AV-8B (Equivalent to MOS 6282)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.

Supply Support TechnicianSkill 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.

Black BeltSkill 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

Offerors will propose the workforce and will be evaluated on this proposed workforce

26

SOURCE SELECTION OVERVIEW

27

SOURCE SELECTION OBJECTIVES

• Choose the contractor who provides the best value to the Marine Corps, all factors considered in a Tradeoff Process– Plain English translation:

Get the best packaged deal we can for the MAGs-13 /14

• Resolve any issues prior to contract award

28

SSA

SSEB CHAIR

SSEB AdvisorsSSEB

MAG 13 REPPMA 257 REPMAG 14 REP

EVALUATION PANEL (EP) CHAIRPERSON AND EPEVALUATION PANEL (EP) CHAIRPERSON AND EP

SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION

29

Generic

Source Selection Process

Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach • Acquisition Strategy/Plan• SSP

Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry

• PWS• CDRLS

• Draft RFPs • Sources Sought

• Industry Day

FormalRFP

ReceiveProposals

SSEB SSEB RecommendsRecommendsAward to SSAAward to SSA

Discussionsw/ Offerors

(ENs)

CompleteDiscussions

EvaluateProposals

CompetitiveRange

(or SSA Selects Source)

Offeror Capability

Price

Evaluate FPRs RequestFinal

ProposalRevision(FPRs)

Debriefs

Contract

SSEB SSA

SSEB SSA

SSEB SSASSA SSEBDECISION

SOURCE SELECTIONROADMAP

30

SELECTION

• Best Value Tradeoff Process, all factors considered.• Proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the

Offeror is capable of successfully performing the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives.

• Proposals that:– Take exceptions to any terms/conditions of the RFP– Propose additional terms/conditions– Fail to manifest the unconditional assent to a term/condition of the

RFP

CONSTITUTE A DEFICIENCY (FAR 15.301)

*The only way to correct a deficiency is through Discussions.

31

Section L

• There are Two (2) Volumes to Submit– Volume I: Offer– Volume II: Offeror Capability Information

• Follow the specific instructions listed in L.1 of the RFP (N00019-08-R-0060)

32

Volume I: The Offer

• Submit Original and Two (2) Copies• Consists of:

– Page 1 of RFP (SF 33) w/ Blocks 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18 completed

– Completed Section B of RFP (Supplies or Services &

Prices/Costs)– Completed Section K of RFP (Reps & Certs)– A financial statement showing responsibility– Completed Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large

businesses only)

– Acknowledgement of any/all RFP amendments by signature on each applicable SF 30

33

Volume II: Offeror Capability Info

• Submit Original and Seven (7) Copies– Understanding of the Work:

• Provide an OVERVIEW of what will be presented during the Oral Presentation.

• The overview is to be limited to 15 pages (not including graphs, charts, or diagrams).

34


– Personnel Resources• Complete the Personnel Resource Matrix (RFP

Attachment 3)• Provide a maximum of One (1) page Key

Personnel Summary for each personnel proposed as “Key”

• 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

35


• Relevant Experience• Complete the Relevant Experience Matrix (RFP

Attachment 4)• Provide a supportive narrative shall (not exceeding

fifteen (15) pages) for all references identified. – Summarize your experience in each task area of the

PWS and address the direct relevancy to the PWS task areas.

– You may also provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective actions taken.

36


• Past Performance– Provide a list of references (and have subs provide a list too)

using the Past Performance Matrix – Performance during the last three (3) years on your:

» Quality/Timeliness of work» Reasonableness of prices, costs, & claims» Reasonableness of business behavior» Concern for the interests of customers» Integrity

– Submit a Past Performance Questionnaire to each reference listed on the Past Performance Matrix

– Minimum of Three (3) references– Provide confirmation & date that these were sent to each ref.– Instruct them to return the questionnaire to Vicki Dean (by proposal due

date)» Fax: (301) 757-7054» Email: [email protected]

37


• Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Strategy– Provide a Small Business and SDB Subcontracting Strategy– Address strategy for using SB and SDB – Describe:

• extent, complexity and variety of work that SBs and SDBs will perform• list targets in whole dollars• percentages of total contract value• applicable No. American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code• past experience in meeting proposed goals and processes to correct inability

to meet proposed goals.– 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).

– Small Business and SDB Subcontracting Strategy Limited to 10 pages (not including graphs, charts, or diagrams)

38

Oral Presentations

• Understanding of the Work (only) • Consists of:

– The Oral Presentation• Limited to 60 minutes (strictly enforced)• ~15 minute recess• After recess, come back for a Q&A session (clarify info)

– Three (3) “Pop Quiz” sample tasks• Three (3) hour recess to prepare oral responses to ALL• Offerors limited to 45 minutes (15 minutes/sample task)• Optional ~10 minute recess after each presentation• A Q&A session will follow each recess

39

Oral Presentations

• Do not mention Price, Past Performance, Relevant Experience, Small Business Subcontracting Strategy, or Personnel Resources.

• Use Computer Presentation Programs or Slides/Transparencies (No limit to # of slides)– You must provide all of the equipment necessary– You will be responsible for video taping all required

presentations and provide a copy to the Govt.– Mark your presentation media IAW FAR 52.215-1(e)

40

Oral Presentations

• 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.

– NO Consultants– NO more than Ten (10) attendees

41

Section M

• The Evaluation Factors (and subfactors) are listed in Descending order of Importance1. Offeror Capability

• Understanding of the Work (Oral Presentation)• Personnel Resources • Relevant Experience• Past Performance• Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Strategy

2. Price

*Offeror Capability is significantly more important than Price (Tradeoff Process)

42

Offeror Capability

• Understanding of the Work (Oral Presentation)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

Offeror Capability

• Personnel ResourcesThe 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

Offeror Capability

• Relevant ExperiencePrevious 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

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.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE RATING SHEET

Good

Excellent

Neutral

Poor

Average

46

Past Performance Information

Primary PPI Sources:

Offerors’ Proposals

PPIRS

Questionnaires

Phone Interviews

DACO/DCMA

Other

PastPerformanceInformation

47

Offeror Capability• Small Business Subcontracting Strategy and SDB Subcontracting

Strategy (Large Businesses)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

Offeror Capability• Small Business Subcontracting Strategy and SDB Subcontracting

Strategy (Small Businesses)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

LOCAR

• What is LOCAR?

– Level Of Confidence Assessment Rating

– Streamlined Source Selection approach– Substantially reduces proposal size– A Best Value Technique using the Tradeoff

Process

50

LOCAR

• Source Selection Decision– Made by comparing and ranking offers against

Section M criteria on the basis of their chances of success and their prices

– Higher the LOCAR the better chance of success, and the lower the risk of doing business with that firm

– Provide for a selection of the contractor on the basis of a tradeoff between expected value and price

51

Advantages of LOCAR

• Streamlines procurement process– Minimize transaction costs and administrative lead-time

• reduced proposal preparation time (eliminates sometimes lengthy technical and management proposals by using matrices)

• reduced Government evaluation time– uses fewer evaluation factors– Assigns overall risk assessment vs. individual

factor/subfactor risk rating• Offeror’s experience and how it applies to the PWS is evaluated

52

LOCAR Rating Scale

Less Confident

(Less likely to succeed)

Neutral

(Equally likely to succeed as fail)

More Confident

(More likely to succeed)

Most Confident

(Most likely to succeed)

Low-

Low

Low +

Moderate High –

High

High +

53

Assigning a LOCAR

Offeror Capability/LOCAR Determination

Offeror Understanding of the Work

(Oral Presentation)

Personnel Resources

Relevant Experience

Past Performance Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting

Strategy

LOCAR

A Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good High +

B Good Excellent Good Excellent Excellent High

C Good Good Poor None Poor Moderate

D* *Offeror D’s submission was unacceptable, therefore, no LOCAR assigned None

54

Price Evaluation

• Your Price will be evaluated considering the following:– The proposed total price for the CAM&T CLINs (0001,

0005, 0101, 0105, 0201, 0205, 0301, 0305, 0401, and 0405)

– The proposed Over & Above price IAW Section M.3.b• Your composite weighted rate applied to base of 2,500 hrs.

– Built from the O&A rates proposed in Section B table

• A wedge of $250,000 (total) for O&A material/ODCs

– The proposed amounts for the award incentive CLINs (0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409)

55

Best Overall ValueBest Overall Value

Offeror LOCAR Price

A High + $52M

B High $49M

C Moderate $56M

D None $54M

•The Government will make a series of paired comparisons among the offerors

• Trade-offs between the non-price factors and the price

•If one offeror has both the higher LOCAR and the lower price, then they’re the best overall value.

•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)

•This will continue until the Government decides which offeror is the best overall value.

•SSEB makes recommendation to the SSA using the LOCAR tool above.

56

PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT

• Understand program objectives/Acquisition Strategy

• Be attentive to all parts of the RFP– PWS– Terms and Conditions– Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions

• Demonstrate the ability to comply with requirements and implement the approach – Demonstrate that sufficient resources (e.g. manning) and capabilities

will be applied– Be consistent from Volume to Volume

• Substantiate all claims

57

PROPOSAL PREPARATION CONSIDERATIONS

• Structure your proposal in accordance with the Proposal Instructions – Can an evaluator quickly find what he/she needs?– Is it clear?– Drawings & diagrams complement narrative, but

don't replace it– Substantiate, don't simply make claims– Give us a reason to believe you; Provide

information to allow an independent assessment

58

TYPICAL PROPOSAL SHORTFALLS

• Not being Responsive to the RFP• Deficiencies - preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance– Proposal is non-compliant with the requirements– Adding statements that obviates the promise of compliance– Inattention to new/different requirements– Saying too much or saying too little

• Regurgitating the PWS• Proposal Instructions not followed• Statements in the proposal are not well supported• Proposals are not well organized

– Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information

• Past Performance POCs are not current• Not signing RFP

59

TYPICAL PRICE PROPOSAL SHORTFALLS

• Lack of current DCAA/DCMA contact information• Arithmetic and/or spreadsheet formulas are incorrect• Not relating contractor labor categories to wage

determination labor categories• Not explaining pricing approach• Not providing all RFP sections completed (e.g., Section

G Contract Administration information, Section K Reps/Certs etc.)

• Discrepancies between labor priced in price proposal and what is stated in technical proposal

60

SUMMARY• Keys to Developing a Good Proposal

– Understand the RFP requirements– Understand the Evaluation Criteria– Follow the Proposal Instructions

• Ensure that your proposal – Helps the evaluator evaluate - don’t make them have to

guess or search for answers– Provides traceability throughout the proposal between

price and PWS– Substantiates all claims

61

SCHEDULE

• Formal Solicitation Released to Industry– Anticipated NLT 18 July 08

• Proposals Due to Govt- – 15 September 08

62

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

63

CONCLUDING REMARKS

64

Back-ups

65

DMMH/Flight Hour

DMMH per Flight Hour

25.6

22.9 22.5

28.0

22.2

25.021.9

15.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Fiscal Years

DM

MH

/Flt

Hr

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Fli

gh

t H

ou

rs

DMMH/FltHr 25.6 22.9 22.5 28.0 25.0 21.9 22.2 15.4

Flight Hours 27703 36026 36093 33157 30513 33326 31696 18397.7

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (May)

66

Not Mission Capable Maintenance

Not Mission Capable Maintenance Rate

15.5%

13.6% 13.4%

20.5%

19.0%18.3%

16.8%

19.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (May)

Fiscal Years

NM

CM

Rate

67

Not Full Mission Capable Maintenance

Not Full Mission Capable Maintenance Rate

20.7%

18.3% 18.2%

27.3%28.3%

30.2%

26.1%

29.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (May)

Fiscal Years

NF

MC

M R

ate

68

Not Full Mission Capable Maintenance(Flight Control System)

Flight Control System (Sys 14)Not Full Mission Capable Maintenance Rate

9.0%

11.7%

8.4%

13.2%14.1%

10.0%9.3%

19.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (May)

Fiscal Years

NF

MC

M R

ate

69

Not Mission Capable Maintenance(Flight Control System)

Flight Control System (Sys 14)Not Mission Capable Maintenance Rate

11.4%

14.6%

11.2%

16.9%

19.2%

15.4%

13.6%

22.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (May)

Fiscal Years

NM

CM

Rate

pre-proposal conference for av-8b contractor augmented

Spiritual