December 17, 2008 Stanley Proprietary

1. Proposal Kick Off Meeting USTRANSCOM Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) Analysis Support December 17, 2008 Stanley Proprietary

2. Agenda • Introduction of Team • Competitive Assessment • Procurement Overview • Task Areas • Evaluation Criteria • Procurement Highlights • Submission Requirements • Discussion

3. Proposal Team • Capture Manager – John Boysha • john.boysha@stanleyassociates.com • (618) 624-9360  • Proposal Manager – David Phillips • 703-310-3139 • david.phillips@stanleyassociates.com • Proposal Manager – Tim Draughon • tim.draughon@stanleyassociates.com • 703-310-3166 • Pricing Lead – Sean White • sean.white@stanleyassociates.com • 703-310-3193 • Contracts Lead – Barbara Crump • barbara.crump@stanleyassociates.com • 703-310-3308 • Graphics Lead – Diala Azzam • diala.azzam@stanleyassociates.com • 703-310-3222

4. Competitive Assessment – Stanley Team • Strengths • Stanley has done work for 10 years – no one else has ever done it • Known within DoD sustainment industry as provider of services; among US flag carriers, USTRANSCOM, etc. • We have TS clearances; TS facility clearance which small businesses can’t match • Weaknesses • Air Mobility Command pushing for small business contracts • Risks • Overconfident

5. Competitive Assessment - Competition • Potential Competition • Solicitation went to 14 companies • LMI, DRC, etc. • Past Performance criteria may discourage competition • Northrop may have relevant expertise

6. Win Themes Stanley Associates will: • Only ones from inception doing this, and doing it well • Same team will continue

7. Procurement Overview • Name of Program: Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) Analysis Support • Name of Customer: USTRANSCOM • Solicitation Number: FA4452-09-QA-003 • RFP Release Date: 15 December 2008 • Proposal Due: Quotes must be submitted by e-mail to Mary Miner, mary.miner@scott.af.mil Ph.618-256-9944 , FAX 618-256-5724, no later than 3 P.M. CST, 12 January 2009. Four (4) hardcopies of the quote shall be submitted the following business day. • Past Performance Questionnaires Due: 3 P.M. CST, 12 January 2009 • Contract Value: $800K • Period of Performance: 1 Feb 09 through 30 Sep 09, with three (3) twelve-month option periods • Type of Contract: Firm Fixed Price

8. Task Areas

9. Evaluation Criteria • The government will utilize the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) technique in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.101-1, utilizing Informational Guide 5315.101-1 Approach #1 (evaluate technical, rank by price, assess performance for all schedule contractors)All non-cost factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than cost or price. • Within the Mission Capability (Technical) factor, the subfactors (Staffing and Technical Approach) are considered of equal importance.

10. Evaluation Criteria • Subfactor: Technical Approach – Schedule contractors are required to submit a sound plan for accomplishing this project. The plan shall include a logical approach that ensures timely support for all tasks as described in the PWS. The plan shall also identify the schedule contractor’s quality process to ensure the acceptability of final products including quoted actions for correction of any defects. The Technical Approach subfactor evaluation will include the acceptability of the proposed Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation plan. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the schedule contractor: • submits a sound plan for accomplishing the project within the required period of performance. The plan shall adequately identify all major project activities in logical order with realistic milestone dates. • submits a plan that identifies quality checks to ensure the final deliverables meet all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and includes proposed actions for correction of any defects. • submits an acceptable OCI mitigation plan.

11. Evaluation Criteria • Subfactor: Staffing – Schedule contractors are required to submit their staffing approach as reflected in a personnel matrix which identifies the personnel resources they will use to fulfill the PWS requirements. The matrix should correlate positions by labor category to the PWS tasks. Schedule contractors shall identify all key positions and provide generic resumes or job descriptions that identify the education, experience, security, or special skills requirements of any individual selected to fill these positions. Schedule contractors shall also provide evidence of their ability to effectively recruit, train, and retain the necessary personnel to perform all PWS tasks. A generic resume is defined as a resume identifying the education, experience, security or special skill requirements of any person filling that job (not a specific individual by name) at any time during the contract period. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the schedule contractor: • submits a sound staffing approach as reflected in a personnel matrix, which identifies the necessary personnel resources given the schedule contractor’s approach to performing the PWS tasks. • submits a personnel matrix which properly correlates proposed labor categories to PWS tasks. • identifies the necessary positions and generic resumes or position descriptions, which demonstrate requisite education, experience, security, or special skills needed to perform the intended PWS tasks. • provides evidence of their capability to effectively recruit, train, and retain adequate personnel resources to sustain acceptable performance.

12. Evaluation Criteria • Schedule contractors shall make every effort to submit past performance information on at least two (maximum of five) specific JLOTSS related contracts/work efforts which they consider relevant, active within the last 3 years and which demonstrate the ability of its current organization to perform the quoted effort. This information shall include, but is not limited to, contracts/work efforts under which the schedule contractor was primarily responsible for contract/workload accomplishment, served as a subcontractor/work center, or was teamed with other contractors/depots on efforts in which the schedule contractor gained experience which will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of this effort. Contracts/workloads identified for demonstration of past performance should include demonstrated overall performance, including the subfactors Staffing and Technical Approach. Schedule contractors shall furnish the following information: • (1) Company/division name • (2) Product/service • (3) Contracting agency • (4) Current Government or other points of contact to include name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address for each contract listed • (5) Contract number • (6) Contract type • (7) Contract award date, period of performance • (8) Basic contract award amount/current value • (9) Questionnaire log including the name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address for each point of contact to whom the Past Performance Questionnaire was sent for completion

13. Evaluation Criteria Past Performance deemed “Very Relevant VR)”: • Current DoD experience (within 1 year) in providing analysis, specialized systems engineering and technical services in support of the Defense Transportation System (DTS) for either commercial or government-owned ocean-going shipping business practices, Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) program, or USTRANSCOM Strategic Sealift policy development, with demonstrable experience and emphasis on two (2) or more of the following: • a) Employment of strategic sealift assets; • b) Assessment and development of JLOTS-related exercises and/or real-world employment of JLOTS assets; • c) U.S. government support towards development of Joint Logistics or USTRANSCOM doctrine; • d) U.S. government support towards policy development for any of the following: Marine Highways or shortsea shipping, seabasing, Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS), National Port Readiness Network (NPRN), or Highway, Rail, and Ports for National Defense (HND, RND, PND) Programs.

14. Procurement Highlights • Quote shall consist of: a. Technical quote – Technical Approach with Staffing Plan, to include the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan addressed in Paragraph 9 of the RFQ Letter, not to exceed 50 pages. b. Past performance information and past performance questionnaire log as specified in Paragraph 5 of the RFQ Letter. c. Completed RFQ Information Sheet (see Attachment 4). d. Price quote. e. Copy of GSA schedule or a website for same (ensure labor categories and rates are specified) on or before quote due date. NOTE: Quote submittal under a LOGWORLD or MOBIS GSA Schedule is appropriate for this request. • Submission Requirements: • Electronic (1) by 12 January 2009 • Hardcopy (4) by 13 January 2009 • RFCs • Questions regarding this RFQ, to include PWS requirements, must be submitted by e-mail to Mary Miner, mary.miner@scott.af.mil Ph.618-256-9944, FAX 618-256-5724, no later than 3 P.M. CST, 5 January 2009. • Submit to david.phillips@stanleyassociates.com NLT 9 A.M. CST, 5 Jan 2009

15. Procurement Highlights • Cost/price quotes shall be in accordance with your existing GSA schedule. Information shall be provided in a format that reflects the contract schedule prices and the quoted discount rate. The cost/price quote must include the base period, 1 Feb 09 through 30 Sep 09, and three option years. If your schedule does not include rates through 2012, you must quote your last approved rates (as discounted) for the period through current schedule expiration. These quoted rates must be guaranteed through the contract period or projected rates must be quoted for the period beyond current schedule expiration through task order completion. An explanation regarding the inflation or deflation rates applied is required to support the Government's price reasonableness analysis.

16. Submission Requirements • 50 page limit – last submission Tech Section was 31, Staffing was 21 pages • No font, margins specified – use Arial 12-point; 1” left, 0.75” top/bottom/right

17. Proposal Schedule

18. Discussion • Writing Assignments • Draft has been prepared since July • Compare draft to new PWS • Tim Grout, Jennifer Smith, John Boysha, Wayne Munie (intermodal), Victor Cardona (IT component, SeaMist) • Past Performances (including Questionnaires) • SIRAAS • S&T • TCJ6 DPfM • Other Discussion Items • Identify Reviewers • Pink Team – right before Christmas • Red Team – right before New Year’s • Gold Team – week after New Year’s • Questions