Production Support Services Pre-Proposal Conference N61340-14-R-0003 17 December 2013

1. Production Support ServicesPre-Proposal ConferenceN61340-14-R-000317 December 2013

2. Day’s Events • Registration 0830 - 0900 • Pre-Proposal Briefing 0900 – 1100 • Tour of FRC, JAX 1100 - 1130 • Closing Remarks and Adjourn 1130 - 1145

3. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M RFP SECTIONS A-K REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO

4. Purpose • To ensure a common understanding of the • Government’s Requirements • Proposal Instructions • To answer questions regarding RFP N61340-14-R-0003 • Nothing discussed here, unless it appears in an amendment to the RFP will change the terms and conditions of the RFP • All amendments to this solicitation shall be posted at https://www.fbo.gov/

5. GROUND RULES • All attendees must sign-in • Silence cell phones and other devices • Questions submitted during brief • Draft questions using the sheet provided • Provide to Contract Specialist • Due to time constraints, not all questions will be answered in open forum • Answers may be posted at https://www.fbo.gov/

6. COMMUNICATIONS • ALL industry communication for RFP N61340-14-R-0003 shall come through the PCO and/or Contract Specialist. • NAWCTSD Points of Contact are: • Kathleen Dougherty, Contracting Officer (407) 380-8189, kathleen.dougherty@navy.mil • Rebecca Woods, Contract Specialist (407) 380-4948, rebecca.woods1@navy.mil

7. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M RFP SECTIONS A-K REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO

8. FRCSE PSS Requirements Overview • FRCSE provides DLM services for aircraft, aircraft engines and associated components/ materials • The PSS contract provides logistical support to the FRCSE DLM effort by providing operational management of warehouses, inventory and storage of aircraft parts, production tool kits for maintenance, external support to the In-Service-Repair Program, operation and management of mega centers, environmental support and equipment management functions, and transportation of materials and components from one point in the maintenance process to the next. • Places of Performance: • NAS Jacksonville, FL MCAS Beufort, SC • NS Mayport, FL Orange Park, FL • Cecil Field, FL NAS Oceana, VA • NS Norfolk, VA • Platforms/Component: • EA-6B, F/A-18, H-60, P-3, P-8, E-2, C-2, S-3, T-6, T-34, T-44 and T-45

9. FRCSE PSS Requirements Overview Cont. • Hours of Operation: • FRCSE Jax (including remote sites) working hours of operation are 7 days a week as follows: • “A” Shift 0600-1430 hours • “B” Shift 1430-2300 hours • “C” Shift 2200-0630 hours • Contractor workforce shall be available to work the “A”, “B”, and “C” shifts, Monday through Friday

10. FRCSE PSS Requirements Overview Cont. • Additional Information: • Property – The Government will provide special tooling, hand tools, and ground support equipment • Contractor Work Spaces - The Contractor shall maintain its administrative facility and equipment outside of NAS Jacksonville and shall use Government facilities only for the performance of the contract. Within the production areas of FRC Jax, as space permits, the Government will provide workspace to be utilized by the Site Manager and Site Coordinator • There are NO supplies, materials, or equipment to be purchased under this contract.

11. FRCSE PSS Requirements Overview Cont. • Key Personnel: • Key Personnel positions are identified in the SOW • Site Manager • Site Coordinator

12. FRCSE PSS Requirements Overview Cont. • Phase-In/Phase-Out: • Phase-In (Mobilization) • Mobilization Period not to exceed 60 days • All personnel must be hired, trained, and in place by end of Mobilization Period • Contractor shall assume full responsibility for all PSS IAW SOW upon completion of the Mobilization Period • Phase-Out (Transition to Successor) • During last two months of contract, provide support to Government and successor Contractor to ensure orderly transition and minimize impact on operational readiness • Contractor shall retain full responsibility for all PSS IAW SOW until completion of the Phase-Out period

13. Agenda RFP SECTIONS L&M RFP SECTIONS A-K Ms. Kathleen Dougherty PCO

14. Strategy/Structure • 100% Small Business Set-Aside • Single Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract • Anticipate 6-month task orders • Non-Performance Based Contract • 5-year ordering period • 1 August 2014 – 31 July 2019 • Firm Fixed Price (FFP)/Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)CLINs

15. Section B – Supplies or Services

16. Section B – Supplies or Services • 5252.211-9503 Level Of Effort (Cost Reimbursement) (NAVAIR)(Dec 2012) - Alt I (Jun 2013) • Attachment 2 – PSS Estimated Man-Hour Composition • Number of hours by category, location

17. Section C – Descriptions and Specifications • Attachment 1 – Statement of Work • Locations for the required efforts • Technical requirements • Labor categories and descriptions • Reports and Data Requirements • Required Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) Information • Navy requirement

18. Section F – Deliveries or Performance • 5252.216-9506 Minimum and Maximum Quantities (NAVAIR) (Mar 1999) • Minimum guarantee – 50,000 Hrs • Contract Maximum – 2,671,413 Hrs

19. Section G – Contract Administration Data • 5252.201-9502 Contractor’s Authorized Contract Coordinator And Technical Liaison (NAVAIR)(Oct 2005) • Requires Offeror to complete • 5252.201-9501 Designation Of Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)(NAVAIR)(Sep 2012) - ALT I (Sep 2012) • Customer is committed to providing CORs and ACORs for each site • 5252.215-9512 Savings Clause (NAVAIR)(JUN 2012) • Requires Offeror to commit to Subcontractor pass-thru % and Fee % for itself • 5252.232-9529 Incurred Cost Reporting And Progress Reporting For Services (NAVAIR)(Dec 2012) • Reporting requirement during performance • 5252.242-9511 Contract Administration Data (NAVAIR)(Sep 2012) • Fully delegated to DCMA

20. Section H – Special Contract Requirements • 5252.216-9540 Issuance Of Orders Using Streamlined Procedures (NAVAIR) (Nov 2003) • Allows quick response to customer requirements • 5252.237-9501 Addition Or Substitution Of Key Personnel (Services) (NAVAIR)(OCT 2005) • Must receive approval from PCO prior to changes

21. Section I – Contract Clauses • 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (Jan 2013) • The Contractor shall, not less than 30 days before completion of the Contractor’s performance of services on the contract, furnish the Contracting Officer with a certified list of the names of all service employees working under this contract and its subcontracts at the time the list is submitted. • Immediately upon receipt of the certified service employee list but not before contract award, the contracting officer shall provide the certified service employee list to the successor contractor, and, if requested, to employees of the predecessor contractor or subcontractors or their authorized representatives. • The Contracting Officer will direct the predecessor Contractor to provide written notice to service employees of their possible right to an offer of employment with the successor contractor.

22. Section I – Contract Clauses (cont) • 52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Line Item (March 1989) • If required, for clauses not funded at the time of order placement • 52.217-8 Option To Extend Services (Nov 1999) • Extend services up to 6 months • Required Small Business Set-Aside clauses included

23. Source Selection Objectives • Choose the Contractor who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered • Obtain through use of a comprehensive evaluation process, providing fair and consistent evaluation of proposals * Draft RFP Page 90

24. Source Selection Organization SSA SSEB CHAIR SSEB SSEB Advisors PCO CORPORATE EXPERIENCE PAST PERFORMANCE COST/PRICE TECHNICAL

25. The Source Selection Process Formal RFP The Process SSA Evaluate Proposals Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach • Acquisition • Strategy/Plan • SSP • SOW Receive Proposals Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry SSA Debrief CompetitiveRange(or SSA Selects Source) Generic Source Selection Process Discussions w/ Offerors (ENs) Contract SSA SSA Evaluate FPRs Request Final Proposal Revision (FPRs) Select Source Compare Proposals Complete Discussions Corp Exp Past Perf Technical Cost/ Price

26. Sections L and M • Understanding and following Sections L&M are the keys to developing a good proposal; a mutually beneficial goal for award • Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP: • Tells Offerors what to put in the proposal • Evaluation Factors and Criteria – Section M of the RFP: • Identifies what will be evaluated • Identifies relative order of importance of factors • Identifies emphasis areas Proposals should use the same paragraph format as provided in Section L

27. Section M Evaluation Factors – General • The proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for an award, if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional cost/price.

28. Section M Evaluation Factors – General (cont) • The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered • The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government

29. Section MEvaluation Factors – General (cont) If the Government Conducts Discussions & Requests Proposal Revisions: • Those Offerors included in the Competitive Range will enter into Discussions • Written (Evaluation Notices (ENs)) and Oral Discussions • As a minimum, notification of deficiencies, uncertainties and significant weaknesses • Ask for additional information • Proposal change pages where needed • Helps to easily identify changes • Minimizes work for the Final Proposal Revision (FPR)

30. FRCSE PSS EVALUATION FACTORS PAST PERFORMANCE (Confidence Assessment) CORPORATE EXPERIENCE (Confidence Assessment) TECHNICAL (Rating & Proposal Risk) COST/PRICE ($$$) = > > All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important, than Cost/Price. = (equal); > (more important) >> (significantly more important) Key:

31. Proposal Content and Volumes

32. Executive Summary • Provide an overview of the Offeror’s entire proposal, excluding Cost/Price • Each section within the Executive Summary should include the salient points contained in each of the proposal volumes and highlight the significant features of the proposal • Provide Offeror Summary Table of prime, subcontractor (identify principal subcontractors) and JV team members, Place of Performance, CAGE/DUNS, Work Description and % of total proposed cost/price • The term “entity” is used to mean any or all of the following: Prime, principal subcontractor, other subcontractors, Joint Venture (JV), JV team member, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate (e.g., any contractor with a different CAGE Code/DUNS than the offeror) • Only entities proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) will be considered in the Corporate Experience and the Past Performance evaluations • Ensure that percentages identified are supported by the Cost/Price proposal

33. Sample Executive Summary Table

34. CORPORATE EXPERIENCEANDPAST PERFORMANCE

35. Experience vs. Past Performance • Experience – What you have done • “I’ve repaired 100 leaky boats in the past month.” • Past Performance – How well you have done • “Ninety leaked!”

36. Contract Relevancy • Contract Relevancy is a threshold question to determine if it is included in the evaluation • Relevant contracts are contracts that include managing and deploying personnel under the Service Contract Act and/or performing production support services • Evaluation is based only on Relevant Contracts, with both Corporate Experience and Past Performance using the same contracts in their evaluation • Performance that took place greater than 5 years from the proposal due date will not be evaluated under this factor • Provide relevant portions of previous contract SOW/PWS in Annex A

37. Contract Relevancy (cont) • Not Relevant (NR) contracts are characterized by any of the following: • Performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date • An entity proposed to perform less than 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee) • A different CAGE code/DUNS than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) • An entity that does not have a defined proposed role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) • Encompass little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/or complexities required by this solicitation • Contracts or the portions of their performance that are Not Relevant are not utilized in the assessment

38. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

39. Corporate Experience Evaluation Concept • Corporate Experience (CE) is considered one of the good indicators of future performance • Like Past Performance, Performance Confidence is assessed, but unlike Past performance, there is not a neutral/unknown rating • Levels of Confidence • Substantial • Satisfactory • Limited • No Confidence • CE is a capability that an Offeror either has or does not have • The only bad experience is no or very limited experience • Lack of experience can negatively affect the Government’s confidence • Experience shall only relate to “corporate” experience that an entity has gained through contracted work • Experience of personnel will not be considered for the CE evaluation

40. Section M Corporate Experience • Demonstrated corporate experience will be based on relevant contracts as identified in the ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary Table and will be evaluated on the extent to which it can be leveraged to successfully perform efforts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity as those under this solicitation • Elements to be Evaluated • Performing as a Prime Contractor • Managing and Deploying Personnel under the Service Contract Act • Performing Production Support Services • Emphasis will be placed on Managing and Deploying Personnel under the Service Contract Act

41. Corporate Experience Evaluation • Evaluate the Offeror’s (including entities proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee)) demonstrated relevant corporate experience on the basis of its breadth, depth, recency and similarity to the work required to meet the program objectives • Government will evaluate past performance for entities • Breadth is the degree to which the Offeror has performed or managed all tasks of a solicitation • Depth is the extent to which each activity/task of the effort was performed to gain a level of proficiency • Recency: Within 5 years from the proposal due date, where more recent is more relevant • Similarity is the extent to which the Offeror’s referenced contracts/corporate experience relate to the specific tasks required by this solicitation as proposed

42. Table CE-2 Corporate Experience Summary • This table provides the collection of factual data

43. Section L - Corporate Experience/Contract Comparative Analysis • Detailed comparative analysis between the proposed roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary Table) and the corporate experience requested in Section L, Part B, Paragraphs 2.2.1 through 2.2.3 • Submit/identify those relevant portions of the awarded contracts SOO/SOW/PWS documents, which relate to this solicitation’s PWS requirements in Annex A • Provide a cross reference between the corporate experience evaluation elements and paragraph numbers within the relevant portions of the final versions of the SOO/SOW/PWSs, identifying specific tasks • Specifically, describe the breadth of experience gained from each contract and the aggregate of contracts • In the comparative analysis the Offeror shall describe the breadth and depth of the previous work experience with substantiating evidence • Summarize the comparative analysis provided, using table CE-3 (Contract Comparative Analysis Summary)

44. Table CE-3 Contract Comparative Analysis by Evaluation Element • This table provides a summary of the detailed Comparative Analysis between previous corporate experience and that required to perform the future contract • Relate breadth, depth, recency and similarity of corporate experience gained through each contract and the aggregate of contracts

45. Corporate Experience Evaluation Grading Assessment Of Corporate Experience Gap Analysis Assess Impact of Gaps Assess Overall Performance Data Oriented Findings Performance Confidence Assessment • Confidence Assessment Rating • Substantial Confidence • Satisfactory Confidence • Limited Confidence • No Confidence Note: Ratings are a continuum, each level providing a range

46. Performance Confidence Assessment

47. PAST PERFORMANCE

48. Past Perf Evaluation Concept Look Back Look Forward • How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts? • Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS • Determine Relevancy / Recency • Assess each Contact Referenced • Roll up each reference assessment into an overall Offeror Assessment • Based on Offeror’s assessment (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program? • Final product is the Past Performance Risk Assessment

49. Section MPast Performance Evaluation • Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned • Government will evaluate past performance for entities proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total cost/price for the contract (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee). • Government will evaluate demonstrated past performance in each of the following areas: • Meeting Technical Requirements • Meeting Schedule Requirements • Controlling Contract Cost • Managing the Contracted Effort • Relevancy and recency of the information, source of information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered

50. Primary PPI Sources: Offerors’ Proposals PPIRS Questionnaires Phone Interviews DACO/DCMA Other Past Performance Information Past Performance Information