Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WELCOME TO LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO ANDWHITE SANDS TEST FACILITY
FACILITY OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT CONTRACT (FOSC)
ANDTEST AND EVALUATION
CONTRACT (TEC)
Pre-Proposal ConferenceMay 23 – 27, 2005
3
These slides are not to be interpreted as a comprehensive description of the requirements in the solicitation
To the extent there are any inconsistencies between this briefing and the solicitation, the solicitation governs
DISCLAIMER
4
WELCOME, LOGISTICS, AND SAFETY
Emergency Exit Locations Response to Fire Alarms Locations of bathrooms and vending
machines Please turn your cell phones & pagers to “off”
or “vibrate” Please hold your questions until the end of
the session
5
WELCOME
Stephen C. Nunez
Manager, WSTF
Debra L. Johnson
JSC Procurement Officer
6
IMPROVEMENTS IN JSC PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Specific web-site established for each significant competitive procurement
Limit Proposal Data to what is necessary for selection
Improve Schedule Accountability Encourage greater early participation by
contractors Publish all source selection statements
(http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/procpub.htm)
7
Confidential questions/comments to DRFP’s can be submitted
Make debriefings more open and informative
Conduct survey after procurement to get feedback from offerors
IMPROVEMENTS IN JSC PROCUREMENT PROCESS
8
OTHER RECENT INITIATIVES
Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) Standardization Team
Goal: Move consistent evaluations of contractor performance and guidance for evaluators
Covered contractor involvement in process, membership of PEB’s, content of evaluation, cost evaluation guidance, guidance on evaluation criteria and scoring, best practices
9
OTHER RECENT INITIATIVES
Source Evaluation Board (SEB) Review
Goal: To review all aspects of the SEB process and recommend improvements
Covered training, facilities, personnel, review and approval process, SEB membership, IT support, pricing, development of JSC Source Selection Manual
10
NEW TEAMS
Joint Civil Service/Contractor Training Goal: To identify training topics that would benefit both,
and to determine ways to conduct and fund training
CO/COTR/Industry Forum Goal: To meet on a regular basis to discuss common
items of interest and to share Lessons Learned
Pre-Proposal Conference/Post-Award Conference Team Goal: To review the content, format, and timing of these
Conferences and to recommend improvements to benefit industry
11
OPEN COMMUNICATION
Leads to:
Improved proposals
Improved contracts
Mission success
12
CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
(LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE)* 1 on 1 (30 minute intervals)** LC = Las Cruces
13
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
To assist the Government in developing the highest quality Request for Proposal, you are invited to comment on all aspects of the draft RFP, including the requirements, schedules, proposal instructions, and evaluation approaches
Comments are also requested on any perceived safety, security, export control, or other programmatic risk issues associated with performance of this work
Comments and Questions which are due by June 1, 2005, will allow time for response to be formulated and changes incorporated into Final RFP
14
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Questions and Answers:
Questions regarding the Pre-Proposal Conference or the draft RFP shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer in writing through e-mail. Any response to verbal questions during the conference shall not be construed as an official answer
Official responses to written questions received by the Contracting Officer will be posted to the FOSC/TEC acquisition website
Verbal questions related to simple points of clarification on the material presented will be addressed at the end of this session
15
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this Pre-Proposal Conference is to help industry understand the Government’s requirements
Presentation charts will be posted on the FOSC/TEC website. No handouts will be provided
Points of Contact: FOSC – Valerie Marburger, CO
505-524-5139 [email protected]
TEC – Chuck Riley, CO 505-524-5727 [email protected]
16
OVERVIEW
Ombudsman (NFS 1852.215-84): “…before consulting with an ombudsman, interested parties must first address their concerns, issues, disagreements, and/or recommendations to the contracting officer for resolution … If resolution cannot be made by the contracting officer, interested parties may contact the installation ombudsman …”
Installation Ombudsman:
Randy K. Gish
2101 NASA Parkway
Houston, TX 77058Phone 281-483-0490 Fax [email protected]
17
Proposal Delivery Instructions:
Detailed proposal delivery instructions will be incorporated into the final RFP
To ensure the proper handling of proposal data and avoid potential issues regarding searches of incoming freight, mail, or random vehicle searches by personnel not authorized to handle proposal data offerors are responsible for adhering to the proposal delivery instructions to be provided in the final RFP
Allow adequate time for screening of material to be delivered. The screening process could require an hour or more
OVERVIEW
18
Proposal Delivery Instructions (con’t):
Ensure all packages are clearly and boldly marked as prescribed in the proposal delivery instructions to be included in the final RFP
To deliver a proposal to WSTF, offerors shall do so by first entering WSTF at the main gate. The main gate can be reached by traveling north on NASA Road from Highway 70. Upon entering the site, offerors will encounter a security guard. Offerors shall advise the guard that they are delivering a proposal and to call the appropriate escort per the final RFP
OVERVIEW
19
Proposal Delivery Instructions (con’t):
No deliveries can be processed through security after
3 p.m., local time Although an offeror may already be badged and have a
vehicle pass, this does not exempt their delivery from being subjected to a random vehicle search. For this reason, offerors are advised to adhere to the proposal delivery instructions to be included in the final RFP
Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are not screened through security until an authorized civil service employee point of contact identified in the final RFP arrives to escort the delivery
OVERVIEW
20
STATEMENT OF NEED
The mission of White Sands Test Facility is to provide the expertise and infrastructure to test and evaluate spacecraft materials, components, and propulsion systems to enable the safe human exploration and utilization of space
Examples of work contained in the future TEC and FOSC contracts include: Propulsion testing, depot level repair of flight hardware, and
maintenance and repair of test systems – (TEC) Materials and components testing and maintenance and repair of
test systems – (TEC) Maintain and operate the White Sands Space Harbor for Astronaut
training/contingency landing – (FOSC) Environmental compliance and restoration – (FOSC) Facility operations – (FOSC)
The period of performance for the current TEAM contract ends April 30, 2006
21
ACQUISITION MILESTONES Issue Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) May 18, 2005 Pre-Proposal Conference May 23 - 27, 2005 Release Final RFP June 29, 2005 Blackout Notice June 29, 2005 Receive Past Performance August 1, 2005 Receive Proposals August 15, 2005 Competitive Range Presentation to October 14, 2005
Source Selection Authority (SSA) Oral Discussions November 7, 2005 Close Discussions and Request November 10, 2005
Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Receive FPR’s December 5, 2005 Final Presentation of Findings to SSA February 1, 2006 SSA signs Source Selection Statement (SSS) February 7, 2006 Contract Award February 15, 2006 Contract Phase-In March 1, 2006 Contract Start May 1, 2006
22
SEB MEMBERSHIP - FOSC
Mission Suitability Committee
Sean M. Gates (RD)
Robert E. Mitchell (RC)
Radel L. Bunker-Farrah (RC)
Ronald Williams (JA)
Jason E. Noble (RC)
SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY
Robert D. Cabana (AA)
SEB Chair & Members*Robert M. Cort, Chair (RD)
Valerie A. Marburger, CO (BH)
Radel L. Bunker-Farrah (RC)
C. Diane McLaughlin (NS3)
Ronald Williams (JA)
Ex-OfficioTBD (Recorder) (BH)
Stephen C. Nunez (RA)Donna J. Bartoe (AL)Roberta D. Beckman (BD)Charles C. Bell (BD)Vanessa R. Beene (BD)Johnny J. Bernal (RC)Learon Comeaux (BD)Monica F. Craft (BD)Ginger Darnel (BA)Holger O. Fischer (RC)Jose C. Garcia (BD)Cheryl A. Harrison (BD)Jennifer Krause (BD)James M. Krupovage (IT)Heather M. Moncrief (RE)Stacey T. Nakamura (NS)Connie R. Pritchard (BA)Jannette Reed (BD)Herbert Rocha (BD)Joyce R. Simmons (AL)Robert P. Tepfer (AL)
Past Performance CommitteeTimothy Davis (RC)
Richard L. VonWolff (RC)
C. Diane McLaughlin (NS3)
Cost CommitteeSheryl L. Reynolds (LI)
Valerie A. Marburger (BH)
Jannette Reed (BD)
* Voting Members
23
SEB MEMBERSHIP - TEC
Mission Suitability Committee
David L. Baker, Chair (RF)David B. Harris (EP)
Robert R. Kowalski (RD)
Clifford Madrid (RE)
Ken Poast (MV6
SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY
Robert D. Cabana (AA)
SEB Chair & Members*
Ex-OfficioIrene M. Garcia (Recorder) (RE)
Stephen C. Nunez (RA)Donna J. Bartoe (AL)Roberta D. Beckman (BD)Vanessa R. Beene (BD)Harold D. Beeson (RF)Charles C. Bell (BD)Johnny J. Bernal (RC)Learon Comeaux (BD)Monica F. Craft (BD)Ginger Darnel (BA)Holger O. Fischer (RC)Jose C. Garcia (BD)Cheryl A. Harrison (BD)Jennifer Krause (BD)James M. Krupovage (IT)Heather M. Moncrief (RE)Stacey T. Nakamura (NS)Connie R. Pritchard (BA)Jannette Reed (BD)Herbert Rocha (BD)Joyce R. Simmons (AL)Robert P. Tepfer (AL)
Past Performance Committee
Cost Committee
* Voting Members
Harry T. Johnson, Chair (RF)
Charles A. Riley, Jr. CO (BH)
David B. Harris (EP)
David T. Loyd (NS3)
Ken Poast (MV6)
Herbert Rocha (BD), Chair
Heather M. Moncrief (LI)
Herbert Rocha (BD)
Alton B. Luper, Chair (RD)
David T. Loyd (NS3)
Alan R. Porter (RF)
24
CONTRACT WEBSITE
25
WSTF VISION/MISSION
VisionWSTF is an investment in America’s future – the model the best try to
emulate: learning from yesterday, performing today, preparing for tomorrow
WSTF is a premier organization that provides responsive and cost effective test expertise and support for human spaceflight and aerospace industry
programs
WSTF is a safe workplace for all employees
MissionOur mission is to provide the expertise and infrastructure to test and
evaluate spacecraft materials, components, and propulsion systems to enable the safe exploration and use of space
26
CONTRACT STRUCTURE (FOSC)
Facility Operations and Support Contract
Completion FormIndefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
Management andAdministration
Facility Maintenance and
Operations
InstitutionalSystems and
Services
Management andDocumentation
SystemsInstitutional Safety
InstitutionalServices
EnvironmentalWhite SandsSpace Harbor
Facility Projects
Technical TrainingFacility Systems
Operations
Preventative,Predictive, andProgrammedMaintenance
Facility RepairsUnder $2500
Janitorial Services
Logistics
Emergency NotificationSystems
EmergencyServices
Real PropertyManagement
Radios and PagingSystems
MSM and WDSManagement
ConfigurationManagement
TechnicalLibrary
Lifting Devices and Equipment
Drafting
27
CONTRACT STRUCTURE (TEC)
Test and EvaluationContract
Completion FormIndefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
Management andAdministration
Test SystemSafety
Quality Assurance
Technical Training
Technical ServiceCenters
Propulsion TestProjects
Materials andComponents
Testing Projects
Technical Editing
Photo and Video
Electronic and A/VSystems M&O
Calibration
Precision Cleaningand Fluid
ComponentRefurbishment
Machining and Welding
Special PPE
SystemMaintenance and
Repair
Rocket Test Projects
Other TestProjects
System/FacilityUpgrades
Depot Projects
Test System Maintenance and
Repair
Test andOperations
28
CONTRACT TYPE
FOSC Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF)
100% Performance Base
Completion Form/IDIQ 3 year base with 2, 1-year options
TEC CPAF
100% Performance Base
Completion Form/IDIQ 3 year base with 2, 1-year options
29
RFP HIGHLIGHTS NOTEWORTHY CLAUSES (TEC ONLY)
Section H - Small Business Subcontracting Goals Applies only to large businesses
Total Small Business 30 %
Small Disadvantaged Business 16 %
Woman-Owned Small Business 5 %
HUBZone Small Business 2 %
Veteran-Owned Small Business 2 %
Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business
2 %
HBCU’s (includes other minority institutions)
1 %
30
RFP HIGHLIGHTS NOTEWORTHY CLAUSES
Section H Special provision for contract changes
Contract value will be adjusted based on actual workload as compared to workload sizing contained in the contract
31
RFP HIGHLIGHTS NOTEWORTHY CLAUSES
Section I Security Requirements for Unclassified IT Resources
Contractor responsible for IT security for all systems connected to a NASA network or operated by a contractor for NASA, regardless of location
IT Security Plan to be provided by the contractor which will be included in the contract after NASA approval
32
RFP HIGHLIGHTS NOTEWORTHY CLAUSES
Section J-2 contains the requirements for contract DRD’s
Section L Instructions to Offerors -Competitive Acquisitions
Alternate proposals will not be accepted
33
RFP HIGHLIGHTS STANDARD LABOR CATEGORIES The offeror shall map their labor categories to the
SLC’s using the guidelines provided in RFP
SLC’s are intended to broadly group proposed labor into a manageable number of categories
Guidelines only. Offerors must propose the resources required to successfully meet the IDIQ requirements
Offerors may propose additional labor categories that do not easily map into the SLC (Job Descriptions)
34
CONTRACT LABOR RELATIONS
Wage and Hour Issues: Davis Bacon Act – Construction Service Contract Act – Services Wage Determination Current Organized Labor Representation Data Submittals
35
WAGE AND HOUR REGULATIONS
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Davis Bacon Act – FAR 52.222-6 Service Contract Act – FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Act Minimum Wage & Fringe
Benefits Applicable to Successor Contractor – FAR 52.222-47
36
DAVIS BACON - CONSTRUCTION
Requires a Department of Labor Wage Decision for employees performing new construction work (FAR 22.401)
Employees must be paid not less often than once a week
Payrolls and Statement of Compliance submitted weekly to the Contracting Officer
A new Wage Decision will be incorporated annually on the anniversary date of the contract
37
SERVICE CONTRACT - SERVICES
Requires a Department of Labor Wage Determination for employees performing services (FAR 22.1001)
Section 4c of the Service Contract Act applies to employees represented by Organized Labor
In accordance with 4c a Contractor shall pay any “service” employee (regardless of whether or not such employee was employed under a predecessor contract) wages and fringe benefits provided for under a Collective Bargaining Agreement
A new Wage Determination will be incorporated annually on the anniversary date of the contract
38
WAGE DETERMINATION
Wage Determinations (WD’s) included in Solicitation:
WD 1994-2512 Revision 21 – Dona Ana County, NM (FOSC & TEC)(Nonunion nonexempt service employees)
WD 1978-1124 – Union – IAM&AW and HTSI (FOSC & TEC)
WD NM020030001 – New Mexico(New Construction) (FOSC Only)
39
WAGE DETERMINATIONS SCA 4c
Wage Determination 1978-1124 covers employee classifications represented by Organized Labor under Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA’s)
Section J contains the Wage Determination. The current CBA’s are available for review in
the Technical Reference Library It is the Contractor’s responsibility to review
the CBA’s in their entirety
40
CURRENT ORGANIZED LABOR
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
White Sands Local Lodge No. 2515 & 392
Attn: Mr. Marion (Bud) Duryea
Directing Business Representative
P.O. Box 2620
Alamogordo, NM 8311-2620
(505)434-0211
41
DATA SUBMITTAL
Wage & Fringe Benefit information submitted in the proposal must include a direct match to the appropriate wage determination Data submittal is an on-going annual
requirement
Labor Relations Plan Describe your company history and on-going
experiences in maintaining effective labor relations
42
SAFETY AND HEALTH - VPP
NASA WSTF is an OSHA VPP “Star” recognized workplace
Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) is an OSHA program designed to be partners with management and labor for a safer, healthier work environment
Employers must have injury rates lower than industry average to qualify for VPP Star recognition
VPP requires demonstrated commitment to safety and health of both management and employees
Participation in VPP is highly encouraged
43
SAFETY AND HEALTH - VPP
Department of Labor – OSHA VPP will perform an onsite evaluation of the contractor’s safety and health program for VPP recognition
Unions will need to formally concur with the contractor’s VPP application
More information on VPP is available via: Department of Labor-OSHA (website
www.osha.gov/oshprogs/vpp/) VPP Participants Association(website www.vpppa.org/)
44
SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM
WSTF Safety Policy stresses the individual responsibility of each employee for their own safety and that of their co-worker
Risk within the work environment must be managed to control hazards and continuously improve workplace conditions
Rigorous safety & health program elements: System design standards, Hazard analysis & control methodologies, Peer and management readiness reviews, Safety & health professional, management, and employee
safety inspections Employee-based safety reporting process (Close Calls)
45
SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM
WSTF safety forums provide avenues for action:
WSTF Keystone Employee Safety Committee
WSTF Safety Council
Emergency Planning Board
Safety & Readiness Reviews
WSTF Department Safety Working Teams
46
SAFETY AND HEALTH - REQUIREMENTS
NASA’s safety objective is to avoid loss of life, personal injury and illness, property loss or damage, or environmental harm resulting from any of its activities and to ensure safety and healthful conditions for persons working at or visiting NASA facilities
Safety and Health requirements are implemented in accordance with the following: JPG 1700.1, JSC Safety and Health Handbook WSP 25-0002, WSTF Safety & Health Planning & Compliance Contractor Safety and Health Plan (DRD)
47
The contractor’s approved Safety and Health Plan will be implemented from the first day of the contract award, including phase-in (NFS 1852.223-73)
NASA retains the right to exercise any remedies, including contract termination if work is performed in an unsafe manner or unsafe conditions are not resolved (NFS 1852.223-75)
SAFETY AND HEALTH - REQUIREMENTS
48
PREPARING FOR TOURS
This is a hazardous test facility
Hypergolic propellants, toxic chemicals, cryogens, high pressure gas systems Heavy equipment and industrial hazards Trip hazards, gratings, uneven/elevated surfaces Rattle snakes, Scorpions, Spiders (Don’t reach where you can’t see, and watch your
step) Comfortable shoes – low, or no, heels; no open toe Light, breathable clothing, but avoid too much sun exposure Sunglasses and hat advisable. Dress practically during the week
Emergency assistance - Dial 5911/5111
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be provided
BOTTOM LINE – FOLLOW YOUR ESCORT’S INSTRUCTIONS
49
WSTF PROPERTY
Property will be provided as Installation Accountable Property (IAP)
FOSC will retain accountability
TEC will retain property custodianship
50
WSTF has established a management system
that ensures that products conform to specified
requirements
This system is documented in the WSTF
Management System Manual and the WSTF
Document System
WDS = WSTF Document System
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MANUAL/WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM
51
Defines the top level management system
policies
Contains WSTF Mission Statement Description of ISO Registration Scopes Structure of Document System Top level policies
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MANUAL (MSM)
52
DOCUMENT STRUCTURE SYSTEM
53
Headings
1 WSTF Overview
The WSTF Management System
Product Process Management Policy
Infrastructure Process Management Policy
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MANUAL (MSM)
54
Consists of
Process Flows
WSP’s, WSI’s, WJI’s
WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM (WDS)
55
There are two kinds of process flows
Product Process
Infrastructure Processes
WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM (WDS)
56
Product Processes
Component Refurbishment
Component, Fluids, and Material Testing
Hazard Analysis
Propulsion System Test
Research ad Development
Standard Testing
Training, Development, and Education
WSSH Operations
WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM (WDS)
57
Infrastructure Processes
All of the activities that support product delivery such as calibration, purchasing, design reviews, internal audits, etc.
WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM (WDS)
58
WSP’s = WSTF Standard Procedures
WSI’s = WSTF Standard Instructions
WJI’s = WSTF Job Instructions
Level of detail
increases
Level of authority increases
WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM (WDS)
59
•Process and document inter-relationship
•Processes contain links to other processes
•Processes contain links to documents that
provide further instruction or details
•Not all documents are linked to processes
WSTF DOCUMENT SYSTEM (WDS)
60
Proposals should contain:
Volume I Management Approach – 10 copies
Volume II Technical Approach – 10 copies
Volume III Past Performance – 10 copies
Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal – 11 copies
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
61
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION VOLUME I - MANAGEMENT
Key Personnel Positions Organization and Operating Plan Staffing and Retention of a Qualified Workforce Acceptance of Terms and Conditions Conflict of Interests Avoidance Plan Total Compensation Plan Labor Relations Plan Associate Contractor Agreement Contents Phase In Plan
62
PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONVOLUME II - TECHNICAL Demonstrate overall technical understanding In addition to a narrative, the RFP requires offerors to
submit information in a specific format: Word Format:
TA (Technical Approach & Understanding of Resources) BOE (Basis of Estimate) CS (Efficiencies or Cost Savings)
Excel Format: TRST (Technical Resources Summary
Template) TRT (Technical Resource Template) ET (Efficiencies Template)
63
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION VOLUME II - TECHNICAL EFFICIENCIES
Proposed Efficiencies:
Realistic Adequately Supported Reconcilable to the Technical and
Management Approach Explain delta between baseline and
proposed staffing (numerically and narrative)
64
Additional requirements for the IDIQ portions of contract:
Sample Delivery Order(s) are provided in the draft RFP
The offeror will be expected to propose staffing levels for the sample delivery order
The sample delivery order will not be identical to the final delivery orders in place at contract award.
Response will be utilized to gauge the offeror’s understanding of the IDIQ portions of the contract
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION VOLUME II – TECHNICAL
65
PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONVOLUMES III AND IV
Volume III – Past Performance
Narrative summary and details of relevant active, completed or terminated contracts in last 3 years
Volume III and past performance questionnaires from previous contracts are due August 1, 2005
66
The Independent Government Estimate (IGE) represents the Government’s best estimate to satisfy the requirements and does not necessarily represent current or historical experience
The IGE does not represent a ceiling or a mandatory baseline
All proposed resources should adequately support the proposed technical & management approach even if identical to the IGE
PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONVOLUMES VI AND IGE
67
Labor IGE for Full Time Equivalents (FTE’s) and the skill
mix is included in the RFP (Tables Section L) These FTE’s and skill mix represent total
estimated personnel needed to satisfy requirements regardless of how they charge their time (direct or indirect)
Non-Labor IGE dollar values for Completion Form Non-labor
is included in the RFP (Table Section L) Offerors may use the Non-labor IGE for proposal
purposes Offerors who do not use the Non-labor IGE must
provide a comprehensive Non-labor BOE
PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONVOLUMES VI AND IGE
68
The cost volume consists of a number of templates presenting cost and staffing data
A detailed break out session on the cost/price volume will be held in this room immediately following lunch and again Wednesday morning (duplicate sessions)
All are welcome to attend the cost/price break out sessions, but be aware that the tours will be taking place concurrently
PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONVOLUMES VI – COST/PRICE PROPOSAL
69
Mission Suitability will be scored and adjective rated
Past performance will be adjective rated
Cost will be evaluated and probable cost adjustments will be applied as required
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALSEVALUATION FACTORS
70
FOSC
Mission Suitability Factor
Management Approach 500
Technical Approach 250
Safety, Health, and Environment 250
Total 1000
EVALUATION FACTORSMISSION SUITABILITY FACTORS
71
FOSC
Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors
Considered separately, each of the three factors, Mission Suitability, Past Performance, and Cost, are approximately equal to one another
Mission suitability and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALSEVALUATION FACTORS
72
TEC
Mission Suitability Factor
Management Approach (includes Safety) 300
Organization and Key Personnel 300
Technical Approach 300
SDB Utilization 100
Total 1000
EVALUATION FACTORSMISSION SUITABILITY FACTORS
73
TEC
Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors
Mission suitability is more important than past performance
Mission suitability and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost
EVALUATION OF PROPOSALSEVALUATION FACTORS
74
Detailed proposal delivery instructions will be included in the final RFP, Section L
Volume III – Past Performance
Due on August 1, 2005, by 3 P.M., MDT Includes all letters and documents from 3rd
parties
Remaining Volumes
Due on August 15, 2005, by 3 P.M., MDT
PROPOSAL DELIVERY INFORMATION
75
CLOSING REMARKS/QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
76
SPEAKERS
Disclaimer Valerie Marburger Welcome Valerie Marburger Conference Schedule Valerie Marburger Agenda Valerie Marburger Comments and Questions Valerie Marburger Overview Mike Malik Statement of Need Mike Malik Acquisition Milestones Mike Malik Source Evaluation Board Memberships Irene Garcia Contract Website Irene Garcia WSTF Vision/Mission Irene Garcia Contract Structure Mike Malik Contract Type Mike Malik RFP Highlights Irene Garcia Labor Relations Connie Pritchard Safety and Health Dave Loyd WSTF Property Johnny Bernal SM/WDS Overview Diane McLaughlin Proposal Submission Chuck Riley Evaluation of Proposals Chuck Riley Q&A and Closing Remarks Chuck Riley
