Sea 21f1 - Neco

Sea 21f1 - Neco

MSMO Industry Day Rev 3 Final April 22, 2009 Washington Navy Yard 1 Objective & Agenda MSMO Spiral 2 Industry Day: Objective: Outline way ahead for MSMO Spiral 2 and continue communications with Ship Repair Industry Agenda: Spiral 1 to Spiral 2 Evolution Upcoming Solicitations Discussion/Q&A 2 Spiral 2 Solicitation Section L - Technical Category: Technical Category expanded to include more robust data requirements: Management Approachexpanded with more focused or additional areas: Enhanced requirement to provide plan to integrate and familiarize all sub-contractors to the Offerors MSMO execution philosophy & strategy Total allocation of work to be accomplished by the Offeror, each Significant Subcontractor and by other subcontractors Offeror/Significant Subcontractor labor agreements Describe Offeror & Significant Subcontractor cost reporting system Discuss the contracts data deliverable requirements Discuss the Offerors facility security plan Enhanced requirement to describe Offerors method for tracking actual progress versus planned progress and processes to regain planned progress when variance occurs

Improved Correlation Between Technical & Cost 3 Spiral 2 Solicitation Section L - Technical Category: Continued Technical Approach (new)present overall approach to: Identify, define & schedule major milestones on critical path Planning through validation of GFI/GFM Prefabrication/advance staging Rip-out, repair, (re)installation, test of the work requirements & compartment close-out Resource Capabilityexpanded with 2 new areas: Provide a craft/trade staffing plan for this MSMO period of performance including current contracted and projected workload; shifts; and staffing levels based on Notional Work Package Work Items (including 999) Discuss how temporary contract labor will be utilized to augment employee staffing; include ratio of employee to temporary contract labor Other Page count limit expanded from 75 to 125 pages to reflect requirement for additional data and information Improved Correlation Between Technical & Cost 4 Spiral 2 Solicitation Section L - Cost Category: Notional Work Package Expanded to reduce reliance on 999 work item More representative of actual work based on Pareto analysis of

historical work packages Offerors provided Trade Mix & Manhours for costing the 999 work item Insignificant Subcontractors Increased requirement for supporting cost data when the aggregate of non-significant subcontractors proposed exceeds 25% of the total direct dollars for a particular availability type Risk Assessment (new) Offeror self-assessment in areas of risk associated with assumptions of projected workload and formulation of rates Material New Matrix for time-phasing material costs to reflect outyear escalation Improved Requirements Definition & Supporting Cost Data 5 DDG Avail Breakdown Spiral 1 and 2 Comparison: DDG Projected Manday Allocations Spiral 1 Spiral 2 Avail Type Total M/D Notional M/D 999 M/D Notional M/D

999 M/D EDSRA 100% 27% 73% 45% 55% ESRA 100% 35% 65% 58% 42% DSRA 100% 39% 61% 65% 35%

SRA 100% 71% 29% 85% 15% Character of 999 Mandays has changed RFP will provide estimated Manday and trade/skill mix allocations The Manday Math: Repair MDs + EM/CM MDs + Mod Pkg MDs = Total MDs - Notional MDs = 999 MDs Spiral 2: Better Requirements Definition + Stronger Correlation of Cost/Technical Proposals = Improved Cost Realism 6 MSMO Spiral 2 Hybrid Fee Structure:

Spiral 1 Spiral 2 Award Fee 10.0% Special Fee 1.232% Technical (20%) Mgmt (30%) Cost (30%) Schedule (20%) Small Business Utilization 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.232% Award Fee 4.0%

Incentive Fee 7.232% Technical Mgmt Cost Schedule 1.6% 2.4% 6.0% 1.232% Total Fee 11.232% Total Fee 11.232% Cost Plus Incentive Fee Contract with Award Fee Component: Incentive Fee structure provides predetermined objective targets for contractor performance relating to Cost and Schedule factors Award Fee structure provides mechanism to assess and effectively motivate other important elements of MSMO contractor performance that cannot be objectively assessed with measurable data---specifically limited areas of technical and management performance 40% Small Business Percentage Requirement per contract remains Over 40% Incentive eliminated 7

Cost Incentive Fee Shareline Structure: MSMO Spiral 2 Cost Incentive 7% Max Fee = 6.0% 50/50 Shareline 6% -4% Fee % 5% 4% (Under-Target) 50/50 Shareline Target Fee = 4.0% 3% 2% +8% Target Cost 1% (OverTarget)

Min Fee = 0% 0% -10% -9% -8% -7% -6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

9% 10% % Variance to Target Cost 8 MSMO Milestone Timeline 2009 20 Apr 09 2010 2011 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Issue RFP Spiral 2 Industry Day (Washington Navy Yard) Receive Proposals Targeted Contract Award Date 4/22 Spiral 1 Contract Expires Norfolk DDG Docker Norfolk DDG Non-Docker Mayport CG/DDG (New) San Diego LPD 17 (New)

Spiral 2 Rollout First Ship Avail DDG 51 EDSRA Cut-off to Execute CM/EM on Spiral 1 Contract DDG 96 SRA CG 69 SRA LPD 18 PMA Norfolk LPD 17 (New) LPD 19 PMA Norfolk LHA/LHD LHD 1 PMA PAC NW FFG/DDG FFG 54 SRA San Diego CG CG 59 SRA 9 MSMO Spiral 2 What We Need From You:

Review the entire proposal! Identify areas requiring clarification early Proposal Submission Strong correlation between Cost & Technical Proposals Responsive Timely Lacking Deficiencies & Inconsistencies 10 QUESTIONS? 11 BACK-UP 12 MSMO Spiral 2 Cost Incentive Fee: Cost Plus Incentive Fee Structure: Target Cost Target Fee Max Fee Min Fee Sharelines: Contractors share of over/under results in adjustment to Target Fee $$ Fee Adjustments made up to Max Fee or down to Min Fee Displayed as Government Share/Contractor Share (e.g. 10/90) Features of Cost Incentive Fee Shareline: 50/50 under-target shareline up to Max Fee Contractor Fee Adjustment = 50% of under-target 50/50 over-target shareline down to Min Fee

Max Fee Plateau infinitum @ 6.0% Min Fee of 0% reached by over-target of 8% Total Cost Fee earned goes to 0% Under Spiral 1 Award Fee structure, contractor earns fee only on contractor Fee Bearing Estimated Cost (FBEC), not on the overrun amount 13 MSMO Spiral 2 Metrics Working Group Way Ahead: Category 1 Metrics: Ready for Implementation Award Fee Evaluation Board Trends Work Quality Shipalt Efficiency Metric Recurring Work Item Cost Metric Spec Development Cost Metric PMO Cost Metric Emergent Work Responsiveness Metric RCC Cycle Time Availability Closeout Metric Contractor Proposal Quality Definitized to Actual (Cost Variance) Category 2 Metrics: Require development of

Basis For Measurement MSMO Improvement Initiatives Metric (BFM) MSMO Improvement Outcome Metric Proposed Cost v Settled Cost v Actual Cost for RCCs Contractor Advanced Planning Milestone Performance Growth/Growth Distribution Next Steps: Finalize 11 Category 1 Basis For Measurements (BFMs) and MSMO Approach Index structure for distribution to the MCIT by 1 May 09 MCIT review/approval during MCIT F2F 20-21 May 09 Commence data collection/analysis 1 May 09 Collect/display data on MCIT Metrics test site to support WG review/analysis Follow-on MSMO Approach Metrics WG meeting in Aug/Sep 09 timeframe 14 MSMO Spiral 2 Metrics Future Bridgeplot: DRAFT PMO Cost Metric 10% MSMO Approach Index Performance

Improvement Index 25% Emergent Responsiveness Avail Closeout Metric RCC CT Metric Quality Cost CTR Proposal Mgt Variance Comparison Metrics Metric Metric Metric 20% AFEB Score MSMO Learning Trend Metric Curve Index 35% Spec Development SCD Cost Learning Metric Metric 10% Recurring

WI Cost Metric 15 MSMO Spiral 2 Performance Benchmarks: Section B, NOTE B - GOVERNMENT RIGHT TO NOT EXERCISE FUTURE OPTIONS Whether to exercise an option is solely within the Government's discretion. However, part of the Government's decision to exercise an option or options may be based on how well, in the Government's determination, the Contractor has been performing the contract. The Government reserves the right to not exercise future option(s) if, among other reasons: Contractor's Management & Technical Award Fee-based Performance Rating (PR) scores are evaluated as: "Yellow" for any availability within the first year of contract performance "Green" for any availability within the second year of contract performance "Purple" for any availability within the third year of contract performance Contractors Cost Performance: Final Cost, excluding growth reservation, exceeds Target Cost by more than 8%, within the first year of contract performance Final Cost, excluding growth reservation, exceeds Target Cost by more than 6%, within the second year of contract performance Final Cost, excluding growth reservation, exceeds Target Cost by more than 4%, within the third year of contract performance Contractors Schedule Performance: In first year of contract performance, Ship Delivery on schedule, but included up to 2 missed Schedule Milestones In second year of contract performance, Ship Delivery on schedule and Major Milestones met In third year of contract performance, all Contractual Dates met and all changes authorized before the 25% point were incorporated into schedule and completed within Contract Milestones 16

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Social Determinants of Health - Florida Department of Health

    Social Determinants of Health - Florida Department of Health

    Social conditions are environments, norms, and patterns of social control that are health-promoting or health-damaging. Social conditions influence the development of psychosocial resources, which help to protect against ill-health, morbidity, and mortality.
  • Association rule mining - UIC Computer Science

    Association rule mining - UIC Computer Science

    Association Rules & Sequential Patterns ... Multiple minsups model The minimum support of a rule is expressed in terms of minimum item supports (MIS) of the items that appear in the rule. Each item can have a minimum item support....
  • ADP-ribosylation sites prediction based on physicochemical and structure

    ADP-ribosylation sites prediction based on physicochemical and structure

    Down an extract of the hashing code is reported and you can see, for example, VLS 11 how from an apparent Coil/helix/turn/coil became Coil-Helix-Uncertain . Features extractionSecondary structure descriptors. Hashed secondary structure motifs are evaluated according to their frequency among...
  • DNA Mutations - Woodland Hills School District

    DNA Mutations - Woodland Hills School District

    A synonym is a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another; so a synonym mutation is a different codon that ... The base pair change results in a STOP codon being produced. This may form a...
  • An Introduction to Carol Ann Duffy - LT Scotland

    An Introduction to Carol Ann Duffy - LT Scotland

    An Introduction to Carol Ann Duffy Expert Group Discussion Prompts As a group, re-read the poem and begin by discussing your initial impressions, observations and context of the poem: What does the poem explore/discuss/deal with?
  • The Pythagorean Theorem a2 + b2 = c2

    The Pythagorean Theorem a2 + b2 = c2

    The Pythagorean Theorem a2 + b2 = c2 OR a2 = c2 - b2 c a Which side is the hypotenuse? b The right angle points to the hypotenuse. It's the side labelled "c".
  • Title

    Title

    Over 9 millions Bound Volumes Over 330,000 Film and Video Materials Over 240,000 Monographs Purchased annually Over 420,000 HKALL Transactions annually A rich diversity of academic resources for Hong Kong and the Region 资源共享的优点: 超过九百万册藏书,33万视听资料,每年新增24万种图书 ;港书网每年有 ...
  • Definition & Unit Operation - جامعة نزوى

    Definition & Unit Operation - جامعة نزوى

    Illustrates the chemical process of various industries such as in refinery, petrochemicals, sulfuric acid, chlor-alkali industry, cement, glass, fertilizer, dairy, sugar, water, soap, etc, with particular emphasis on sultanate applications. Dr Salam Al-Dawery * Objectives of the Course Explain the...