24_C-5 SDC Section L.pdf

Section L Attachment 24 27 April 2022

TRADEOFF PROCEDURE

SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN UTILIZATION AND TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

WITH PAST PERFORMANCE, TECHNICAL/TECHNICAL RISK, AND COST/PRICE

TRADEOFF

L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror's proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the C-5 Supplemental Depot Capability contract requirement as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

Proposals must be received by

AFLCMC/WLSK

235 Byron Street, Suite 19A Robins AFB, GA, 31098-1670 Attention: Erica Martin, Aliscia Pitts and Kristen Mason

Proposals must be received no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP. However, offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received 30 calendar days after the release of the RFP. Failure to submit Volume III by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

B. Communications: Exchanges of Source Selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted and must include "Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104" in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, Source Selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or DoD SAFE. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Government Buyer/PCO indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. When submitting source selection information via email, file compression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted. If an offeror's computer system cannot support encryption technology, the offeror shall send the PCO correspondence at the time that it submits its proposal stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail if it chooses to utilize unencrypted email as a channel of communication.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in five separate volumes as set forth:

VOLUME PAGE LIMITS NUMBER OF COPIES DESCRIPTION

I N/A* 1 Electronic Media/2

Paper* Completed RFP/Total Compensation Plan (Page limit is 6) /Cross Reference Matrix

II 25 1 Electronic Media/4 Paper**

Written Technical Proposal

III N/A PPI Tool /4 Paper*** Past Performance IV N/A 1 Electronic Media/2 Paper Small Business Concern

Utilization V 5 1 Electronic Media/2 Paper Cost/Price

* Proposal information shall be submitted in written form (2 copies for Volumes I, IV, and V; 4 copies for Volumes II, and III) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy for all Volumes) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media.

CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government. Electronic media shall consist of one file per volume in PDF format, except for native files of MS Excel (.xls) or MS Project (.mpp) format, and other similar files not readily convertible into PDF without a significant loss of functionality. In the event of a disparity between the paper and the electronic versions of the proposals, the electronic version of the proposal will control.

For paper copy submittal, offerors shall provide advance notification of submission and provide notice to: Erica Martin, Aliscia Pitts and Kristen Mason. Advance notification should include tracking information for mailed proposals.

**Proposal information shall be submitted in electronic media form (CD-R or DVD-R) (write once/read only) (1 copy each for Volumes I, II, IV and V that is "closed'' so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

https://safe.apps.mil/

*** Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in the RFP Attachment 12, Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool, to electronically submit the Past Performance information. The offeror must submit an email request to the Buyer/PCO indicated on the face page of the solicitation to receive access to the PPI Tool via DoD Safe https://safe.apps.mil/. The offeror is also required to submit a hardcopy Past Performance Volume III that includes an Attachment 20, Relevancy Table. Line spacing, font size (etc.) restrictions do not apply to the pages that are generated by the PPI Tool. Past Performance shall be submitted in written form (4 copies) and in electronic media form (CD-R or DVD-R) (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable.

Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror's name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2" X 11,'' excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc.

Integrated Master Schedules (IMS), charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11" x 17", and font size of no smaller than 9 will be allowable. Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Each volume shall be submitted in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) and labeled. Elaborate formats, bindings, color presentations are not desired or required. In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format.

3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal is 25 pages. The page limitations include any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes IMS, cover page, any table of contents, or list of acronyms (if utilized). IMS charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets etc. may be on fold-out pages, but must fold within the page size specified, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches. Pages printed on one side shall count as one page, and pages printed on both sides shall count as two pages. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation or sent back to the offeror. Each technical subfactor must have a separate and clearly identified section within Volume II, Written Technical Proposal.

4. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

5. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

6. Each page should contain the following legend at the top and bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

B. Volume I, Completed RFP/Total Compensation Plan/Cross Reference Matrix

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model (see paragraph F for instructions). Any rates, factors or prices entered in Section B of the RFP will not be considered, and those entered in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model shall take precedence. In addition, if there are any discrepancies between the rates, factors, and prices shown in the paper copy of the Cost/Price proposal versus those entered/shown in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model, the rates, factors, and prices entered/shown in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model shall take precedence.

2. Total Compensation Plan: Professional Employee Compensation. The offeror and subcontractors/teaming partners/joint venture partners who will be providing a meaningful number of total number of professional employees shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefit package proposed for the professional employees, as required under FAR 52.222-46. For this acquisition, a meaningful number of professional employees is defined as 15. The prime Offeror should instruct its subcontractors to submit their total compensation plan directly to the contracting officer. The prime Offeror shall also submit a list of the subcontractors to include points of contact and phone numbers who will be submitting professional employee compensation packages to the Government. The total compensation plan submitted in the proposal will not become part of the awarded contract. The plan shall set forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees as prescribed in the instructions below:

Total Compensation Plan. Provide the planned compensation for all professional employee labor categories proposed to perform the effort. Describe the job skills and qualification requirements associated with each identified labor category. Identify the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code for each labor category using the

Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC system. The labor categories shall be identified by geographic location of contract performance. Provide the corresponding salary and quantified fringe benefits for each labor category. The fringe benefit data shall also include a description of the benefits offered, and to which professional employee category the fringe benefits would apply.

Surveys and Studies. Provide the recent surveys and studies from professional, public, and private organizations (e.g., Watson & Wyatt, Economic Research Institute, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.) used to support the proposed salaries and fringes. Identify the source with the provided surveys and studies. If not using one of the sources listed above, explain the credibility of the source providing the surveys and studies.

Offeror’s/subcontractor’s/teaming partner’s/joint venture partner’s Assessment. Discuss how the proposed total compensation plan package and the Surveys and Studies above are consistent and reflects a sound management approach, an understanding of the contract requirements, and will provide uninterrupted high-quality work. Also address how your proposed salary and fringe benefits will facilitate the recruitment and retaining of employees.

3. Cross Reference Matrix: The offeror shall fill out the cross-reference matrix at

Attachment 12 indicating where in its proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents including the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Work Specification, the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

4. Organizational Conflict of Interest Resolution: The offeror shall identify and evaluate potential organizational conflicts of interest. The offer shall include a plan to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential conflicts before award.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation.

The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior http://www.bls.gov/soc/ knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address the following technical subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

3. Assumptions: For the purposes of the technical evaluation only, offerors should assume there will be two (2) inducted C-5M PDM aircraft with repairs/modifications, and up to two (2) inducted UDLM aircraft for the first year of performance. Offerors can also assume contract award and first aircraft delivery May 2023. Subsequent PDM aircraft will be inducted in even/equal intervals across the remainder of the contract period of performance.

4. Subfactor 1: Production Plan: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a Production Plan for standing up and implementing C-5 Supplemental Depot Capability PWS requirements. The requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a detailed narrative that addresses the following areas:

4.1 Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) Approach and Schedule of Tasks The Offeror’s approach should include an overarching narrative description of how the offeror intends to organize, manage, and facilitate Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) and Unscheduled Depot Level Maintenance (UDLM) workloads. In addition, offerors should submit a project based Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) delineating the following: no more than 200 total schedule tasks, task duration, task predecessors and successors, task linkages, and program critical path. This sample IMS should cover expected activities from pre-induction through sell of the completed PDM activities, keeping in mind the 200 task limit. Offerors should provide IMS details below WBS level 3 for honeycomb Torque Deck Panel inspection and repair activities. The remaining IMS submitted can be limited to WBS level 3 due to task number limitations.

Offerors should provide project and Gantt formats. If offerors deliver an IMS exceeding 200 tasks, only the first 200 tasks will be evaluated. The offeror’s proposal shall address potential risks and challenges. Include critical subcontractors in the narrative.

4.2 Manpower Skills and Certification Narrative

The Offeror’s approach should include a manpower narrative description addressing the manpower plan for pre-production activities, PDM, UDLM, and repair/modification tasks (to include quantity of required personnel, skill mixes, personnel available, training plan and required certifications, and a phased plan for hiring additional personnel, if needed to meet requirements). The Offeror’s narrative should also address quantity and quality of personnel needed and provide descriptions of how their manpower skills and certification narrative leads to successful accomplishment of PWS requirements.

4.3 Engineering and Repair Narrative

The Offeror’s approach should describe supplies/parts, equipment and processes to repair one metal bond honeycomb Torque Deck Panel. Include personnel required to support the repair (broken down by repair phase), support equipment and special tooling required, description of damage, to include method of determining damage, proposed solution including engineering analysis, description of maintenance/repair description including metal bond material selection process and Quality Assurance/Quality Control required to execute repair. Approach should also include a sample material certification submission.

Damage is generally described as a disbond to an aged honey comb panel beyond repair limits IAW TO 1C-5M-3. Approach should be comprehensive and include supply chain, and engineering requirements/processes required for this repair.

Offeror’s narrative should include details of the structural bonding process in specific enough detail to express depth of understanding and comprehension of the structural bonding process.

Assumptions: All engineering data required to perform the repair is available, as referenced to the TO below. Assume there are no Torque Deck Panels available in the supply chain.

Scenario Details: Determine area of delamination and method of limits determination on the aircraft, the damage is a 20 inch by 30 inch delamination on the upper skin and a 20 inch by 20 inch delamination directly below the upper skin delamination which is beyond allowable damage limits in accordance with TO 1C-5M-3. The damage continues under a bulkhead where fasteners secure the brace to the upper torque deck panel. There is also corrosion damage to a 20 inch by 20 inch honeycomb core in the middle of the upper and lower delamination that requires replacement.

Total Engineering and repair Narrative description shall be limited to eight (8) pages to include sample certifications.

4.4 Supply Support Narrative

The Offeror’s approach should include a supply support narrative description addressing their overarching approach to accommodate supply needs for this requirement and improve the overall supply posture.

Offerors should provide a plan that delineates the process the offeror would take to resolve these part problems, to include what actions the offeror would take to source the part, timelines associated with actionable steps and be inclusive of actions the offeror would take if suitable and/or recommended alternate part replacements would be a part of their plan. Offerors should evaluate their proposed solution against supply issue timelines to highlight advantages their proposed solution has against existing supply options. Offerors plan should be all inclusive and actionable, as this is a known part/supply issue. Offerors respective plans for resolution may be necessary as a part of the resulting award.

Offerors should also identify viable courses of action to mitigate the following parts, with known supply issues:

i. Landing Gear Drag Link, NSN 1620-01-181-9975UC, known supply issues include: The Landing Gear Drag Link is a 100% PDM replacement item managed by DLA. Current DLA stock on hand is not adequate to support all customers and has been driving C-5 MICAPs over the past year. DLA issues are driven primarily by limited qualified vendors, coupled with long lead times associated with manufacture.

ii. Door Lock Assembly, NSN 1560-00-175-3930UC, known supply issues include: The Door Lock Assembly is a 100% PDM replacement item managed by DLA. Currently, the stock on-hand is not adequate to support the PDM or any other customer requirements. This has caused C-5 MICAPs over the past year. DLA issues are driven by vendors with contracts delayed due to subcontractors’ inability to produce First Article Tests.

5. Subfactor 2: Facilities Plan: The Offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an approach for having, or for having access to, facilities for ground operations and maintenance of C-5 aircraft. The Offeror shall fully describe and address the following:

The Offerors’ approach should include an approach for having, or for having access to, facilities for Programmed Depot Maintenance of C-5 aircraft. The facilities narrative description should address facilities layout, to include hangar space, ramp space, large parts storage (indoor and outdoor), back-shops, runway and taxiways, shop capabilities and constraints, to include Phosphoric Acid Anodize (PAA) / Sulfuric Acid Anodize (SAA) capability and compliance with relevant process specifications, Boeing Aircraft Corporation (BAC) 5555 and AS TM D3933-98. It is not expected of Offerors to have facilities up and running at the time of proposal submission, but Offerors should provide a proposed approach to have those facilities up and running to meet pre-induction requirements of no more than 270 days.

Note: The Government may choose to perform a pre-award site survey to verify prime and subcontractor (if applicable) facilities can meet the requirements set forth in this solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: The Offeror shall utilize the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool in order to submit Volume III, Past Performance. The Offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the PPI Tool, Instructions contained in Attachment 21; Relevancy Table, Attachment 20, and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will be responsible for any of the following essential maintenance packages: Engine/Engine Changes, Life Support Equipment, or Machine/Mechanical Items or those entities expected to conduct greater than or equal to 30% of the overall effort, based on the offeror’s proposed price.

Please note essential maintenance package work includes removal, replacement or repair of defects.

Machine/Mechanical Items includes the following: Forward Ramp, Aft Ramp, Main Landing Gear, Center, Aft Pressure and Forward Crew Entry Doors, Visors, Horizontal Stabilizer, Nose Radome Plug, Wing Tips and Forward Ramp Extension.

Please reference PWS Paragraph 4.2.6.2 for additional information.

2. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume III - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and critical subcontractor (nature of work and percentage of overall work). Summary page information must clearly communicate that proposed critical subcontractor(s) meet the definition of a critical subcontractor established above. Efforts submitted for proposed critical subcontractors not meeting the established definition will not be evaluated.

Each offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for three (3) active or completed contracts (with at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three (3), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its three (3) most recent and relevant contracts. Please note that the offeror/joint venture member shall be the party to submit all performance information in the PPI Tool. The offeror's/joint venture member’s or critical subcontractor’s present and past performance information, which is the same work as required for the instant effort, may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation if it is the same work as that required for the instant effort and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The information in the PPI Tool shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract.

Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or series of orders) under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government, for an ordering type contractual vehicle, shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order).

When submitting an individual order (or series of orders) under an ordering type contractual vehicle, it is important that the offeror’s past performance information be submitted in the correct format. There are specific places for submission of this information in the PPI Tool and the Relevancy Table, Attachment 20. Please ensure the information submitted, in the PPI Tool and the Relevancy Table (Attachment 20), is for each order (or series of orders), in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself.

This includes but is not limited to information such as the Dollar Value and Period of Performance.

When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, Paragraph II.D.3 for details on how the Government will evaluate each effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical/scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M paragraph II.D.4 Note, the offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible, to provide the longest length and the highest dollar value orders that are relevant to this instant acquisition. However, a series of orders should only be submitted if the series of orders is for continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to this particular effort. Not all ordering type contractual vehicles will have series of orders that meet this criteria. If this is the case, only the single order demonstrating relevant technical scope should be submitted for evaluation.

3.1 Series of Orders: When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror should list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy, as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M paragraph II.D.4. Per the Note in Section M paragraph II.D.4, Relevancy consists of not only scope and magnitude (i.e. dollar value and period of performance) but also programmatic/logistical considerations (body of work). The programmatic/logistical considerations include maintenance support to specific aircraft. If an offeror submits a series of orders for evaluation, the total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders), the period of performance dates of each order (in the series of orders), shall be submitted. The total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Dollar Value to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total period of performance of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Period of Performance to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The type and complexity of data deliverables provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders, being submitted, should be for the same continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror or Points of Contacts provided to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Key Personnel: In considering past performance, The Government WILL NOT consider “Key Personnel” of the offeror/joint venture member even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

5. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the PPI Tool, Instructions available in Attachment 21 and the Relevancy Table (Attachment 20) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) and/or critical subcontractors authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see Attachment 18). The consent form should be completed by the team member(s) and/or critical subcontractors identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume III.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the three (3) contracts submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the PPI Tool concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if these clauses are or were contained in the contract. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL businesses, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

7. PPI Tool and Relevancy Table Attachment: The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor must submit information for each past performance effort in the PPI Tool and the Attachment 20, Relevancy Table. The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor shall focus its responses in the PPI Tool and Attachment 20, Relevancy Table so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The information must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the PPI Tool. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs in the PPI Tool:

a. Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent b.Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

c. Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent d.Other (As specified in the PPI Tool)

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and actions taken to resolve those causes in the information provided in the PPI Tool for each contract identified for evaluation. Problems not addressed in the PPI Tool, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

8. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see

Attachment 16) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out – and track the completion of - the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attachment 16 to each of the offeror’s, joint venture member’s and/or critical subcontractors’ (i.e., each entity’s) Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each PPI Tool. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (see Attachment 19) shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire via email or mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph I.B. Communications above, and email to: erica.martin.2@us.af.mil, aliscia.pitts@us.af.mil, and kristen.mason@us.af.mil. If mailing, the POCs may return the completed questionnaires via mail directly to:

AFLCMC/WLSK

ATTN: Erica Martin, Aliscia Pitts and Kristen Mason 235 Byron Street, Suite 19A, Robins AFB, GA, 31098-1670

If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

1. NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

9. Client Authorization Letter: In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see Attachment 17). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

10. Follow-up Discussions: The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the PPI Tool or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may obtain other mailto:janice.williams.5@us.af.mil mailto:aliscia.pitts@us.af.mil information by sending out additional questionnaires and through other sources, other than those listed in the PPI Tool.

11. RFP Attachment Legend: All completed RFP and RFP Attachments must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

D. Volume IV, Small Business Participation

1. General: The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The offeror/joint venture member and each proposed critical subcontractor shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business Participation proposal is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business Participation proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation proposal for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled “Volume IV – Small Business Participation”. The Small Business Participation proposal shall address each of the following elements in the proposed performance of this resultant contract:

a. The extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

b. The description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform;

and,

c. The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars. If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, provide rationale for such. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Rather, adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals. Additionally, if the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor is a small business concern, it should include the work it will be performing when calculating the goals for your Small Business Concern Utilization information.

E. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. General Instructions: The Offeror shall submit the following with its Volume V, Cost/Price Factor Proposal Submission:

1.1 A completed CLIN cost/price Excel spreadsheet as provided in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model. This attachment will include a cost model for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, X005, X006, and X007. This attachment is a live, working price/cost model in Microsoft Excel including formulas. All spaces highlighted in yellow designate place for proposed numbers for all elements of cost. On tab ‘CLIN X005 O&A Rate’, all indirect costs, factors, CERs, etc. shall include the bases and calculations to arrive at computed amounts. Format for Cost Model is supplied in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements can be found in Section 9 below. CLINs X001 and X002 required proposed Target Cost per Unit, Unit Cost of Money (if Applicable), and Target Profit. CLIN X003 requires fully burdened rates to be proposed for each labor category per Period of Performance (PoP).

CLIN X004 requires proposed fixed price task costs per PoP. CLIN X005 requires the calculation to arrive at ONE, burdened Over & Above (O&A) rate.

1.2 Detailed table of contents.

1.3 Glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

1.4 Definitions as necessary.

1.5 List identifying each major/minor subcontractors and vendors, reflecting the estimated total price for CLIN X005.

1.6 Date of current FPRA/FPRR for Prime and all subcontractors with a proposed value equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as major subcontractors) for CLIN X005. Rates and factors shall be supplied for Prime and all major subcontractors for CLIN X005. If an FPRA/FPRR is not available, refer below to paragraph 1.9, Cost and Pricing Data Requirements.

1.7 Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of the

Offeror’s (and the Offeror’s subcontractors and teaming partners) cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administrative contracting officers (ACO) and cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) offices.

1.8 Synopsis of Current Estimating, Purchasing, Cost Accounting Standards, Disclosure Statement, Accounting Systems, and Adequacy Determination for the Prime Contractor:

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s standard estimating system or methods, current policies, and/or new policies. The

Offeror shall state whether the estimating system and new policies have been reviewed by the Government and shall provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited estimating system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard estimating procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited estimating system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s purchasing system or methods. The Offeror shall state whether the purchasing system has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval.

The Offeror shall provide any known/cited purchasing system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard purchasing procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited purchasing system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a) (3) and 9.104-1(e), the Offeror shall utilize an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s accounting system and state whether it is compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Offeror shall also state whether the accounting system has been reviewed and approved by the Government and provide evidence of the review and approval by DCAA / DCMA. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited accounting system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal. For known/cited accounting system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues. In the event the Offeror’s accounting system has not been reviewed and approved by DCAA/DCMA, the Offeror shall complete the enclosed ‘Pre-Award Survey’ (RFP Attachment 23) and submit the completed document as part of Volume V: Cost/Price submission. The Government will forward the document to DCAA in order to initiate their review of the Offeror’s accounting system(s) to determine if it is adequate for a cost-reimbursement contract.

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s current Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement. The Offeror shall state whether the current Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The Offeror shall provide any currently known/cited Cost Accounting Standards non-compliances and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited Cost Accounting Standards non-compliances provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

1.9 Cost or Pricing Data Requirements

It is anticipated that pricing of this action will be based on adequate price competition; therefore, Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, if after receipt of proposals it is determined that adequate price competition does not exist, certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data) shall be required.

Elemental Cost Breakouts, Irrespective of the presence of adequate price competition, breakouts by individual cost elements shall be provided for proposed O&A Burdened rate as applicable to CLIN X005 for the Prime offeror and all major subcontractors to assist in the determination of realism. Elemental cost breakouts shall be provided as part of the offeror’s proposal, and shall be in .xls file format (with live working formulas) as provided in the “CLIN X005 O&A Rate” worksheet contained within Attachment 01. Any other type of file format will not be accepted.

Offerors should refer to the format indicated in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408 for instructions on submitting acceptable elemental cost breakouts. Note that the Offeror’s proposed fixed-fee percentage shall not exceed ten percent (10.0%) per the statutory limitations imposed by 10 U.S.C.

2306(d) and 41 U.S.C. 3905.

NOTE: Certified Cost or Pricing Data is Not Required unless it is determined that adequate price competition does not exist.

In support of the elemental cost breakouts, all offerors (Prime and major subcontractors) who have neither a FPRA nor a FPRR shall submit the following items/information as part of their proposal. If any of the items/information is not available for a particular offeror, it shall be noted in the offeror’s response to the RFP.

(a) Previous three years’ actual historical rates for each individual cost element used in developing the proposed burdened O&A Rate

(b) Breakout of actual expenses included in the indirect cost pools and respective bases, from the previous three years

(c) Breakout of the budgeted forecasts for the indirect pools and bases used in developing the proposed burdened O&A Rate, covering the entire contract period (Basic and Options)

(d) Certified payroll verification with current labor rates, cross-referenced to the respective proposed labor categories shall be provided in support of the proposed direct labor rates for year one. If year one proposed rates are not supported by current labor, offeror shall provide assumptions for hiring individuals, and labor rates that will be offered.

All information submitted in support of items a-c above shall be in .xls file format with live working formulas. Any other type of file format will not be accepted for items a-c, but is acceptable for item d. It is the offeror’s/joint venture member’s responsibility to review all proposals submitted by any major subcontractor for accuracy and format. It is also the offeror’s/joint venture member’s responsibility to submit all major subcontractor proposed rates burdened through fee as part of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s proposal. For any of the above referenced information that a major subcontractor may not be willing to provide directly to the offeror/joint venture member, the offeror/joint venture member shall instruct the major subcontractor to provide that information directly to the Government in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.404-1(d), cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost- reimbursement contracts (including CPFF). All offerors and subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (for the entire effort to include Options) shall provide data other than certified cost and pricing data using spreadsheet ‘CLIN X005 O&A Rate’ (see Attachment 01).