Section_J_Atch_18-Sec_M_Eval_Factors_for_Award.pdf

Solicitation FA8617-17-6219 Section J - Attachment 18

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

- 1 -

SECTION M

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is determined, based on evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Source Selection Evaluation Board, the Source Selection Advisory Council, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is, by its nature, subjective, and professional judgment is, therefore, implicit throughout the entire process.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria (described below) in the solicitation. The overall structure of the source selection evaluation is depicted in Figure 1, Advanced Pilot Training (APT) Source Selection Strategy.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the Government based upon the assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

In order to be considered awardable, Offerors must meet the aforementioned affordability gate, receive a “Low” or “Moderate” technical risk rating for subfactors 1.1-1.5, and an “Acceptable” rating for subfactors 1.6-1.7. Any non-price factor and subfactor that is evaluated as “High” or “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

- 2 -

1.1 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one contract for the APT Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

Figure 1: Advanced Pilot Training (APT) Source Selection Strategy

NOTE: Should acceptable offerors have an identical Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP), then the offeror with the greatest calculated Risk Decrement (Table 1.3) will be considered more advantageous to the Government. Should acceptable offerors have an identical VATEP and an identical Risk Decrement (Table 1.3) then the offeror with the greatest calculated Performance Decrement (Table 1.10) will be considered more advantageous to the Government.

- 3 -

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will select the offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following factors: (1) Technical Performance and Risk and (2) Price. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

2.1 SOLICITATION / MODEL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. The elements to be evaluated are as follows: (References to specific paragraphs are for informational purposes only and do not mean other areas of Section L will be excluded from the evaluation described herein.)

1) Format/Discrepancies. (Section L)

2) Complete Proposal/Volumes. (Section L)

3) Compliance with Request for Proposal (RFP) Terms and Conditions. (Section L)

4) Intellectual Property Assertions. (Section L, paragraph 7.1.10.7)

5) Equal Employment Opportunity (IAW FAR 22.805, Procedures).

6) Earned Value Management System (IAW FAR 34.201(a), Policy (Earned Value Management System) and DFARS 252.234-7001 (DEVIATION 2015-O0017)(SEP 2015), Notice of Earned Value Management System).

7) Cost and Software Data Requirements (IAW DFARS 252.234-7003).

8) Department of Defense DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification (Compliance with Security Requirements must be verified to be evaluated as complete). (Section L, paragraph 7.1.10.1)

9) Expenditure Profile (Not to exceed Government Funding Profile). (Section L, paragraph 7.1.9).

2.2 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposed approach for Subfactors 1.1 – 1.5 will assign a technical risk indicator at the factor level.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposed approach for Subfactor 1.6 will assign a technical capability rating.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposed approach for Subfactor 1.7 will assign a Small Business rating.

The offeror’s proposed capabilities for Subfactor 1.8 will be used to calculate a Total Performance Total Evaluated Price (TEP) decrement.

- 4 -

2.2.1 Technical Risk Evaluation Process

Technical Risk for subfactors 1.1-1.5 will be assigned at the subfactor level and a technical risk indicator will be assigned at the factor level. All subfactors are considered of equal importance. If an offeror is rated as high or unacceptable risk in one or more subfactor(s), the offeror will be unawardable.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposed approach for the elements of Subfactors 1.1 – 1.4 will identify and document weaknesses as follows: (see Table 1.1 below)

Table 1.1: Definition of Weakness

Subfactors 1.1 – 1.4 will then receive one of the ratings described in Table 1.2. Subfactor 1.5 will be assigned a risk rating based on the offeror’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL). See Table 1.4 in section 2.2.6 below for details.

Table 1.2: Technical Risk Ratings

Type Definition per FAR 15.001

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

- 5 -

Proposals assessed as High risk or Unacceptable in subfactor 1.1-1.5 are unawardable.

Proposals evaluated as either Low or Moderate risk in subfactor 1.1-1.5 will receive an overall technical risk indicator of Acceptable (A) with an additional indicator of 1-6 as described in Table 1.3: Technical Risk Indicators. A lower numbered technical risk indicator is considered more advantageous to the Government and will contribute to the basis of a

VATEP.

Table 1.3: Technical Risk Indicators

# of Low Subfactors

# of Moderate Subfactors

# of High and Unsatisfactory

Subfactors Risk Indicator Decrement*

5 0 0 A/1 $ 350M

4 1 0 A/2 $ 275M

3 2 0 A/3 $ 200M

2 3 0 A/4 $ 125M

1 4 0 A/5 $ 50M

0 5 0 A/6 $ 0

0-4 0-4 > 0 Unacceptable N/A

*The decrement will be applied to the offeror’s TEP, which will be used for evaluation purposes.

2.2.2 Subfactor 1.1 - Systems Integration

This subfactor will be evaluated to identify the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirements associated with Systems Integration. The following elements will be evaluated for weaknesses and significant weaknesses, and these evaluations will roll up into one overall risk rating of low, moderate, high or unacceptable for this subfactor:

(Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.1)

1) Aerial Refueling

2) Anthropometrics

3) Software Development, Assurance, and Architecture

4) Design Maturity

5) Datalink and Network Connectivity

6) Embedded Training

7) Terrain Warning and Avoidance

- 6 -

2.2.3 Subfactor 1.2 - Systems Engineering/Program Management (SE/PM)

This subfactor will be evaluated to identify the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirements associated with SE/PM. The following elements will be evaluated for weaknesses and significant weaknesses, and these evaluations will roll up into one overall risk rating of low, moderate, high or unacceptable for this subfactor: (Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.2)

1) Schedule

2) Manufacturing and Quality

3) Airworthiness

2.2.4 Subfactor 1.3 - Training

This subfactor will be evaluated to identify the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirements associated with Training. The following elements will be evaluated for weaknesses and significant weaknesses, and these evaluations will roll up into one overall risk rating of low, moderate, high or unacceptable for this subfactor: (Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.3)

1) Aircrew Training Device (ATD) Fidelity

2) Type 1 Training

2.2.5 Subfactor 1.4 – Operations and Support

This subfactor will be evaluated to identify the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirements associated with Operations and Support. The following elements will be evaluated for weaknesses and significant weaknesses, and these evaluations will roll up into one overall risk rating of low, moderate, high or unacceptable for this subfactor:

(Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.4)

1) Reliability and Maintainability

2) Provisioning

2.2.6 Subfactor 1.5 - Technology Readiness Assessment

This subfactor will be evaluated to identify the risk associated with the Critical Technologies (CTs) proposed and the resulting Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). The Government will assess the offeror’s list of CTs for completeness using the detailed system description (Section L, Attachment 19). If the offeror’s list of CTs is incomplete, the risk assessment for this subfactor will result in a high risk rating. The Government will assign a TRL for each CT identified IAW Section 2.5, TRL Definitions, and Supporting Information, of Department of Defense Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, April 2011. The Subfactor 1.5 risk assessment will assign a risk rating based on the CT with the lowest TRL according to the Table 1.4 below. In the event the Source Selection Evaluation Board identifies no CTs, the

- 7 -overall risk assessment for this subfactor will result in a low risk rating. (Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.5)

Table 1.4 – TRL / Risk Ratings

TRL 1-5 TRL 6 TRL 7-9

Low X

Moderate X

High X

2.2.7 Subfactor 1.6 - Aircraft Performance

This subfactor will be evaluated and receive an Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) rating as described in Table 1.5. An unacceptable rating will result in an unawardable proposal.

Table 1.5: Technical Capability Ratings

Code Rating Description

A Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

U Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of this solicitation.

This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed aircraft ability to meeting Aircraft Performance requirements. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal substantiates the offeror’s ability to deliver an aircraft that meets the following requirements as documented in the Aircraft SS:

1) High G Maneuvering (Aircraft SS, Appendix D, paragraph 3.1.2.1, High G Maneuvering (Section L, Attachment 9); Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (1))

To be acceptable in this area the offeror must demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft by means of offeror-conducted flight test IAW Government-provided test procedures defined in Section L, Attachment 12, paragraph 1 and data requested in Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (1).

- 8 -

The offeror shall demonstrate that its proposed solution performs to the proposed G value.

The offeror's engineering authority-approved test plan, to include a data analysis plan as part of the test plan, will be evaluated using Edwards AFB Instruction 99-101, including the integrated Test Plan Content Checklist and Data Analysis Plan Content Checklist as a guide. An acceptable plan must, at a minimum, demonstrate a technically sound approach was used to collect, reduce, and analyze the data submitted in the proposal to substantiate this area.

2) Maneuverability

To be acceptable in this area the offeror shall demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, using data from flight test validated performance model output, and design analysis to show that its proposed solution performs the following maneuverability performance requirements:

a) Aircraft SS 3.1.3.6.1.1, Symmetric Maneuver Load Factors.

(Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (2)(a, b))

b) Aircraft SS 3.1.2.4, Instantaneous Turn Rate.

(Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (2)(c, d))

c) Aircraft SS 3.1.2.5, Sustained Turn Rate.

(Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (2)(c, d))

3) High Angle-of-Attack (AOA) Maneuvering (Aircraft SS, Appendix D, paragraph 3.1.2.6, High AOA Maneuvering (Section L, Attachment 9); Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (3))

To be acceptable in this area the offeror must demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft by means of offeror-conducted flight test IAW Government-provided test procedures defined in Section L, Attachment 12, and the data requested in Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (3).

The offeror shall demonstrate that its proposed solution performs High AOA maneuvering to the proposed AOA value.

The offeror's engineering authority-approved test plan, to include a data analysis plan as part of the test plan, will be evaluated using Edwards AFB Instruction 99-101 including the integrated Test Plan Content Checklist and Data Analysis Plan Content Checklist as a guide. An acceptable plan must, at a minimum, demonstrate a technically sound approach was used to collect, reduce, and analyze the data submitted in the proposal to substantiate this area.

- 9 -

4) Flight Endurance (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.1.2.7)

To be acceptable in this area the offeror shall demonstrate using data from flight test validated performance model output and design analysis that its proposed solution will perform the flight endurance requirements in the aforementioned Aircraft SS paragraph. (Section L, paragraph 4.2.1.6 (4))

2.2.8 Subfactor 1.7 – Small Business Participation

Pursuant to DFARS 215.304(c)(i), this area will be evaluated and assigned an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1.6, below. An “unacceptable” rating will result in an unawardable proposal. In order to be “acceptable” the offeror shall include all the required elements identified in FAR 52.219-9 and agree to the contractual requirements identified in Section H, Special Contract Requirement H-003, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements, evidenced by incorporating the percentage requirements in the offeror’s Small Business Plan and certification to same in the CEO Letter (Section L, Attachment 3).

Table 1.6: Small Business Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

- 10 -

2.2.9 Subfactor 1.8 – Utility Above Threshold

This subfactor will be evaluated and a TEP decrement will be computed for the eight elements listed below. Evaluation of the offeror’s proposed technical approach relating to the eight elements will be accomplished in the Section M paragraphs identified in Table 1.6a below:

Table 1.6a: Technical Evaluation of Elements

Subfactor 1.8

Utility above Threshold Proposed Values

Subfactor 1.8

Utility above Threshold Evaluation

1. High G Maneuvering (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.1.2.1)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.7 (1)

2. High AOA Maneuvering (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.1.2.6)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.7 (3)

3. Terrain Warning & Avoidance (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.2.3.5)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.2 (7)

4. GBTS Connectivity (Aircraft SS, paragraphs

3.2.4.5 and 3.2.4.5.1 and GBTS SS, paragraph 3.2.1.1.8, 3.3.1.3.1, 3.3.1.12.3, 3.3.5.6.7 and 3.4.6.4)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.2 (5)

5. Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration (Receiver) (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.4.2.1)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.2 (1)

- 11 -

6. Targeting Pod System Simulation (Aircraft SS, paragraph

3.6.6 and GBTS SS, paragraph 3.3.1.11.2)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.2 (6)

7. Ground Support Station (GSS) Connectivity (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.2.4.6, 3.2.4.6.1 and 3.2.4.6.2)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.2 (5)

8. Turn-around Time (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.8.8)

Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.5 (1)

- 12 -

The proposed capabilities provided in the Aircraft SS, Appendix D and in the GBTS SS, Appendix G of the offeror’s proposal will be used to populate Table 1.10. Calculation of the applicable TEP adjustments are described in the following subparagraphs:

1) High G Maneuvering (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.1.2.1)

The offeror will receive a $13.2M decrement to its TEP for every 0.1G proposed above threshold (6.5G) up to 7.0G. For every 0.1G proposed above 7.0G up to 7.5G, the offeror will receive a $4.4M decrement. Maximum decrement available for this element is $88.0M. All G values will be rounded down to the nearest 0.1G (e.g., 6.99G equals 6.9G).

Table 1.7

Proposed High G Value Decrement

6.6 $13.2M

6.7 $26.4M

6.8 $39.6M

6.9 $52.8M

7.0 $66.0M

7.1 $70.4M

7.2 $74.8M

7.3 $79.2M

7.4 $83.6M

7.5 $88.0M

- 13 -

2) High AOA Maneuvering (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.1.2.6)

The offeror will receive a $6.375M decrement to its TEP for every 0.5 degrees proposed above threshold (20 degrees) up to 23 degrees. For every 0.5 degrees proposed above 23 degrees up to 25 degrees, the offeror will receive a $3.1875M decrement. Maximum decrement available for this element is $51.0M. All AOA degree values will be rounded down to the nearest 0.5 degrees (e.g., 23.99 degrees equals 23.5 degrees).

Table 1.8

Proposed High AOA Value Decrement

20.5 $6.375M

21 $12.75M

21.5 $19.125M

22 $25.5M

22.5 $31.875M

23 $38.25M

23.5 $41.4375M

24 $44.625M

24.5 $47.8125M

25 $51.0M

- 14 -

3) Terrain Warning & Avoidance (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.2.3.5)

The offeror will receive a $27.0M decrement to its TEP for a proposed Terrain Warning and Avoidance capability that meets the objective requirement. Maximum decrement available for this element is $27.0M.

4) GBTS Connectivity (Aircraft SS, paragraphs 3.2.4.5 and 3.2.4.5.1 and GBTS SS, paragraph 3.2.1.1.8, 3.3.1.3.1, 3.3.1.12.3, 3.3.5.6.7 and 3.4.6.4)

The offeror will receive a $67.0M decrement to its TEP for a proposed GBTS Connectivity capability that meets the objective requirement. The objective requirement can only be met when the offeror’s proposal includes all specification requirements pertaining to GBTS Connectivity (Aircraft SS, requirements 3.2.4.5 and 3.2.4.5.1, and GBTS SS, requirements 3.2.1.1.8, 3.3.1.3.1, 3.3.1.12.3, 3.3.5.6.7 and 3.4.6.4). Maximum decrement available for this element is $67.0M.

5) Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration (Receiver) (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.4.2.1)

The offeror will receive a $13.0M decrement to its TEP for a proposed Aerial Refueling Full Integration (Receiver) capability that meets the objective requirement.

Maximum decrement available for this element is $13.0M.

6) Targeting Pod System Simulation (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.6.6 and GBTS SS, paragraph 3.3.1.11.2)

The offeror will receive a $17.0M decrement to its TEP for a proposed Targeting Pod System Simulation capability that meets the objective requirement. The objective requirement can only be met when the offeror’s proposal includes all specification requirements pertaining to Targeting Pod System Simulation (Aircraft SS, requirement 3.6.6, and GBTS SS, requirement 3.3.1.11.2). Maximum decrement available for this element is $17.0M.

7) Ground Support Station (GSS) Connectivity (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.2.4.6, 3.2.4.6.1 and 3.2.4.6.2)

The offeror will receive a $24.0M decrement to its TEP for a proposed GSS Connectivity capability that meets the objective requirement. Maximum decrement available for this element is $24.0M.

- 15 -

8) Turn-around Time (Aircraft SS, paragraph 3.8.8)

The offeror will receive a $4.25M decrement to its TEP for each proposed 1 minute increment reduction to the Turn-around Time capability below the threshold of 45 minutes. Maximum decrement available for this element is $51.0M. All time measurements will be rounded up to the nearest 1 minute (e.g., 43:01 minutes equals 44 minutes).

Table 1.9

Proposed Turn Around Time

(minutes) Decrement

44 $4.25M

43 $8.5M

42 $12.75M

41 $17.0M

40 $21.25M

39 $25.5M

38 $29.75M

37 $34.0M

36 $38.25M

35 $42.5M

34 $46.75M

33 $51.0M

- 16 -

The Government Evaluation Team will populate the table below using the offeror’s proposed capabilities, provided in the Aircraft SS, Appendix D and in the GBTS SS, Appendix G, and the respective TEP decrements from paragraphs 2.2.9 (1) through 2.2.9 (8) above. The Total Performance TEP decrement will be applied to the offeror’s TEP and will contribute to the basis of a VATEP. (See Figure 1 above)

Table 1.10 Decrement for Utility Above Threshold

SS Appendix D & G Proposed Capability Element Decrement

(Value) High G Maneuvering

(Value) High Angle of Attack Maneuvering

� Yes / � No Terrain Warning & Avoidance

� Yes / � No GBTS Connectivity

� Yes / � No Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full

Integration (Receiver)

� Yes / � No Targeting Pod System Simulation

� Yes / � No Ground Support Station (GSS)

Connectivity

(Value) Turn-around Time

Total Performance TEP Decrement

- 17 -

2.3 RESERVED

2.4 FACTOR 2 ‒ PRICE

2.4.1 Evaluation Process

Offeror’s price proposals will be evaluated in the areas identified below. The results of the price evaluation will be shown to the SSA for consideration in determining a best value decision.

2.4.2 Affordability Gate

The Government has established an affordability gate of $16,300,000,000. Using offeror-proposed prices, any affordability calculation that exceeds the Government’s affordability gate will be considered ineligible for award and no further evaluation of the proposal will be performed. The exact values used to calculate the affordability gate are identified in the TEP/Affordability Worksheets, Section L, Attachment 1a.

2.4.3 Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP)

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the VATEP. The VATEP will be calculated using prices from the proposed pricing tables, as adjusted for the Risk Indicator and the Utility Above Threshold Adjustments, respectively (see para 2.2.9 and Table 1.3, hereof). Even though all prices proposed will be evaluated, not every proposed price will be used in the TEP calculations.

The TEP is a notional quantity scenario that will be used to evaluate total price for the purpose of the source selection only. Evaluation of this scenario shall not obligate the Government to execute the contract according to the scenario. After contract award, the Government will execute the contract in accordance with the proposed prices, not the TEP.

The exact values used to calculate the TEP are identified in the TEP/Affordability Worksheets, Section L, Attachment 1a.

2.4.4 Reasonableness

Price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through a review of the submitted price curves and cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

2.4.5 Realism

Price realism will not be evaluated as part of this source selection.

2.4.6 Unbalanced Pricing

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated, as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(g). The Government will analyze proposals (including the submitted price curves) to determine whether unbalanced pricing exists. All prices in the proposed pricing tables will be evaluated for balance (every proposed price in

- 18 -every cell of the pricing tables, to include individual prices not included in the TEP calculation, will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing). A proposal may be considered unawardable if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable program risk to the Government.

3 DISCUSSIONS

Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The Government also reserves the right to award a contract without discussions to the offeror that represents the best value to the Government. To prepare for that possibility, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from both a price and a technical standpoint. In the event the Government opens discussions with offerors found to be in the competitive range the offerors may be given the opportunity to update their proposals.

If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the offerors’ responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

- 19 -

ACRONYMS

AFFARS Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulations Standards

AOA Angle of Attack

APT Advanced Pilot Training

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CT Critical Technologies

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

GBTS Ground Based Training System

GSS Ground Support Station

IAW In Accordance With

MS B Milestone B

RFP Request for Proposal

SE/PM Systems Engineering / Program Management

SOW Statement of Work

SS System Specification

SSA Source Selection Authority

TEP Total Evaluated Price

TRL Technology Readiness Level

VATEP Valued Adjusted Total Evaluated Price