Attach 03 - KC-135 CCR Section L - Instructions to Offerors.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

CENTER CONSOLE REFRESH (CCR)

AFLCMC/WLTK Legacy Tanker Division

Controlled by: Air Force - AFLCMC/WLTK Controlled by: AFLCMC/PZK-3 CUI Category: Procurement and Acquisition - Source Selection Distribution/Dissemination Controls: FEDCON POC: Sandra Newton, PH: 405-622-7835, CELL: 813-743-0012, Sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil mailto:Sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil

Attachment 3 Section L

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

The government plans to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the KC-135 Center Console Refresh (CCR) program. The USAF needs an updated Fuel System (FS) and Flight Display System (FDS) due to obsolescence and is looking for innovative ideas to not only replace but improve these systems with turn-key solutions enabling supportability and future growth. The FS includes the Integrated Fuel Management Panel (IFMP), Fuel Management Advisory Computer (FMAC), and Tank Interface Unit (TIU). The FDS includes the Multi-Function Displays (MFD) and Control Display Units (CDU). The FS, FDS and future growth/adaptability define the scope of the CCR program. The USAF desires to identify a solution that will allow the systems to retain their functionality by replacing aging parts and components on the KC-135 with current solutions.

1.1. Contract Award

Award will be made on the basis of best value utilizing Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures. Award will be made to the contractor that provides the best value to the government over the entire period of performance.

1.2. Budget/Funding Information

Funding will be obligated on individual orders, as required, for the Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) established in the basic contract, as well as the Cost Reimbursable (CR) for Travel.

1.3. Facility Clearance Information

The Offeror, and subcontractors working classified requirements with access to classified information, must possess, prior to award, a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation. The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify final facility clearances prior to award. Offerors who do not have a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation in the ISFD database one business day prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision Brief will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an Offeror is non-responsible will be IAW FAR Part 9.

2.0 General Instructions

2.1.1. This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered non-responsive to the solicitation and therefore ineligible for award. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW) and appendices. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.1.2. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. 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 that the government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

2.1.3. Elaborate brochures, documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

2.1.4. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid until this date.

2.1.5. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1.6 All or parts of the Offeror’s technical proposal will be added to the contract. Should there be any discrepancies between the technical proposal and the SOW or Systems Requirement Document (SRD), the SOW and SRD will take precedence.

2.2. General Information

2.2.1. Point of Contact

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the PCO at the address located in Section A of the model contract/solicitation.

2.2.2. Debriefings

The PCO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre- award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The PCO will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.2.3. Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the PCO to consider as related to the omission or error. The Offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

2.2.4. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the System for Award Management (SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.2.5. Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation upon submission of the Offeror’s proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the Offeror’s proposal are subject to solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1(b).

2.2.6. Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals Proposal packages shall be transmitted to the Solicitation CO via DoD SAFE (safe.apps.mil). Physical delivery of proposal packages will not be accepted. See ITO sections 2.6 & 2.7.

2.2.7 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. E-mail (encrypted when possible or with password protected attachments) may be used to transmit such information to offerors and shall include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

– CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION” in the subject line.

2.3. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

2.3.1. The title page of each volume must show solicitation number, name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror and electronic e-mail address if available.

2.3.2. A team list of the Offeror’s primary point of contacts shall be submitted in each volume using the format shown in Attachment 2 of the ITO.

2.3.3. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.3 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.3. The attachments identified below shall be submitted in separate electronic files and uploaded to DoD SAFE as described in paragraph 2.5. and 2.6. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table 2.3. Proposal Organization

Volume

ITO

Paragraph Number

Volume Title

Electronic Copies Page Limit

I 3.0 Technical 1 75

2.3.1 Title Page (Not included in 75 page limit) 1

2.3.2 Team List (see ITO Attachment 2.0) (Not

included in 75 page limit) 5

3.2.2 Table of Contents (Not included in 75 page

limit) Unlimited

3.2.2 List of Tables, Drawings, and Figures (Not

included in 75 page limit) Unlimited

3.2.2 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

(Not included in 75 page limit) Unlimited

3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6

Subfactor 1 Integration & Installation Plan Subfactor 2 Future Growth/Adaptability Subfactor 3 Small Business Participation Subfactor 4 Data Rights

Included as part of the 75 page limit

4.0 Technical Risk

Included as part of the 75 page limit

II 5.0 Past Performance 1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page 1

2.3.2 Team List (See ITO Attachment 2.0) 5

5.1 Past Performance Information Forms

(PPIF) (See ITO Attachment 1.1) N/A

5.1.2 Consent Letter (See ITO Attachment 1.4) Unlimited

5.1.3 Client Authorization Letters (See ITO

Attachment 1.5) Unlimited

5.1.4 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter

(See ITO Attachment 1.6) Unlimited

5.2.2 Present/Past Performance Questionnaires

(See ITO Attachment 1.2)

Not included in the

Offeror’s Proposal

5.3.2 Relevant Contract Narrative

Request Max 5 pages per contract

5.3.4 Organizational Structure Change History 2

III 6.0 Price 1 Unlimited

6.1 General Information Unlimited

6.5 Volume Organization Unlimited

IV 7.0 Contract Documentation 1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page (SF1447) 1

2.3.2 Team List (see ITO Attachment 2.0) 5

2.3.3 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.3.9 List of Tables, Figures, and Drawings Unlimited

2.3.10 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

7.1 Model Contract (Sections A-J) N/A

7.1.4 Representations and Certifications (Section

K) N/A

W 7.3.2-7.3.3 Contact Information Unlimited

7.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract Unlimited

2.3.4 Names

Offerors shall submit volumes with the following file names: Volume I – Technical.doc or .docx, Volume II – Past Performance.doc or .docx, Volume III – Price.doc or .docx with PricingMatrix.xlsx, and Volume IV – Contract.doc or docx. Files provided in .pdf format are also acceptable if conversion is made from a Word document or equivalent Word processing software while maintaining searchable text.

2.3.5. Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may also be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, indexes, glossaries, and those noted in the Proposed Organization Chart as unlimited.

2.3.6. Pricing Information

All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation volumes. Price Trade-Off information, work hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and Trade- Off decisions.

2.3.7. Cross Referencing

The technical volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for the technical proposal evaluation, which is not found in the technical volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal, and will not be considered in the technical evaluation. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The past performance and price evaluation will utilize information from each’s respective volume for the evaluation but may also utilize information from other volumes as well.

The Offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided in Table 2.2 that will indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph or location which addresses the referenced item. The Offeror cross-reference matrix shall be included in all volumes and does not count towards any page limits. The Offeror cross-reference matrix shall include the proposal reference information as it relates to the instructions, SOW contents, RFP sections, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), Contractor Data Requirements List (CDRL) references (if applicable), and the corresponding proposal paragraph in the section which addresses the reference item as part of Volume I – Technical; Volume III – Price.

Table 2.2 Cross-Reference Matrix

Cross Reference SOW Para

RFP

Attachment 3

– Section L

RFP

Attachment 4

– Section M

Proposal (Volume &

Para)

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL 3.2.1 2.2

Subfactor 1 – Integration & Installation Plan

4.7 3.2.3 2.2.1

1a – Integration, test and certification for 2 Prototypes

1.0, 4.2.5.6, 4.2.6.2, 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.6, 4.5.1, 4.6, 4.8.15, 4.11.2, 4.11.3

3.2.3.a 2.2.1.a

1b – Installation 1.1, 4.1.5.1, 4.2.3.3.4, 4.3.1, 4.7, 4.11.2

3.2.3.b 2.2.1.b

1c – Packaging, Transportation and Storage

1.0, 4.2.9, 4.2.9.1, 4.2.9.2, 4.8.2, 4.11.13

3.2.3.c 2.2.1.c

1d – Letter of Intent (LOI) 3.2.3.d 2.2.1.d Subfactor 2 – Future Growth/Adaptability

1.1, 3.1, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.10 3.2.4 2.2.2

2a – Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)

3.1, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.10 3.2.4.a 2.2.2.a

2b – Creative Trade Space 1.1 3.2.4.b 2.2.2.b Subfactor 3 – Small Business Participation

3.2.5 2.2.3

Subfactor 4 – Data Rights 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.1, 4.4.2.2, 4.8.9, 4.11.2,

3.2.6 2.2.4

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

RISK

4.0 2.3

Technical Risk Assessment 4.1.5.1, 4.2.3.3.4, 4.2.5.1.3 Table 2.3.1

FACTOR 3: PAST

PERFORMANCE

5.0 2.4

FACTOR 4: PRICE 6.0 2.5

2.3.8. Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.3.9. Include an indexed list of tables, figures, and drawings.

2.3.10. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.4. Page Size and Format

2.4.1. A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Page line spacing shall be 1.5 lines. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than Arial 12 point. Offerors are prohibited from using other Arial fonts such as Arial Black, Arial Narrow or Arial Rounded MT Bold. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top, bottom, and side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notice (ENs).

2.4.2. Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for pages of text. The following limitation only applies to the technical volume. Text intended for evaluation within all figures, charts, tables, and graphs, to include imbedded images, shall be no less than Arial 10 point. These limitations shall apply to electronic proposals. Any text within figures, charts, tables, and graphs which do not meet this requirement will not be considered in the evaluation. These limitations shall apply to both electronic proposals.

2.5. Labeling

A cover sheet shall be included in each proposal volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. For each proposal volume, the Offeror shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.6. Electronic Offers

All proposals shall be submitted using DoD SAFE, https://safe.apps.mil/. All interested offerors must e-mail the PCO, Ms. Sandra Newton (sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil) and Contract Specialist, Shanita Manuel (shanita.manuel@us.af.mil) in order to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE. One of the Government Points of Contact (GPOCs) will send an e-mail to the Offeror acknowledging the request for a proposal drop-off code in DoD Safe. The GPOC e-mail acknowledging the request will not be sent to the Offeror after close of business hours, weekends, or on nationally observed holidays. If you do not receive an acknowledgement e-mail from either of the GPOCs after 72 hours, you must send another e-mail. E-mails will not be returned after close of business hours, weekends, or on nationally observed holidays. After the e-mail request for a drop-off code has been sent from the Offeror and the Offeror has received the acknowledgment e-mail from either GPOC, the Offeror will then receive an e-mail from DoD SAFE to drop-off proposals and other requested documents. If the Offeror does not receive the e-mail from DoD SAFE the Offeror will need to check SPAM and JUNK folders before requesting another drop-off code from the GPOC. The request for drop-off is only valid for 14 calendar days. If the 14 calendar days has expired and the RFP is still open, the Offeror may send another e-mail request for drop-off code to the GPOCs e-mail addresses listed above.

Be advised that classified information is not allowed on DoD SAFE. Any files containing CUI/PII/PHI must be encrypted prior to uploading or by checking the “Encrypt every file” box. The Offeror is allowed to drop-off one or more files (up to 8GB total). The Offeror may select the box ‘Send me an e-mail when each recipient picks up the files” for documentation purposes. The GPOC will receive an automated e-mail containing the information the Offeror has entered and instructions for downloading mailto:sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil the file(s). The GPOC will have 7 calendar days to retrieve the files submitted in the drop-off. DoD SAFE does not guarantee delivery of documents within a specified time period under 4 hours.

All electronic documents and files submitted shall contain the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any. The Offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 365 Word, MS Office 365 Excel, MS Office 365 Power Point, and Adobe PDF Note: files must be searchable and able to copy and paste. For amendment purposes to the proposal, the "original" proposal shall be clearly identified.

2.7. Distribution

Once the Offeror has uploaded the Offeror’s proposal in its entirety to DoD SAFE, the Offeror shall take a screen shot (Print Screen function) of the Offeror’s DoD SAFE upload confirmation screen showing all the uploaded files included in the proposal submission. The Offeror shall notify the PCO, Ms. Sandra Newton (sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil) by email that the files have been uploaded and provide a copy of the DoD SAFE completed upload confirmation screen shot. If the proposal files are uploaded in their entirety prior to the proposal closing date and time, and the Offeror has notified the PCO (Ms. Sandra Newton) the files have been uploaded (notification is to include the DoD SAFE upload confirmation screen shot has also been provided), the proposal will be considered timely, even if the files are not accessible to the PCO in DoD SAFE until after the proposal closing date and time. If the Offeror fails to notify the PCO (Ms. Sandra Newton) by email, the files will be considered timely if they are accessible in DoD SAFE prior to the closing date and time. However, they will be considered late proposals, if they are not accessible until after the proposal date and time.

Email addresses are as follows:

PCO, Ms. Sandra Newton, sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil

3.0 Factor 1 – Technical

3.1. General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. Offerors shall assume that the government has no prior knowledge of their experience or facilities and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the proposal. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By the Offeror’s proposal submission, the Offeror is representing that its firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Offeror to state so in its proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

3.2. Format and Specific Content

3.2.1. Technical

The Offeror shall address its proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor in the Offeror’s technical volume.

3.2.2. Volume Organization

The technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Team List ITO Attachment 2.0

(2) Table of Contents

(3) List of Tables, Figures, and Drawings

(4) Glossary

(5) Subfactor One – Integration and Installation Plan

(6) Subfactor Two – Future Growth/Adaptability

(7) Subfactor Three – Small Business Participation

(8) Subfactor Four – Data Rights

(9) Technical Risk

3.2.3. Subfactor One: Integration and Installation Plan

The Offeror shall provide an approach for the CCR KC-135 aircraft Integration and Installation Strategy. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

a. An approach that details the integration, test, and certification for two (2) Block 45 prototype aircraft. At a minimum, the approach must show detailed Software Integration, Software Integration Laboratory (SIL) Testing, Developmental Testing (DT), and Operational Testing (OT). In addition, the approach must include the Display Development Station (DDS) design and delivery schedule. The approach must also identify hazards and mitigations, technical risks and mitigations, and schedule risks and mitigations associated with integration, test, and certification.

Lastly, the approach must identify adequate personnel required for integration, test, and certification and plans to retain adequate personnel throughout the life of the contract as necessary to meet contract requirements. (SOW 4.2.10.)

b. An approach that details the installation. The approach must also identify hazards and mitigations, technical risks and mitigations, and schedule risks and mitigations associated with installation. Lastly, the approach must identify personnel required for installation and any staffing shortfalls that may occur. The strategy must address the plan for the installation of the new CCR system. The strategy must also detail the removal, storage, and handling of the legacy equipment. In addition, the strategy must include contractor/sub-contractor location(s), timelines, assumptions regarding government support. The approach must also list detailed available ground support equipment to the Offeror to be used during installation and identify additional equipment that must be obtained either organically or through government support. Lastly, the approach must detail installation flexibility and adaptability. (SOW 4.7.)

c. An approach that details the packaging, transportation, storage, and tracking of supplies and material to ensure kits are available for installation at least 30 calendar days prior to installation to meet the schedule provided. The approach must address anticipated long lead time items and mitigation plan to minimize schedule impacts. The approach must also identify any known parts obsolescence and Diminished Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) issues and identify a mitigation plan to resolve any known parts obsolescence and DMSMS issues.

(SOW 4.8.11.)

d. A valid Letter of Intent (LOI) with Collins Aerospace. The agreement shall include the basis for sharing information, data, technical knowledge, expertise, and resources essential to the integration of the CCR System. The Offeror must provide adequate information to demonstrate a bilateral understanding between the parties. The LOI must include the following information:

i. LOI title page/executive summary and signature page. The LOI must be signed by all parties.

ii. Identify the associate contractors and their relationship

iii. Describe the associate contractor interfaces by general subject matter

iv. Specify the categories of information to be exchanged or support to be provided

v. Include the expiration date (or event) of the LOI

vi. Include agreements on protection of proprietary data and restrictions on employees

Note: In the instance that Collins Aerospace submits a proposal, they shall be exempt from this requirement.

3.2.4 Subfactor Two: Future Growth/Adaptability

The Offeror shall provide an approach for the CCR KC-135 Future Growth/Adaptability.

a. At a minimum, the Offeror shall also provide a detailed approach of how Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) Open Missions Systems (OMS) Tier 1 or above will be designed into the system to provide the greatest adaptability to potential future mission requirements changes. The Offeror shall provide a description of how CCR components integrate with legacy components and with other CCR components both with industry standard interfaces. The Offeror shall provide an explanation of how the MOSA implementation will allow the government the maximum flexibility to add or change capabilities using vendors not dependent upon the OEM nor Offeror. (SOW 4.2.2.1)

b. In addition, the Offeror has the opportunity for creative trade space through future growth and adaptability functions, features, and components IAW the SRD identified as “should” statements.

The Offeror shall provide a detailed list of these functions, features, and components within the proposed CCR solution that includes:

• An explanation of technical complexity of implementation

• An explanation of technical ability to implement the functions, features, and components

• An explanation of technical risk and mitigations

• A tradeoff rationale for functions, features, and components chosen for the solution

• Additional functions, features, and components not described within the SRD

If the Offeror chooses to not address this section, the offeror shall state so in the proposal. If the offeror does not address this section, and the proposal does not state the section is intentionally blank, the Government will assume the section is intentionally blank.

3.2.5. Subfactor Three: Small Business Participation

An approach for Small Business Participation. As a minimum, the approach must demonstrate the Offeror's commitment to small business utilization during the performance of the contract. In addition, the Offeror shall:

1. Submit a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (ITO Attachment 3.0). Additionally, large businesses shall submit a subcontracting plan IAW FAR 19.7, tailored to this contract effort. Small business shall only submit a SBPCD.

a. As a minimum, the Offeror shall include the small business minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 20%.

b. The Offeror shall describe their small business participation based on total contract dollars/value (TCV) for this contract effort.

NOTE: The SBPCD differs from the subcontracting plan requirements IAW FAR 19.7. Also, work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation. Small business prime offerors shall include their information in the provided SBPCD template as required.

2. Describe how the Offeror will comply with CDRL A003 Small Business Subcontractor Report IAW

SOW.

3.2.6. Subfactor Four: Data Rights

The Offeror shall provide a completed CDRL Assertion Matrix (RFP Attachment 7) indicating data rights asserted/proposed in Column H and rationale/comments in Column I. The data rights status or public domain status of all proposed modification items to include, but not limited to, software, firmware and hardware, regardless of origin, shall be disclosed to the government. Anything less than what the Government requested on CDRL Assertion Matrix (RFP Attachment 7), the Offeror shall fully justify and describe how their Intellectual Property assertions will impact fielded system’s organic sustainment and repairs. If an Offeror intends to assert any restrictions on the DoD’s ability to use, release, or disclose a CDRL to non-Government employees, the offeror must explain why the item does not fit within any of the statutory or regulatory provisions that entitle the DoD to acquire unlimited/unrestricted rights in the technical data, irrespective of whether the technical data was developed exclusively at private expense. The Offeror shall not add rows or columns to the matrix. If applicable, the required justification and description shall be included in the technical volume.

4.0. Factor 2 – Technical Risk

4.1. General

The Offeror shall address technical risks associated with those aspects of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for Factor 1 Technical, Subfactors 1, 2, and 4. The Offeror shall address all technical risks that the Offeror considers having potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each identified risk, the Offeror shall provide the rationale for the risk and quantitative estimates for both potential consequence (to cost, schedule, and/or performance) and the probability of the risk to occur. The Offeror shall also outline a mitigation approach describing how each risk is eliminated or reduced to a Low or Moderate overall (combined potential and consequence) level IAW MIL-STD 882E.

5.0. Factor 3 – Past Performance

5.1. General

5.1.1. Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in ITO Attachment 1.1. The past performance volume shall include a team list, which includes the prime contractor, all significant subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. The Offeror shall describe the portion of effort each team member is proposed to perform in relation to the factor 1, technical subfactors, and factor 4, price. The Government’s Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) evaluates each member of the Offeror’s team for relevancy and performance, based on their proposed portion of effort. Therefore, it is important for the Offeror to provide a detailed portion of effort description, in order for the PPET to conduct an accurate assessment.

Offerors shall also provide approximate percentages for portion of effort for each team member. For the past performance evaluation, the government will use data provided by the Offeror in the past performance volume, as well as data obtained from other sources.

5.1.2. Attachment 1.4 Consent Letter

This letter shall be executed and signed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner. The letter authorizes the release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

5.1.3. Attachment 1.5 Client Authorization Letter

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall submit a client authorization letter (ITO Attachment 1.5) authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance.

5.1.4. Attachment 1.6 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter This letter shall be executed and signed by the Prime Contractor and each Subcontractor. The letter states that, in the event a contract is awarded to the Prime Contractor, the Prime Contractor and Subcontractor (to include teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) commit to joint contract performance as described in the proposal. A separate letter shall be completed for each subcontractor separately. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, the subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered. In the event the signed letter is not submitted with the initial proposal, but is later submitted during the evaluation, the subcontractor references will be considered at that point.

5.2. Early Proposal Information

5.2.1 Each Offeror is requested to submit the past performance volume, fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date. The past performance volume early proposal information is a request, and not a requirement. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification, nor will offerors be penalized.

5.2.2. As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (ITO Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (ITO Attachment 1.3) to all points of contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Form (ITO Attachment 1.1). The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them directly to the PCO. (Attn: Sandra Newton) Email address for questionnaires is sandra.newton.1@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The PPET will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary.

5.3. Relevant Contracts

5.3.1. The Offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts (or efforts). The PPI shall be completed in accordance with ITO Attachment 1.1, Past Performance Information Form (PPIF). The Offeror shall submit PPIFs for contracts which include all or some performance within the past five (5) years, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.1, Recency Assessment. The government requests each Offeror submit up to three (3) PPIFs for the prime contractor, and up to three (3) PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 5% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 5% of the total effort but is determined to be performing a critical function. NOTE: The requested number of PPIFs for the prime and subcontractors are preferences and not requirements. Offerors may submit more than the preferred number if the Offeror believes the extra contracts are needed to fully describe their relevancy. Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPIFs are not automatically assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable, if the government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Request each PPIF not exceed a target of 5 pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the KC-135 CCR program.

5.3.2. PPI Relevant Contract Narrative

For each PPIF, the Offeror shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contract is deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. Specifically, the narrative should focus on similarities to the Factor 1, Technical Subfactors, Factor 4, Price, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2, and should be tailored to the proposed portion of effort. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical subfactors and price assessment used to evaluate the proposal. The narrative may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.

Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required. The Offeror is requested to limit the narrative to a maximum of 5 pages. However, the Offeror may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

5.3.3. Affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc., will be considered, provided that sufficient documentation is included in the proposal. The Prime contractor must demonstrate that the affiliate will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Proposal documentation should include a copy of the signed arrangement such as documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement, etc. If the required information is not included in the proposal, the proposed affiliate companies, sister companies, joint venture companies, etc. not be evaluated or considered.

5.3.4. Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between the conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, offerors shall include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of the Offeror’s company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), the "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified, yet general enough to apply to efforts on which the government receives information from other sources.

6.0. Factor 4 – Price

6.1. In the price volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information in addition to the Pricing (ITO Attachment 4). These instructions are to assist you in submitting information required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed price. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal.

6.2. General Instructions

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

6.2.1. Price Reasonableness

The Government will evaluate proposals for reasonableness. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through other price analysis techniques. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror. Offerors shall provide sufficient rationale describing how prices/rates were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.). It shall be noted that completeness is one aspect of price reasonableness. For completeness, the Offeror shall provide unit prices and/or target prices, and FPIF profit rates for all listed items in the Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 4). If an Offeror’s proposed price/rate is zero, then the Offeror shall provide rationale to support the zero dollar.

6.2.2 Balanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate proposals for balance. The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer which exhibits unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonable or unrealistic prices. For this acquisition, balanced pricing is determined with respect to year-to-year price variances for separately priced CLINs. Offerors shall provide rationale for any proposed CLIN price increase greater than 5% from one year to another, or any proposed CLIN price decrease from one year to another. Unexplained price variances from year-to-year could suggest unbalanced pricing. It is in the Offeror’s best interest to provide explanations or supporting rationale for any significant annual CLIN price/rate variances.

To assist in the determination of balanced pricing, offerors shall complete the attached Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 4).

6.2.3 Price Realism

The Government will evaluate proposals for price realism to determine whether proposed prices/rates are based on an adequate understanding of contract requirements and to ensure the proposed price does not pose unacceptable risk. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. Offerors shall provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.). All proposed prices shall be sufficient and adequately proposed to ensure performance is not at an unacceptable risk with prices proposed too low.

6.2.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Offerors shall complete the Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 4). Offerors must ensure all required proposed pricing is provided in the Pricing Matrix, ensuring all periods of performance are priced. The TEP is calculated as the sum of the basic period (1-year) and eight one-year options. The Pricing Matrix will be used for all pricing.

FPIF CLINs will be evaluated at the price ceiling. The Offeror shall provide prices for Target Cost Unit Price, and Target Profit rate.

The Best Estimated Quantities (BEQ) provided in the Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 4) are based on historical data and future projected requirements. All such quantities will be used for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government to exercise options or guarantee such quantities during the contract period of performance.

6.3. Pricing Information Requirements

Price analysis techniques shall be used to ensure fair and reasonable pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(b).

Providing information to assist with pricing evaluation to further support proposed pricing will expedite the source selection process.

In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. The Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate. Should the CO determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the offerors may be required to submit other than cost and pricing data to support price reasonableness and/or price realism.

6.3.1. Rounding

In the Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 4), all proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent. All proposed labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest cent. Proposed percentages (material handling rate) shall be rounded to four places to the right of the decimal.

6.4. Pricing Support Information

6.4.1. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods Explain the methodology used to estimate costs/prices in the development of the Offeror’s proposed pricing. A variety of estimating techniques and methods are acceptable as a basis of estimate in proposed pricing. When responding to the Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and associated Subcontractors may use any generally acceptable estimating techniques consistent with the Offerors Disclosure Statement as appropriate, and if required based on current contracts per Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) policy and guidance. Acceptable contemporary estimating methods can include Cost-to-Cost and Cost-to-Non-Cost Estimating Relationships, commercially available parametric price models, in-house developed parametric price models, commercial catalogs, etc. In addition, the Offeror is required to provide a summary of the estimating system, purchasing system, and accounting system and provide an explanation of any deviations used in the development of the Pricing Volume. If there are no deviations, then state accordingly in Section 2 of the Price Volume.

6.4.2. Past Experience Basis of Estimate

Where price estimates are based on past experience, identify the past experience; explain how the past experience relates to the current effort including similarities and differences and how price data available from the past experiences was adapted to the current effort pricing.

6.4.3. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision If proposed prices to perform the proposed effort have been decreased due to a management decision, provide a summary of the reduction by major pricing element (e.g., material, labor, overhead, etc.).

Also, provide complete rationale for the reduction. Provide the estimated dollar and percentage of the reduction, explaining how such reductions are ensured not to increase performance risk to the Government. If the Offeror has not proposed any price reductions, then state accordingly in Section 2 of the Price Volume.

6.4.4. Subcontractor Pricing

Submit a list of the proposed probable Subcontractors showing (a) the supplier, (b) description of effort, and (c) type of contract. As Prime Contractor, documentation is required to demonstrate Subcontractor commercial quotes are considered fair and reasonable. Include a detailed description of your process/methodology for evaluating Subcontractor pricing and a determination of subcontractor proposed prices as fair and reasonable. Offerors are required to provide an explanation of how indirect costs (Including Material Handling costs), General and Administrative (G&A) and profit are applied to Subcontractor proposed prices and whether all Subcontractor costs, including indirect rates (particularly Material Handling rates), G&A, and profit are included as a total subcontract amount (i.e., Prime treats all Subcontractor/vendor costs as their direct cost to which the Prime applies their own indirect costs, G&A, cost of money (COM) and profit).

6.4.5. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing All significant assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications affecting the pricing proposal shall be addressed and explained. If there are no proposed price assumptions, then state accordingly in Section 2 of the Price Volume.

6.4.6. Over & Above (O&A)/Ceiling Rates

CLIN X031 includes rates for labor and material handling. These rates will be utilized on O&A requirements associated with task orders. Proposed rates shall be provided for each year of the performance periods. All rates shall be proposed as FFP rates. FFP rates are those rates proposed for all performance periods and are considered fixed at the proposed amount. Offerors are required to provide a statement in Section 3 of the Price Volume indicating their understanding that proposed ceiling rates will apply to all out-years (period of performance beyond year one of the basic period) despite what current actuals are running at the time.

6.4.6.1. Labor Wrap Rates

Proposed labor rates shall be proposed as FFP, fully burdened rates valid for all contract performance years for CLIN X031. These labor wrap rates shall be proposed at sufficient dollar amounts to adequately cover any and all fluctuations and actual costs in contract performance out-years. All rates should be proposed with sufficiently high ceiling rates to ensure adequate coverage of all labor costs, all indirect costs, including G&A, COM, and so forth as well as prime and subcontractor profit in every contract out-year.

6.4.6.2. Material Handling

Material…