Attachment_1_Section_L.pdf

SSP ATTACHMENT 4

SECTION L PROVISION – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

RFP FA8552-22-R-0005

L-900. Proposal Requirements

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 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. Competition among multiple offerors is expected and this solicitation will be evaluated using a competitive process. The Government intends to award one contract. Each Offeror shall submit only one proposal for the Rotary Wing Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) Through Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) Engineering Support program.

The Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

Proposals must be received by Kyle Epperson kyle.epperson.3@us.af.mil and Erica Carter erica.carter.3@us.af.mil via email, no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the

RFP.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. The Government will only accept electronic proposals. Email to transmit such information must be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. 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 Buyer/Contracting Officer 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 DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted. In order to send the Government a file in DoD SAFE, the offeror must contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer prior to request access to drop off the file on the DoD Safe-Site. The offeror is responsible for contacting the Buyer/Contracting Officer prior to the required RFP response date to ensure timely submission of proposals.

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 Contracting Officer (CO) in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals should consist of 4 separate volumes as indicated in the table (Proposal Volume Requirements) below. Within those 4 proposal volumes the offeror shall complete and submit RFP Attachments 1 through 9. All proposal volumes must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. This documentation shall cover all aspects of this solicitation and include the offeror’s approach for satisfying the Performance Based Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the offeror intends to accomplish the requirements and must include

DRAFT

convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete effective response to the solicitation are not desired. Each offeror shall submit a proposal (which includes all electronic proposal volumes) and RFP Attachments 1 through 10 in response to the Air Force’s solicitation that proposes the offeror’s solution.

Proposal Volume Requirements

Volume Instructions to Offeror Reference

Title Format of Submission Maximum Number of Pages

I Paragraph B Completed RFP Electronic N/A

Paragraph B.1 Cover Letter 2

Paragraph B.2 Joint Venture Agreement Electronic N/A

Paragraph B.3 Total Compensation Plan Electronic 25

II Paragraph C Technical Proposal Electronic 45*

Paragraph C.2.1 Subfactor Narrative Electronic 15 Paragraph C.2.2.1 RFP Attachment 3 – Sample

Task 1 Electronic 10

Paragraph C.2.2.2 RFP Attachment 3 – Sample Task 2

Electronic 10

Paragraph C.2.2.3 RFP Attachment 3 – Sample Task 3 (Awardable)

Electronic 10

III Paragraph D Past Performance Proposal Electronic

Paragraph D.4 RFP Attachment 4 – Consent Form

Electronic N/A

Paragraph D.7 RFP Attachment 5 – FACTS Sheet

Electronic N/A

Paragraph D.8 RFP Attachment 6 – Present/Past Performance Questionnaire

Electronic N/A

Paragraph D.8 RFP Attachment 7 – Transmittal Letter

Electronic N/A

Paragraph D.9 RFP Attachment 8 – Client Authorization Letter

Electronic N/A

IV Paragraph E Price Volume Electronic

Paragraph E.1 RFP Attachment 9 – CBM+ Excel Cost Model

Electronic N/A

Paragraph E.1.g RFP Attachment 10 Pre-Award Survey

Electronic

*This is the total number of pages for the entire technical proposal (subfactor narratives and sample tasks).

All proposal volumes shall be submitted in Electronic format via email or DoD Safe-Site. The offeror is required to submit an electronic Past Performance Volume III that includes an RFP Attachment 5 FACTS Sheet.

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

1. 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, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language.

2. The page limitation for Volume II, Technical Proposal is 45 pages. This page limitation is the maximum amount of pages the entire technical proposal volumes including all technical proposal narratives and submissions. The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, sample tasks, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). 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 (2) 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.

3. 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.

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

5. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating the following:

Any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale.

Any assumptions based on the RFP Small Business status/categories Company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company CAGE Code, DUNS number Teaming arrangement information including the roles of team members, dates of agreement, and a copy of the signed joint venture agreement (if applicable).

All “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required

The Government intends to award after discussions. If ENs are identified, the Government will provide them to the offeror upon opening discussions. The 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.

2. Joint Venture Arrangements: 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.

3. Total Compensation Plan: The total compensation plan required by FAR 52.222-46 shall be submitted as a part of Volume I and shall be no more than 25 pages. The plan shall set forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees and include supporting information to enable the Government to review the proposed salaries and fringe benefits in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

Note: The compensation plan pertains to the offeror only. However, if a populated joint venture is formed (a joint venture in which the employees are employed by the joint venture itself and not by any individual joint venture partner), the joint venture must submit the total compensation plan for the joint venture. If an unpopulated joint venture is formed, each individual joint venture partner must submit its own total compensation plan.

C. Volume II Technical Proposal

1. General:

The written technical proposal shall consist of a written narrative and the offeror’s responses to sample tasks. The written narrative shall address the offeror’s approach to meet all Technical subfactors. RFP Attachment 3 shall include the offeror’s written submissions in response to sample tasks 1-3 in Section 3 below. 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 shall 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. Simply rephrasing or restating the Government’s requirements shall be determined unacceptable. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities and experience and will base its evaluation solely 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 technical acceptability (which includes the consideration of technical risk) in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the Technical subfactors in paragraph C.2.1 and sample tasks in paragraph C.3. Each offeror’s proposal shall include a written narrative describing the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the RFP and all attachments. Each portion/section of the technical proposal shall clearly identify the subfactor and/or sample task, the data deliverable, and corresponding CLIN from the solicitation. For each subfactor, the proposal shall identify any risks that the offeror considers may exist in the proposed approach, and discuss the actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks or mitigation actions are identified in the technical proposal, the Government will interpret such to mean that the offeror does not consider that there are any risks associated with its proposed approach. A proposal which does not address all of the proposal requirements described in the following sections will be considered unacceptable due to insufficient information to evaluate and may be a basis for eliminating the proposal from further consideration.

2.1 Subfactor Narratives: A written narrative shall describe the offeror’s approach to meet each Technical subfactor. The written narrative shall not exceed a total of 15 pages.

A. Subfactor One – CBM+ Working Group / Helicopter Subject Matter Expertise The offeror’s proposal narrative and sample task submittal (Sample Task 3 in paragraph 2.2.3 below) shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. Specifically, the offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to develop materials in support of weekly CBM+ Working Group meetings with field maintainers and the SPO and provide helicopter SME support leveraging HUMS and helicopter experience to assist field maintainers. These tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Developing Concepts of Operations (CONOPs) and leading a Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) working group: PWS para. 4.3.1

ii. Remote support to SPO and field maintainers using IVHMS and other HUMS to troubleshoot aircraft issues: PWS para. 4.3.1, 4.3.2

iii. Successful correlation of IVHMS and other HUMS data to the health of aircraft components and/or systems: PWS para. 4.3.4

B. Subfactor Two – Cybersecurity Expertise for HUMS On-board System and Ground Station System The offeror’s proposal narrative and sample task submittal (Sample Task 2 in paragraph 2.2.2 below) shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to lead and fulfill the Risk Management Framework (RMF) requirements and implementation for the HUMS On-board System and the Ground Station System. Specifically, these tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Coordinating DoD RMF-driven reviews and approvals for HUMS ground station systems (hardware and software) and on-board system configurations: PWS para. 4.3.7, 4.3.8

ii. Configuring secured and approved ground station software for USAF helicopters in accordance with the DoD RMF process: PWS para. 4.3.8

iii. Configuring and deploying secured and approved HUMS ground station systems (hardware and software) to helicopter maintainers in accordance with the DoD RMF process: PWS para. 4.3.8

C. Subfactor Three – HUMS On-board System Subject Matter Expertise The offeror’s proposal narrative and sample task submittal (Sample Task 2 in paragraph 2.2.2 below) shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to provide HUMS SME support to the SPO and field maintainers as directed by the SPO. Specifically, these tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Troubleshooting wiring issues associated with the IVHMS sensors and data feeds: PWS para. 4.3.1, 4.3.5

ii. Support to helicopter safety investigations, including extraction of Cockpit Voice Flight Data recorder (CVFDR) data: PWS para. 4.3.11

iii. Modifying onboard systems software configuration files for the Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS): PWS para. 4.3.7

D. Subfactor Four – ASIP Tool Development Capabilities The offeror’s proposal narrative and sample task submittal (Sample Task 1 in paragraph 2.2.1 below) shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to provide tools leveraging HUMS parametric data for the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP).

Specifically, these tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Developing and deploying validated offboard regime recognition: PWS para. 4.3.5

ii. Validated automated detection of structurally significant hard landings with parameter analysis other than the IVHMS onboard system detection: PWS para. 4.3.3

iii. Developing, validating, and deploying algorithms to post-process HUMS data and estimate the gross weight throughout a flight: PWS para. 4.3.3

E. Subfactor Five – Understanding of Technical Performance Requirements The offeror’s proposal narrative and sample task submittals (Sample Task 1 in paragraph 2.2.1 below and Sample Task 2 in paragraph 2.2.2 below) shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. Specifically, the offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the technical performance requirements and the offeror’s capabilities to provide:

i. Analyzing fleet component failure analysis and correlation with IVHMS data: PWS para. 4.3.3

ii. Developing source data for Technical Order (TO) changes that improve maintenance practices, maintenance tasks and flight operations procedures: PWS para. 4.3.4

2.2. Sample Tasks Submissions: A written submission shall be submitted utilizing RFP Attachment 4 Sample Task Format. Each submission for each task shall be no more than 10 pages for each sample task.

2.2.1 Sample Task 1 - HUMS Engineering Tools

Scenario Background: The UH-1N has a newly installed HUMS. To support the System Program Office (SPO) engineering sustainment efforts, it is necessary to utilize some data collected by HUMS for the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). ASIP requires the following:

Time-sequenced offboard regime recognition for use in dynamic component fatigue analysis and crack growth analysis from every flight captured by the MSPU.

Gross weight estimation throughout each flight using the HUMS parametric data Automated anomaly detection capabilities (e.g., counts of extreme maneuvers, structurally significant hard landings, etc.)

Scenario Assumptions:

1. To date there are 120 flights captured by the USAF’s UH-1N HUMS with valid flight data.

2. The USAF will provide for reference OEM-approved parametric L/ESS data files from the TH-1H and

Scripted Flight Cards that contain all prescribed regimes necessary.

3. Sufficient parameters and data capture rates for regime recognition are captured by the UH-1N HUMS.

4. Other USAF support and data available includes Technical Orders, HUMS data, engineering review of reports, and PM / engineering participation in Technical Interchange Meetings.

5. The aircrews do not have the capability to store takeoff gross weight in the HUMS and do not retain historical records from the Form F, so other means are needed for gross weight estimation.

Scenario Task you will Estimate:

You are tasked to develop a toolset, which shall leverage the HUMS data for ASIP and shall provide:

Matlab or other script that can be run on USAF SDC that provides time-sequenced offboard regime recognition for every flight captured by the MSPU.

Matlab or other script that can be run on USAF SDC that provides gross weight estimation throughout each flight using the HUMS parametric data. Gross weight estimation must be shown through the validation and verification process to be accurate to within +/- 400 lbs

Automated anomaly detection capabilities (e.g., counts of extreme maneuvers, structurally significant hard landings, etc.) that can process multiple HUMS data files and provide output of anomalies for engineering review.

Submission for this sample task:

Provide a labor hour estimate by labor category, lists of major material descriptions (if applicable), and travel descriptions (if applicable). Provide project schedule, including major milestones and depictions of sub-tasks.

Provide a narrative describing your understanding of the task, the work to be performed, your proposed approach for executing this task, risks, and the expected product and results. Finally, provide any expectations of support or data needed from the government not listed above.

Subfactors to address: Four and Five

Format of sample task submission: See RFP Attachment 3.

2.2.2 Sample Task 2 - IVHMS Cyber for GSS and SME for OBS

Scenario Background: The CONOPS for HH-60G HUMS includes Ground Station System (GSS) laptops and servers at operational units. The current GSS equipment can no longer support USAF cybersecurity standards for hardware and software end of life and will need to be replaced under the RMF process. In addition, changes to the onboard system (OBS) software configuration of the IVHMS are required to remove sensitive parametric data.

Scenario Assumptions:

1. Ten (10) operational units will require new GSS hardware and software that have an approved ATO and

ATC under the RMF.

2. No prior ATO or ATC has been approved for the GSS.

3. OBS software is Block 5.0C1

4. USAF support and data available includes Technical Orders, sample IVHMS data, personnel (ISSM, PM, ISO, ISSE, SCAR, SCA, AODR, and AO) for the RMF roles, engineering review of reports, and PM / engineering participation in Technical Interchange Meetings.

Scenario Task you will Estimate:

The SPO requires your company to provide:

Leadership in the RMF process for approving a new GSS The ISSO and Lead Engineer for the effort Modify and deploy the IVHMS onboard system configuration, removing two (2) sensitive parameters currently stored with each flight. For this update, no physical wiring changes can be made to the aircraft.

Submission for this sample task:

Provide a labor hour estimate by labor category, lists of major material descriptions (if applicable), and travel descriptions (if applicable). Provide project schedule, including major milestones and depictions of sub-tasks.

Provide a narrative describing your understanding of the task, the work to be performed, your proposed approach for executing this task, and the expected product and results. Finally, provide any expectations of support or data needed from the government not listed above.

Subfactors to address: Two, Three and Five

Format of sample task submission: See RFP Attachment 3.

2.2.3 Sample Task 3 - Weekly CBM Working Group, HH-60G

Note: This sample task is awardable and will serve as Task Order 1 to the selected offeror on the basis of the response provided in this technical proposal sample task response.

Scenario Background:

The Contractor will execute portions of PWS paragraph 4.3.1 for twelve (12) months as follows. The Contractor shall make provisions for receipt, storage, and review of Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS) data from eighty-two (82) HH-60G aircraft for evaluations and analysis. The Contractor shall provide recurring review of HUMS data from the fleet for notable issues identifiable with the IVHMS (e.g. vibration threshold exceedances, hard landings, sensor failures, caution lights, etc.). New data provided from the field users shall be reviewed in no more than seven calendar (7) days from the time of receipt. The Contractor shall perform weekly IVHMS valid data capture rate reviews to determine missing data, captured data quality, discrepant parameters, and communicate a summary of the findings among the Integrated Product Team (IPT) and affected operating unit points of contact (POCs). Issues with data quality or the aircraft’s condition shall be communicated with the System Program Office (SPO) and field users no later than the following business day. Contractor shall host a weekly USAF CBM Working Group conference call for 45-60 minutes. The call shall review new findings from IVHMS data, status of previous findings / associated maintenance actions, data capture rate for each operational unit comparing unit’s sortie records to IVHMS generated files, and address any concerns from the field regarding IVHMS usage or associated logistics. The Contractor shall provide Subject Matter Experts (SME) remote data/engineering support for field maintainers using IVHMS to troubleshoot a helicopter’s track and balance, vibration absorber tuning, shaft balancing, and wiring.

Scenario Assumptions:

1. Eighty-two (82) HH-60G aircraft are in operation for the twelve (12) month period.

2. IVHMS data will be provided to the contractor through a CAC-enabled website for download and review.

3. CBM Working Group will be hosted by the contractor over the USAF CHES MS Teams platform, and take one (1) hour beginning at 1400 Eastern each Wednesday.

4. CBM Working Group will discussion will be guided with a presentation showing an IVHMS new findings, previous findings, data quality issues, and data capture rates. Additional files reviewed shall include Running Action Item List (RAIL) for user review, and a Watch List tracking findings from initiation to closure.

Tasks for which you will provide an official Quote (Sample Task 3 Proposal):

The SPO requires your company to provide:

Fleet data review for hard landings using better algorithms than the onboard system Technical and engineering review of the fleet flight data provided by IVHMS.

SME support for advising units and troubleshooting issues identified by the IVHMS on the HH-60G fleet Leadership and hosting of the weekly CBM working group data reviews CBM Working group data summarized in .pptx format.

RAIL and Watch List provided in .xlsx format.

Quarterly Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) at the SPO facilities at Robins AFB, GA, to review significant trends and suggestions for fleet maintenance improvements.

Submission for this sample task:

Provide a labor hour estimate by labor category, lists of major material descriptions (if applicable), and travel descriptions (if applicable). All estimated costs should only be provided in RFP Attachment 9 (CBM+ Excel Cost Model). Provide project schedule, including major milestones and depictions of sub-tasks. Provide a narrative describing your understanding of the task, the work to be performed, your proposed approach for executing this task, and the expected product and results. Finally, provide any expectations of support or data needed from the government not listed above.

Subfactors to address: One

Format of sample task submission: See RFP Attachment 3 (Technical Volume)

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, in accordance with the format contained in the FACTS Sheet (See RFP Attachment 5 and the following paragraphs). The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance will not include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), vendors, or suppliers even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. Further, the evaluation of the offerors/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management, or key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume labeled "Volume III - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror or any joint venture member. Each offeror/joint venture member shall identify up to three (3) active or completed contracts (with at least one year of performance history) in the past five (5) 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 on the relevancy table. Contracts listed may include those with any of the following: United States Federal Government, state and/or local governments, Foreign Military Sales 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). Please note that should an offeror only identify the basic contract without identifying specific order(s) for evaluation, the Government will not evaluate the basic contract.

When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, Paragraph II.C.3.1 for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted 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.C.4 Note and 4.1, the offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible.

However, a series of orders should only be submitted if the series of orders is for continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. Not all ordering type contractual vehicles will have series of orders that meet this criteria. In this instance, only the single order demonstrating relevant technical scope should be submitted for evaluation.

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 accurate, complete, and in the correct format. If the information is not submitted in the correct format, the Government will not be able to evaluate the effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. There are specific places for submission of this information in the RFP Attachment 5. Please ensure the information submitted RFP Attachment 5, 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 length of effort and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order or series of orders. See paragraph 3.1 for further information on how to submit series of orders.

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.C.4. Per the Note in Section M paragraph II.C.4, Relevancy consists of not only technical complexities, but programmatic/logistical considerations. The programmatic/logistical considerations includes but is not limited to length of effort and type and complexity of data deliverables. If an offeror submits a series of orders for evaluation, the period of performance dates of each order (in the series of orders), on each order (in the series of orders) and the type and complexity of data deliverables for each order (in the series of orders) shall be submitted. 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 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. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the FACTS Sheet (RFP Attachment 5) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 4). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume III.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the contract(s) submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the RFP Attachment 5 concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns if this clause is or was contained in the contract. When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member 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’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. This information is required from all offerors, regardless of business size.

7. FACTS Sheet (RFP Attachment 5): The offeror/joint venture member must submit information for each past performance effort on the RFP Attachment 5, FACTS Sheet. The offeror/joint venture member (if applicable) shall focus its responses on RFP Attachment 5, FACTS Sheet so that they clearly correlate 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 on the FACTS Sheet. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs:

a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

d) Other (Please specify)

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 FACTS Sheet for each contract identified for evaluation. Problems not addressed in the Past Performance Volume, 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 RFP Attachment 6) 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 RFP Attachment 6) to each of the offeror’s, joint venture member’s (i.e., each entity’s) Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the RFP Attachment 5. 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 RFP Attachment 7) 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 electronically by following the procedures outlined in paragraph I.B. Communications above, and email to:

kyle.epperson.3@us.af.mil and erica.carter.3@us.af.mil.

The completed questionnaires should be contain the following legend:

CUI

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 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 past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (RFP Attachment 8). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the 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 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 offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources, other than those listed within the RFP Attachment 5.

11. RFP Attachment Legend: RFP Attachments 5 and 6 (FACTS Sheet and Present/Past Performance Questionnaire) must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

CUI

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

E. Volume IV, Cost/ Price

1. IDIQ Contract Award. The offeror shall submit the following with its Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal submission:

a. CLIN cost/price Excel spreadsheets as provided in RFP Attachment 9 “CBM+HUMS Cost Model.” This attachment will serve as a cost model for all CLINs (live, working price/cost model in Microsoft Excel including formulas with notional numbers for all elements of cost. For all indirect costs, factors, CERs, etc. include all bases and calculations to arrive at computed amounts). Format for Cost Model is supplied in RFP Attachment 9. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements can be found in Section “h” below. CLINs X001-X012 and X019-X030 will be proposed as rates burdened through cost with a separate fixed fee rate;

for CLINs X013-X018, the Government-estimated travel costs will be used. RFP Attachment 9 will require a demonstration of computations for all cost-type CLINs.

b. Detailed table of contents.

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

d. Definitions as necessary.

e. Date of current Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) / Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) for the offeror for all CLINs. Rates and factors shall be supplied for the Prime only for rates relevant to the calculation of rates burdened through cost for all CLINs. If an FPRA/FPRR is not available, refer below to “h” Cost and Pricing Data Requirements.

f. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of the Offeror’s (and the Offeror’s subcontractors and/or teaming partners valued over $2M) cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administrative contracting officers (ACO) and cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) offices.

g. 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 10) and submit the completed document as part of Volume IV: 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.

h. 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 as relevant shall be provided for proposed fully-burdened rates and/or add-on factors applicable to CLINs X001 – X012 and X019 - X030 for the Prime offeror 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 following worksheets contained within RFP Attachment 9 “CBM+HUMS Cost Model”: “Format A – ENG Services CLINs”, “Format A – Mat’l Sub ODC CLINs”, “Format A – Over and Above CLINs”, “Format A – ESTR CLINs”, and “Format B (Rates)”. 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 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.

1) Previous three years’ actual historical rates for each individual cost element used in developing the proposed unit costs

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

3) Breakout of the budgeted forecasts for the indirect pools and bases used in developing the proposed unit costs, covering the entire contract period (basic and ordering periods).

4) 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 1-3 above shall be in .xls file format with live working formulas. Any other type of file format will not be accepted for items 1-3, but is acceptable for item 4. 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 unit costs, major subcontractor elemental cost breakouts, and major subcontractor documentation in support of the elemental cost breakouts, 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. All offerors and subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (for the entire effort to include all ordering periods) shall provide data other than certified cost and pricing data using worksheets referred to as Cost Formats A and B within RFP Attachment 9 along with accompanying schedules, lists, and narratives to substantiate the cost realism for CLINs X001-X012 and X019-X030.

The Offeror’s cost proposal shall contain the proposed rates and/or add-on factors to the Government for performing the work described in the PWS and the attached CDRLs.

The Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best effort in response to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost shall be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue with the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required, and ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to the credibility of the cost proposal rests with the Offeror.

Price Reasonableness and Cost Realism

The Offeror shall provide sufficiently detailed proposals to demonstrate price reasonableness and cost realism. The burden of proof for cost realism of proposed rates burdened through cost and/or add-on factors rests with the Offeror. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the proposed rates burdened through cost, add-on factor(s), and fixed fee for each contract period (basic and all ordering periods) shown in the “Format A” tabs of RFP Attachment 9 matches the proposed rates burdened through cost, add-on factor(s) and fixed fee in the “Format B (Rates)” tab.

Cost Format A:

1. “Format A” for all CLINs is a summary by cost element, showing the proposed labor rates burdened through cost, proposed material add-on factor(s), and/or proposed fee by year.