Attachment_2_Addendum_52.212-1_ITA.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO)

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

1.1. The Government plans to award a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment program.

The Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment will primarily include furnishing Interface Test Adapter (ITA) design and manufacture, Support Equipment (SE) design and manufacture, Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) design and manufacture, Personality Module Assembly (PMA) design and manufacture, test procedures and operation and maintenance manual documentation, updated Technical Data Packages (TDPs), and provisioning data as required to support Government Test Program Set (TPS) development. Specific requirements will be identified on a Delivery Order (DO) basis.

1.1.2. This source selection will utilize Tradeoff source selection procedures. Contract award will be made to the Offeror(s) that provide the “best value” to the Government over the entire period of performance. 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 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. The Government plans to award without discussions, but if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.2. Budget/Funding Information

Funding to be cited on each individual delivery order.

2.0. General Instructions

2.1. 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 ineligible for award. 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. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.1.1. The proposal acceptance period is 180 calendar days for this contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in the Contract Documentation Volume IV that the proposal is valid for the period of 180 calendar days from the request for proposal (RFP) closing date.

2.1.2. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

2.2. General Information

2.2.1. Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO. E-mail requests for clarification may be sent to the CO, primary point of contact, at jocelyn.johnson.2@us.af.mil and to the Contract Specialist, (CS), secondary point of contract, at alaina.hill@us.af.mil.

2.2.2. Debriefings

The CO 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 in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.506. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO 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 IAW 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 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. 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 Official U.S. Government Systems web site at https://sam.gov/content/home. 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. Oral Presentation

Oral presentations will not be utilized.

2.2.6. Amendments to Solicitation

If this 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 mailto:jocelyn.johnson.2@us.af.mil mailto:alaina.hill@us.af.mil https://sam.gov/content/home confirmation upon submission of the Offeror’s proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the Offeror’s proposal are subject to solicitation provision FAR 52.212-1(f).

2.2.7. Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be via DoD SAFE as described in paragraph 2.6 of Attachment 3.

2.3. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

2.3.1. The Title Page of each volume must show solicitation number, name, address, telephone number of the Offeror, and the electronic e-mail address of the Offeror 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 2.6 of Attachment 3. 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 60

3.2.2 Title Page (Not included in 60 page limit) 1

3.2.2 Team List (see Attach 2.0) (Not included in 60 page

limit)

3.2.2 Table of Contents (Not included in 60 page limit) Unlimited

3.2.2 List of Tables and Figures (Not included in 60 page

limit) Unlimited

3.2.2 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Not

included in 60 page limit)

Unlimited

3.2.3 3.2.4

Subfactor 1: Contractor Qualifications Subfactor 2: ITA Development and Support

II 4.0 Past Performance 1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page 1

2.3.2 Team List (See Attach 2.0) 5

4.1 Present/Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF)

(See Attach 1.1)

4.1.1 Consent Letter (See Attach 1.4) Unlimited

4.1.1 Client Authorization Letters (See Attach 1.5) Unlimited

4.2 Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See

Attach 1.2) Tab Only

4.3.2 Relevant Contract Narrative Request Max 5

pages per contract

4.3.3 Roadmap 2

III 5 Price Volume 1 Unlimited

5.1 General Information Unlimited

5.3 Volume Organization Unlimited

5.2.10 Pricing Matrix (See Attach 3.1) N/A

IV 6 Contract Documentation 1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page (SF 1449) 1

2.3.2 Team List (see Attach 2.0) 5

2.3.7 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.3.7 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.3.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

2.3.2/6.3.4 Team List, Arrangements, and/or Letters of Intent Unlimited

6.1 Model Contract SF 1449 N/A

6.1.4 Representations and Certifications N/A

6.3.1-6.3.3 Contact Information Unlimited

6.3.4 Attachments to the Model Contract Unlimited

2.3.4. 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.

2.3.5. Pricing Information

All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation volumes.

2.3.6. Cross Referencing

Each 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 proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated 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.

2.3.7. 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. Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures.

2.3.8. 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 electronic sheet. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. 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 points. 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 and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to 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. 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 8-pt. 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.

2.5. Reserved

2.6. Electronic Offers

All proposals shall be submitted using DoD SAFE, https://safe.apps.mil/. All interested offerors must e-mail Jocelyn Johnson at jocelyn.johnson.2@us.af.mil and Alaina Hill at alaina.hill@us.af.mil in order to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE.

One of the Government Point of Contact (GPOC)s 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 days. If the 14 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 the file(s). The GPOC will have 7 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.

https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:jocelyn.johnson.2@us.af.mil

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) Word 2016, MS Excel 2016, MS-Power Point versions 2016, and Adobe PDF. Note PDF files must be searchable and able to copy and paste. For amendment purposes to the proposal, the "original" proposal shall be clearly identified.

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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is neither necessary nor desirable for you to tell us so in your 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

In the Technical Volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

3.2.2. Volume Organization

The Technical Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Title Page

(2) Team List (Attachment 2.0)

(3) Table of Contents

(4) List of Table and Drawings

(5) Glossary

(6) Subfactor One – Contractor Qualifications

(7) Subfactor Two – ITA Development and Support

3.2.3. Subfactor One: Contractor Qualifications

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Contractor Qualifications for the Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

a. General Requirements. The Offeror shall provide an approach for the performance of a delivery order, which includes the design and manufacture of an Interface Test Adapter, and how UUTs will be assessed for mechanical design information provided either dimensional drawings or the physical asset to measure. The Government does not require a response to a specific delivery order. As a minimum, the approach shall include a general process to designing and manufacturing an ITA utilizing measurements taken from a UUT, proposed tasks including reviews and correction cycles, proposed milestones, and the assessment of UUTs at an Offeror or Government location. The approach shall also include a completed Contracts Data Requirements List (CDRL) A001.

b. Quality Certification. The Offeror shall provide proof of ISO 9001:2015 certification or equivalent. If the Offeror submits a certification which is not ISO 9001:2015, the Offeror shall provide justification of how the certification is equivalent to ISO 9001:2015 standards.

c. Specific Requirements. The Offerors shall provide an approach that addresses how Interface Test Adapters will be marked and labeled in accordance with military standard (MIL-STD)130N, how Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs) and how Critical Design Reviews (CDRs) will be performed. As a minimum, the approach must include an example of an Item Unique Identification (IUID) label using construct #2 identified in the MIL-STD, preliminary design synthesis, schematic or wiring diagrams, preliminary assembly drawings, and preliminary lists of materials, parts and processes for PDRs and an electrical design, a mechanical design, electrical and mechanical interface compatibility and producibility and manufacturing for CDRs.

3.2.4. Subfactor Two: ITA Development and Support

a. Design Development. Offeror shall provide an approach which addresses:

• how the Offeror will interface with, and deliver to, three different government locations

• key personnel working with Government points of contact

• the assumptions and risks associated with connectors, electro-mechanical fixturing, and internal wiring that the Offeror would consider when responding to a delivery order

• handling a request for a Government Directed Change (GDC) which occurs between

Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review for an Interface Test Adapter design, and shall describe how the Offeror will incorporate the GDC into the design process and how it will impact the completion of the design

• an approach to develop a technical data package for ITAs from Government Furnished Information (GFI) and Offeror measurements, to include the design tools (including software) used.

The Government does not require a response to a specific delivery order. The Offeror’s plan shall include a general approach to designing and manufacturing an ITA utilizing measurements taken from a UUT or UUT dimensional drawings.

b. Manufacturing and Acceptance Test. The Offeror shall provide an approach which addresses how the Offeror will build and deliver a full scale working model ITA prototype. The Offeror shall also provide an approach to develop, gain approval, and perform an acceptance test on an Interface Test Adapter, to include a description of the data, documentation and equipment used to perform the test. The acceptance test approach must address the specifications of paragraph 3.4 of MIL-PRF-32070A.

c. Technical Orders and Provisioning. The Offeror shall provide an approach which describes:

• how the Offeror will develop and deliver new Test Procedures Manual (TPM) Technical

Orders (TOs) for test programs provided by the Government including the design tools and process

• change pages to TPM TOs including the development of a change page and design tools

• an approach to develop and deliver new ITA Operation and Maintenance TOs with

Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) for the hardware provided by the Government, including the process to develop an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) TO and the design tools

• an approach to provide an updated technical data package which incorporates engineering changes from the Government, including the key personnel and design tools that will be used

• an approach to submit Provisioning Technical Documentation (PTD) to the Government, including the format of the PTD

• an approach to develop and deliver Engineering Data for Provisioning, including the process used to develop the data and the design tools used

• an approach to document and submit Support Equipment Recommendation Data (SERD), including the consideration of life cycle cost, schedule and the formatting

4.0. Factor 2 – Past Performance

4.1. General

4.1.1. Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO.

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 Scope, Magnitude and Complexity. The Government 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.

4.1.2. Along with the information required in this paragraph, the Offeror shall submit a consent letter (Attachment 1.4) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter (Attachment 1.5) authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance.

4.2. Early Proposal Information

4.2.1. Each Offeror is requested to submit Volume II Past Performance for each relevant contract 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.

4.2.2. As soon as practicable, Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment 1.3) to all Points of Contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Form (Attachment 1.1). The POCs will complete the questionnaires and e-mail them to jocelyn.johnson.2@us.af.mil and alaina.hill@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.

4.3. Relevant Contracts

4.3.1. The Offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts The PPI forms shall be completed in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1.1, Past Performance Information Form (identified in this document as “PPIF”).

The Offeror shall submit PPIFs for contracts which include all or some performance within the past three years, as defined in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, para 2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment.

Request each Offeror submit up to five (5) PPI forms for the prime contractor, and up to five (5) PPI forms for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 10% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 10% of the total effort, but is determined to be performing a critical function. NOTE: The requested number of PPI forms 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 PPI forms 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 PPI form not exceed a target of five (5) pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment program.

4.3.2. PPI Relevant Contract Narrative

For each PPI form, 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 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in 52.212-2 addendum, paragraph 2.3.2.2, 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 five (5) pages. However, the Offeror may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

4.3.3. 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, Offeror’s 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.

5.0. Factor 3 – Price

5.1. Price Volume

In the price volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information in addition to the pricing in Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost Section of the solicitation. 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.

5.2. General Instructions

Information beyond what is 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 (except ITO Attachment 3.1, ITA Pricing Matrix, which will be included in the Contract Volume). The Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) given in the ITA Pricing Matrix represents estimates of the Enterprise ITA to be completed during specific periods of performance. These estimates are based on historical data and future projected requirements, however all such quantities will be used for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government to such quantities or extended prices during the contract performance period.

5.2.1. Completeness

Offerors shall complete the ITA Pricing Matrix, ITO Attachment 3.1. Offerors must ensure all required proposed pricing is provided in the matrix. All periods of performance must be priced.

This includes five (5) one-year ordering periods. Any omission of required pricing may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

5.2.2. Price Reasonableness

Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through proposal analysis techniques. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror. Offerors shall provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.).

5.2.3. Balance

The Government will evaluate proposals for balance. The offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that exhibits unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonable or unrealistic prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items (CLINs) is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques such that there is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest TEP. Also, an offer could be so grossly unbalanced that an acceptance of the offer would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment. Balanced pricing is determined with respect to separately priced CLINs or SubCLINs or significant unexplained variance within one CLIN’s pricing from year to year. Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

To assist in the price reasonableness assessment, Offerors are required to provide supporting explanation/rationale as outlined. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness.

5.2.4. Price Realism

Proposed pricing must demonstrate adequate understanding of the requirement and does not pose a risk to performance. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. Offerors shall provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc).

5.2.5. Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR Part 15 applies. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of cost or pricing data. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining information other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate.

Should the CO determine proposed prices to appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

Proposed unit prices will be evaluated using best estimated quantities consisting of estimates provided by the Government per year. These quantities utilized in the Pricing Matrix are based on historical “snapshot” of the number of estimated annual quantities projected per year of contract performance. These estimates are for evaluation purposes only and do not guarantee any level of effort or buy quantities after contract award.

5.2.6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of prices provided in the ITA Pricing Matrix, ITO Attachment 3.1. The ITA Pricing Matrix spreadsheet will calculate the Offeror’s TEP which is used as the basis for proposed pricing. Proposed unit prices will be input into the spreadsheet by Offerors and extended pricing will be calculated based on estimated evaluation quantities provided by the Government. Evaluation quantities are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government in any way.

Proposed pricing shall be provided in the Pricing Matrix cells designated for proposed unit prices per CLIN/SubCLIN. Spreadsheet formulas will calculate pricing for extended evaluated pricing based on multiplication of unit prices by evaluation quantities estimated by the Government.

Extended pricing for all years of contract performance will be summed to yield total evaluated pricing for each CLIN. All years of performance will be included in the TEP.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Similarly, quantities used in the Pricing Matrix are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent future purchase quantities or obligate the Government whatsoever.

5.2.7. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding cost assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

5.2.8. Annual Price Changes

Proposed price increases greater than 5% per year shall be verified and addressed for reasonableness in this section. 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. Annual escalation rates will be reviewed for reasonableness and any indication of unbalanced pricing.

5.2.9. Other Documentation

Other documentation considered by Offerors to be essential for support of proposed prices shall be presented in this section. Offerors are requested to address any proposed prices which reflect a business decision to offer prices at or below cost. It is the Offerors’ responsibility to support proposed pricing to ensure demonstration of adequate understanding of the requirement as well as appreciation of program complexity and associated performance risk.

5.2.10. Submission of Price Matrix

Submit the electronically encoded Pricing Matrix in support of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The unit prices submitted in the Pricing Matrix must be input as total dollars.

Pricing Matrix proposed pricing submitted must be consistent with your approved estimating system. The Pricing Matrix submitted must comply with the following format requirements:

(a) Data file shall be submitted IAW paragraph 2.6.

(b) Data file should be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2016 or earlier) compatible format.

5.3. Volume Organization

The price volume shall consist of the following sections:

SECTION 1 Table of Contents; summary descriptions of estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems; changes to estimating, accounting practices. Include your rationale in response to the following paragraphs in Section 1 of the price volume:

5.2.1. – Completeness

5.2.2. – Price Reasonableness

5.2.3. – Balance

5.2.4. – Price Realism

5.2.5. – Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

SECTION 2 Cost or pricing information and supporting data, to include estimating methodology. Include your rationale in response to the following paragraphs in Section 2:

5.2.8. – Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing

5.2.9. – Annual Price Changes

5.2.10. – Other Documentation

SECTION 3 Other information such as Government Furnished Property/Government Furnished Equipment (GFP/GFE), long lead costs, termination costs, development/production schedule, inflation rate summary and explanation, and special tooling/test equipment. List each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the price volume, if any. Provide complete rationale for any exceptions.

SECTION 4 – Copy of “Supplies or Services and Prices” from RFP with Offeror’s proposed prices included.

5.2.10. – Other Documentation

5.2.11. – Price Matrix (RFP Addendum 52.212-1, Attachment 3.1) – tabs as follows:

1) Instructions

2) Calculation Method

6.0. Contract Documentation

6.1. Model Contract/Representations and Certifications

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file.

6.1.1. Solicitation/Contract Form

Completion of blocks 12, 17 and signature and date for blocks 30a, 30b and 30c of the SF1449.

Signature by the Offeror on the SF1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

The "original" copy should be clearly marked.

6.1.2. Supplies or Services and Prices

Complete pricing information in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 3.1 Price Matrix of the RFP. Do not include prices in the “Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs” section, columns “Unit Price” or “Amount”. All proposed pricing shall be contained within Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 3.1 Price Matrix for the model contract.

6.1.3. Contract Clauses

The Offeror shall provide required information to complete clauses as required.

6.1.4. Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors The Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the SAM website at https://sam.gov/content/home. After reviewing the SAM database information, the Offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items are correct.

6.2. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken.

Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 6.2. Offerors are cautioned the Government could determine any identified exceptions to be unacceptable, which would make the proposal ineligible for award.

https://sam.gov/content/home

Table 6.2 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion Rationale

SOO, SOW, SPEC, Model Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

6.3. Other Information Required

6.3.1. Ombudsman

An Ombudsman has been appointed to hear concerns from Offerors or potential Offerors during the proposal development phase of this acquisition. The Ombudsman for this acquisition is AFSC/PZC. This does not diminish the authority of the program director or CO, but communicates Offeror concerns, issues, disagreements and recommendations to the appropriate Government personnel. When requested, the Ombudsman shall maintain strict confidentiality as to the source of the concern. The Ombudsman does not participate in the evaluation of proposals or in the source selection process; interested parties are invited to call AFSC/PZC at 405-736- 3273.

6.3.2. Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

6.3.3. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code;

TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

6.3.4. Attachments to the Model Contract

The Offeror shall provide the following as attachments to the model contract:

ITO ATTACHMENTS

PAST PERFORMANCE PACKAGE ATTACHMENTS

ITO Attachment – 1.1 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM (PPIF) ITO Attachment – 1.2 PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE ITO Attachment – 1.3 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER ITO Attachment – 1.4 SAMPLE CONSENT LETTER ITO Attachment – 1.5 SAMPLE CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER ITO Attachment – 2.0 PROPOSED TEAM LIST

PRICING VOLUME ATTACHMENTS

ITO Attachment – 3.1 PRICING MATRIX

ITO ATTACHMENT 1.1

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM

Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program being described. Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Request each Offeror submit between 6 and 10 PPIS forms for the prime Contractor and between 4 and 7 for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division):

CAGE Code:

DUNS Number:

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the Offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume).

B. Program Title:

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer:

2. Contract Number:

3. Contract Type:

(If multiple types (i.e. Firm-Fixed Price with Time & Material), list percentage and dollar amount of Firm-Fixed Price portion)

4. Period of Performance:

5. Original Contract $ Value: (Do not include unexercised options)

6. Current Contract $ Value: (Do not include unexercised options)

7. If Amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason:

D. Brief Description of Effort as Prime or Subcontractor (Please indicate whether it was development and/or production, or other acquisition phase and highlight portions considered most relevant to current acquisition)

E. Completion Date:

1. Original date:

2. Current Schedule:

3. Estimate at Completion:

4. How Many Times Changed:

5. Primary Causes of Change:

F. Are there Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) or other Past Performance Reports available for this contract? YES NO

G. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts, provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles).

1. Program Manager and/or Name:

Site Manager Office:

Address:

Telephone:

E-mail:

2. Contracting Officer Name:

Office:

Address:

Telephone:

E-mail:

3. Administrative Name:

Contracting Officer Office:

Address:

Telephone:

E-mail:

H. Address any technical (or other) area about this contract/program considered unique.

I. For each of the applicable subfactors under the technical factor in the “Evaluation Criteria for Award, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor, if you are to perform the same effort on the proposed contract.

J. Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this evaluated program and are to support the proposed effort. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.

K. Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity, and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor or a corporate division related to the prime (define relationship).

ITO ATTACHMENT 1.2

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

When filled in, this document is source selection sensitive information IAW FAR 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor:_________________________________________________________________________

B. CAGE Code of contractor contract was awarded to: _________________________________

C. Contract number: _______________________________________

D. Contract type: ______________________________ (If multiple types (i.e. Firm-Fixed Price with Time & Material), list percentage and dollar amount of Firm-Fixed Price portion)

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

F. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________

G. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

H. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

J. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name: __________________________________________________________

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable): __________________________________________

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name: ___________________________________________________________________ B. Evaluator's title: ____________________________________________________________________ C. Evaluator's phone number:____________________________________________________________ D. Evaluator’s e-mail: __________________________________________________________________ E. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: ____________________________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL

B BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL - The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some or many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

G GREEN/SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Y YELLOW/MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

R RED/UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score.

Subfactor 1 – Contractor Qualifications B G Y R N

P1. Did the contractor adequately provide a qualified, experienced program manager who is knowledgeable and able to meet program milestones, requirements,…