Attachment 3 - Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Test and Check Out (TACO) Cart Attachment 3 – Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria IAW RFO subpart 12.2

Requirement Title: Test and Check Out (TACO) Cart Solicitation Number: FA8689-26-Q-B001 North American Industry Classification System Code (NAICS): 334519 Product Service Code (PSC): 6 6 2 5 Set-Aside: In accordance with (IAW) RFO 19.104-1(a), this requirement will be a small-business set-aside.

Solicitation Date: 22 April 2026 Response Deadline: 2 June 2026 Point(s) of Contact:

Shelby Olsen shelby.olsen@us.af.mil Capt. Gregory Besser gregory.besser.1@us.af.mil

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services prepared IAW the format in RFO 12.202, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested, and a written solicitation will not be issued.

This solicitation is issued as an invitation for bid IAW RFO Parts 12 and 13 for the Test and Check Out Cart, further described below within Section B of this document.

This acquisition is set-aside for small business concerns. This solicitation incorporates provisions and clauses by reference. The full text of provisions and clauses may be accessed electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through: Federal Acquisition Circular: 2025-06 dated 10/01/2025 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: 11/10/2025 Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: 10/16/2024

The period of performance for this requirement is as follows:

BASE PERIOD: 12 Months After Contract Award

Description:

The contractor will provide overarching tool and execution support across all threads of work, which include mobility, data decryption and decoding, shade features, video monitoring, streamlining communication capabilities and demonstrating a model-based MQ-9 electromagnetic testing integration. For each of these threads of work, the contractor will largely be providing a remotely controlled cart that can receive electromagnetic interference. In addition to providing overarching tools and execution support, the contractor will be responsible for

A. General Information

B. Requirement Information http://www.acquisition.gov/ building the cart, implementing all applicable hardware, applying the IADS software and single terminal license, and keeping standards necessary to integrate and apply to the Medium Altitude UAS Division systems (e.g. MQ-9A).

Place of Delivery/Performance/Acceptance/FOB Point:

Gray Butte Field Airport, 25500 E Avenue R8, Palmdale, CA 93591

NOTICE TO OFFEROR: The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

Addenda to RFO 52.212-1--Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items (Nov 2025)

RFO paragraph 52.212-1(b), "Period for acceptance of offers," is tailored as follows:

"The offeror agrees to hold the prices firm for 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers." The following paragraphs provide the specific solicitation instructions:

Addendum to 52.212-1(a), Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers no later than Monday, 1 June 2026 at 1700 hours, Eastern Standard Time (EST).

Addendum to RFO 52.212-1(c), Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawal of offers. This paragraph is tailored to read as follows:

“Offerors are responsible for submitting electronic offers to the Government office designated in the solicitation by the solicitation due date and time. Offers received after the solicitation due date and time may be considered late and will be handled in accordance with RFO 52.212-1(c).”

The following contacts are the points of contact for this acquisition. All questions or concerns regarding this request for quote must be directed IN WRITING via e-mail to the e-mail listed below. Questions are encouraged to be submitted at your earliest convenience but will not be accepted past Friday, 22 May 2026, 1200 EST.

Electronic Copies of Offers shall be submitted to the contacts below.

Shelby Olsen shelby.olsen@us.af.mil Capt. Gregory Besser gregory.besser.1@us.af.mil

QUOTE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS:

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation, offerors shall follow the instructions contained in this section. Quotes must comply with all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, with particular attention given to those identified as evaluation factors. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in elimination from consideration.

C. Instructions to Offerors

The Government intends to make an award based on the initial quote submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the offeror’s best terms considering all evaluation factors and subfactors. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges if during the evaluation, it is determined to be in its best interest. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Offeror(s) that may address any aspect of the quote and may or may not be documented in real time. Offeror responses to interchanges shall be considered in making the award selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all offerors. If the Government enters into interchanges, the Government may or may not request final quote revisions.

Quotes shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to permit effective evaluation and to substantiate the validity of stated claims. The response shall consist of the following three volumes to be eligible for award:

Section Reference Title

Volume I Executive Summary Volume II Factor 1 Technical Factor

Subfactor 1 Contract Management Plan (CMP) Volume III Factor 2 Price--See Price Schedule

The specific content of each volume is discussed below:

VOLUME I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cover Page to include the following information:

Solicitation Number:

Solicitation Date and Time specified for receipt of offers:

Company Name:

Company address and remit to address if different than mailing address:

Name of Company point of contact(s):

Email Address of Company POC(s):

Telephone Number of Company POC(s):

SAM registration Expiration Date:

CAGE Code:

UEI Number:

Offer Acceptance Period:

Narrative & Authorized Offeror Representative(s): The Offeror's narrative summary of the entire quote should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. Identify authorized Offeror personnel and individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the Offeror's quote and who can obligate the company contractually. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the quote. Unless quoted, submit a clear Affirmation of no Exceptions, Deviations, or Waivers within the body of the summary narrative. If exceptions are being taken, clearly identify the terms and details in this section.

The offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation (and attachments). The solicitation constitutes the model contract. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation and provide accompanying rationale.

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

The Technical Volume shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements and provide a comprehensive, yet concise, description of how the offeror intends to meet the Government’s needs for Test and Check Out (TACO) Cart inspections to be performed at Gray Butte Field Airport, 25500 E Avenue R8, Palmdale, CA 93591. The technical submission should detail the offeror's proposed methods, capabilities, and resources for meeting the requirements, not simply reiterate or paraphrase the Performance Work Statement (SOW). Quotes that simply state the offeror "understands" or "can comply" without adequate supporting information may be rated unacceptable. Provide factual rationale explaining how the offeror intends to fulfill the requirements, assuming the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience. The evaluation will be based solely on the information presented in the quote.

Subfactor 1 – Contract Management Plan (CMP):

The offeror will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis on whether or not the offeror (1 representative) can participate in monthly joint IPT meetings with the Government. These meetings shall be conducted via telephone or video conference. The purpose of these meetings is to review current financial status (actual and projected spend plan), development and test status, deliverables metrics, schedule (upcoming events, critical path, interdependencies), risks, issues, and paths forward. Upon delivery of the TACO Cart, recurring meetings will cease and any future meetings can be coordinated as needed. Offerors who are unable to participate in requested meetings will not be considered for award.

VOLUME III - PRICE:

The offeror shall insert all proposed line-item unit prices in the Pricing Schedule. The offeror shall ensure that the sum of the total prices proposed for the entire period of performance is listed on the Pricing Schedule.

Pricing shall be all inclusive (e.g., all materials, transportation, labor, etc.) and shall clearly be illustrated on the Pricing Schedule. Unit prices shall be rounded to no more than two places after the decimal point. The extended amounts shall equal the unit price multiplied by the quantity for each unit.

Quotes shall be submitted in US Dollars. Provide unit prices and extended prices for all CLINs in your quote as well as calculate a total final price for this requirement.

General Instructions: Quotes shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness, completeness, and balance. The Government may not award a contract based on a quote with unbalanced pricing. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may render your quote ineligible for award. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

(End of Addenda to RFO 52.212-1)

ADDENDUM TO RFO 52.212-2 - EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Nov 2021)

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

The Government intends to award a purchase order resulting from this Request for Quotation (RFQ) to the vendor whose quotation conforms to the solicitation and is considered most advantageous to the Government, with price and technical factors being considered. Offerors should propose their best solution to meet the stated requirements. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotations:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: CMP

Factor 2: Price

Basis of Award: The award will be made to the vendor whose quotation represents the best value to the government. As allowed by RFO 15.103-2, the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) selection process shall be applied. Award will be made to the vendor who is deemed responsible, responsive, and represents the best value to the government based on selection of the lowest evaluated price that is deemed technically acceptable. The best value is represented by the lowest priced technically acceptable quotation. To be eligible for award, a quotation must meet all technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and provide all information required as defined in Addendum to 52.212-1. To be rated "technically acceptable" the offer must have an "acceptable" rating in the Technical Factor. The technical area will be evaluated on an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" basis. The Government reserves the right to hold interchanges with all, some, or no quoters.

Additionally, if no quotes are rated technically acceptable, the CO has reserved the right to cancel the Solicitation in lieu of conducting interchanges. In this case, the Government is under no obligation to release a new Solicitation.

Evaluation Process: The evaluation process will begin with the evaluation of the lowest priced quotation after determining responsiveness. The lowest priced quote will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. If the lowest priced quote is found to be technically acceptable, then that quoter will be evaluated for responsibility using the guidance and general standards set forth at RFO 9.104-1. Any negative entries found may be grounds for determining a quoter non-responsible and would further make them ineligible for award. Common United States Government Systems used during this process are:

a. System for Award Management (SAM).

b. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

c. Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).

d. Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment/Electronic Data Access (PIEE/EDA); and/or

e. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at https://www.cpars.gov

EVALUATION FACTORS:

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT

D. Evaluation Criteria https://www.cpars.gov/

Each technical factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis to determine whether the quote meets the solicitation requirements. Exceeding the acceptable/unacceptable criteria will not result in additional credit. An "Acceptable" rating in each technical factor is required for award eligibility.

Technical Rating Description

Acceptable Clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. All Factors and sub-factors have passed the evaluation.

Unacceptable Does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

One or more factors/subfactors did not pass the evaluation. Failure to address any factor will deem a quote unacceptable.

Technical Subfactor 1: Contract Management Plan (CMP)

Description: Evaluation of the proposed approach to successfully perform the standards detailed in SOW section 9.1.4.

Evaluation Criteria: To be rated "Acceptable," the CMP must demonstrate:

o Understanding of scope, complexity, and challenges, with effective mitigation strategies.

o A detailed list of all personnel involved in the project including their roles and labor categories.

PRICE EXHIBIT

Quotes will be evaluated based on the accuracy of the extended prices, the calculated total prices for the base and option periods, and the final total price. The government will verify the accuracy of all price calculations, including unit price extensions and total price sums. Quotes with significant discrepancies may be deemed unacceptable. Prices will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balanced pricing. Offers whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable and/or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by combining the proposed prices for the Base Year. A 6-month extension period, priced by the Government at 50% of the base year price (as per RFO 52.217-8), will be added to the TEP for evaluation purposes. Offerors should not include pricing for this extension. The TEP will be used to rank technically acceptable offers, and offerors are responsible for the accuracy of their pricing. While RFO 52.217-8 allows the Contracting Officer to extend services for up to 6 months, inclusion of this extension in the TEP doesn't obligate the Government to exercise this option.

Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each offeror's price as required by the Addendum to RFO 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors -Commercial Items, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW RFO 13.203. The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques IAW RFO 15.404-1(b) and IAW RFO 15.404-1(c) if deemed necessary.

Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed contract line items that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the other proposed contracted line items (either of the offeror's quotes or the same contract line items as proposed by other offerors). The government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed contract line items in the same contract line items category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

(End of Addendum)