Attachment_6_Section_L.pdf

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

1.1.1. The Government plans to award a single contract for the T-6A Avionics Replacement Program. The Contractor shall provide all manpower, material, equipment, components, skills, expertise and knowledge, and meet all required prototype and fleet modifications to fully and successfully complete the contract for the USAF T-6A Avionics Replacement Program (ARP) to modify the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) fleet of estimated 442 T-6A trainer aircraft and ground based training simulators in accordance with the contract’s Statement of Work (SOW) and to provide other items contained in the contract. Performance of the contracted services will occur on site at Government installations (Main Operating Bases (MOBs)) designated in the SOW/contract for the modifications.

1.1.2. The Government plans to award a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made on the basis of “best value” and may utilize tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. If used, the tradeoffs will be made only between Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in System Requirements Document (SRD), Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable in Factor 1, Subfactors 1, 3, 4, and

5. Award will be made to the Offeror that provides the best value to the Government In Accordance With (IAW) Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Award will be made to the Contractor that provides the “best value” to the Government over the entire period of performance (PoP). The T-6A ARP acquisition includes one Basic Period of 4-years (Technology Maturation Risk Reduction (TMRR), Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) and Production/Installation), and one 4-year Option Period (Production and Installation) for a total of 8 years, plus a 6-month extension.

1.2. Budget/Funding Information

Funding will be obligated as Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) for the Contract PoP.

1.3 Contractor Technical Proposal

All or parts of the Contractor’s Technical Proposal may be added to the contract.

Should there be any discrepancies between the Technical Proposal and the Statement of Work (SOW), the SOW will take precedence unless otherwise approved by the Procuring Activity.

2.0 General Instructions

Attachment 6 - Section L

FA8106-23-R-0001

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

2.1.2. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

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

2.1.4. The proposal acceptance period is specified in the model contract/solicitation.

The Offeror shall make a clear statement in the specified model contract of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid until this date.

2.1.5. IAW 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. Written requests for clarification shall be sent to the CO at the address located in the model contract/solicitation.

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 IAW FAR

15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful Offerors IAW 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 System for Award Management (SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.2.5. Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation upon submission of the Offeror’s proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the Offeror’s proposal will render the proposal ineligible for award.

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

2.2.7. Communications

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

2.3. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

2.3.1. Title Page

The Title Page of each volume shall contain the solicitation number, name, address, and telephone of the Offeror and electronic e-mail address if available.

2.3.2. Proposal Organization

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 2.1: Proposal Organization. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in Table 2.1, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Proposal Organization

Volume ITO Paragraph Number

Volume Title Electro nic Copies

Page Limit

I 3.0 Technical 1 50

3.2.2 Title Page (Not included in 50 page limit) 1

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

50 page limit)

3.2.2 Table of Contents Unlimited

3.2.2 Cross-Reference Matrix Unlimited

3.2.2 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

3.2.2 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5 3.2.6

3.2.7

Subfactor 1 Threshold Requirements Contained in System Requirements Document (SRD), *Section L EN Tables (Not included in 50 Page limit) Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD, *Section L EN Tables (Not included in 50 Page limit) Subfactor 3 Digital Engineering Subfactor 4 Schedule *IMP/IMS, Airworthiness Plan, Associate Contractor Agreements/Letters of Intent, technical approach and previous examples without ACAs, and installation plans unlimited (Not included in 50 Page limit) Subfactor 5 Modern Open Integrated Avionics, *Section L EN Tables, Intellectual Property Strategy, SOW Appendix H (Not included in 50 Page limit)

3.3 Factor 2 – Technical Risk (Included in 50

page limit)

Included as part of the 50 page limit

II 4.0 Past Performance 1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page 1

Team List (See Attach 2.0) 5

4.1 Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF)

(See Attach 1.1)

4.1.2 Consent Letter (See Attach 1.4) Unlimited

4.1.3 Client Authorization Letters (See Attach 1.5) Unlimited

4.1.4 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter

(See Attach 1.6) Unlimited

4.2.2 Present/Past Performance Questionnaires

(See Attach 1.2)

Not included in the Offeror’s proposal

4.3.2 Relevant Contract Narrative Request

Max 5 pages per contract

4.3.4 Organization Structure Change History 2

III 5 Price Volume 1 Unlimited

5.1 General Information Unlimited

5.2 Volume Organization Unlimited

IV 6 Contract Documentation 1 Unlimited

2.3.1 Title Page (SF1449) 1

Team List (see Attach 2.0) 5

2.3.7 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.3.8 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.3.9 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

6.3.4 Team List, Arrangements, Associate

Contractor Agreements and/or Letters of Intent (See Attachment 2.0)

Unlimited

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

6.1.4 Representations and Certifications (Section

K) N/A

6.3.1-6.3.3 Contact Information Unlimited

6.3.5 Attachments to the Model Contract Unlimited

2.3.3. Names

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

2.3.4. 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 Proposal Organization Chart as unlimited.

2.3.5. Pricing Information

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

2.3.6. Cross Referencing

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

The Offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided in Table 2.2 that will indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph or location which addresses the referenced item, and this shall be included in the Technical Volume submission.

Table 2.2 is not included as part of the Technical Volume page limit. The Offeror’s cross-reference matrix shall include the proposal reference information as it relates to the instructions, SOW contents, System Requirements Document (SRD), Procurement Specification (EPS) contents, RFP sections, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) references (if applicable), and the corresponding proposal paragraph in the section which addresses the reference item as part of Volume I – Technical; Volume II – Past Performance; and Volume III – Price.

Table 2.2 Cross-Reference Matrix

Cross Reference RFP Ref Para (SOW, CDRL, SRD, SOW etc)

RFP

Section

L

Proposal (Volume & Para)

Factor 1:

Technical

3.0

Subfactor 1- Threshold Requirements Contained in SRD

T-6A ARP SRD Rev 002 and Section L

Engineering Tables

3.2.3

Subfactor 2 – Meeting Objective Requirements and

T-6A ARP SRD Rev 002 and Section L

Engineering Tables

3.2.4

Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD Subfactor 3 – Digital Engineering

SOW Section 5.1 3.2.5

Subfactor 4 – Schedule a) b)

c) d) e) f) g)

SOW Sections

3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, SOW

App E

5.1.7, 5.1.8, 5.12.6.1, 5.12.7, SOW App E

4.11.1 and SOW App E

5.11.2.1 3.1

10.0 6.4, 7.3, and SOW App B

3.2.6

SubFactor 5- Modern Open Integrated Avionics c)

T-6A ARP SRD Rev 002 and Section L

Engineering Tables

3.10, 3.11, 3.11.1, SOW

Appendices G and H

3.2.7

Factor 2:

Technical Risk

Describe Technical Risk

3.3

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Price

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.

2.3.8. Tables and Figures

Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures.

2.3.9. 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. Pages

A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Page line spacing shall be 1.5 lines.

Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than Arial 12 points. Offerors are prohibited from using other Arial fonts such as Arial Black, Arial Narrow or Arial Rounded MT Bold. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top 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. Tables, Charts, Graphs and Figures

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 when printed. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. The following limitation only applies to the Technical Volume. Text intended for evaluation within all figures, charts, tables, and graphs, to include imbedded images, shall be no less than Arial 8 point font. In addition, all figures, charts, tables and graphs shall allow for page line spacing be no less than 1.0 lines. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals. Any text within figures, charts, tables, and graphs which do not meet this requirement will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.5. Labeling

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

2.6. Electronic Offers

All proposals shall be submitted using DoD SAFE, https://safe.apps.mil/. All interested Offerors must e-mail Stephanie Tinnin (stephanie.tinnin.1@us.af.mil) in order to receive a request code to drop-off (upload) files in DoD SAFE. One of the Government Points of Contact (GPOCs) will send an e-mail to the Offeror acknowledging the request for a proposal drop-off code in DoD Safe. The GPOC e-mail acknowledging the request will not be sent to the Offeror after close of business hours, weekends, or on nationally observed holidays. If you do not receive an acknowledgement e-mail from either of the GPOCs after 72 hours, you must send another e-mail. E-mails will not be returned after close of business hours, weekends, or on nationally observed holidays. After the e-mail request for a drop-off code has been sent from the Offeror and the Offeror has received the acknowledgment e-mail from either GPOC, the Offeror will then receive an e-mail from DoD SAFE to drop-off proposals and other requested documents. If the Offeror does not receive the e-mail from DoD SAFE the Offeror will need to check SPAM and JUNK folders before requesting another drop-off code from the GPOC. The request for drop-off is only valid for 14 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.

All electronic documents and files submitted shall contain the volume number and title.

Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any. The Offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file.

The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 365 Word, MS Office 365 Excel, MS Office 365 Power Point, and Adobe PDF. Note PDF files must be searchable and able to copy and paste. For amendment purposes to the proposal, the "original" proposal shall be clearly identified.

2.7. Distribution

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

Email address is as follows:

Stephanie Tinnin: stephanie.tinnin.1@us.af.mil

3.0 Factor 1 – Technical

3.1. General

The Technical Volume shall be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology 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.

Offerors shall propose one solution in the proposal. Offerors are not permitted to include multiple solutions or approaches for the same requirement within the proposal.

3.2. Format and Specific Content

3.2.1. Technical

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology 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.

3.2.2. Volume Organization

The Technical Volume shall be organized according to Table 2.1. In the Technical Volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

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

(1) Team List Attach 2.0

(2) Table of Contents

(3) Cross-Reference Matrix

(4) List of Table and Drawings

(5) Glossary

(6) Subfactor 1: Threshold Requirements contained in SRD

(7) Subfactor 2: Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold

Requirements contained in SRD

(8) Subfactor 3: Digital Engineering

(9) Subfactor 4: Schedule

(10) Subfactor 5: Modern Open Integrated Avionics

3.2.3. Subfactor One: Threshold Requirements contained in SRD The Offeror shall provide an approach to meet the threshold requirements contained in the SRD for the T-6A ARP Program. The Offeror shall complete the attached Section L Engineering Tables spreadsheet. Specifically for Subfactor 1, within the spreadsheet, the Offeror shall complete the SF1 Threshold Compliance Tab. Refer to the Section L Engineering Tables, Vol I Instructions tab for guidance regarding how to complete the spreadsheet. At a minimum, the Offeror shall complete the spreadsheet as follows:

a) The Offeror shall complete the SF1 Threshold Compliance Tab, in which every requirement in the Full Compliance column is marked as “Y” or “N”. For requirements marked as “Y” in the Full Compliance column, no further explanation or rationale is required.

For requirements marked as “N” in the Full Compliance column, or requirements which are left blank, the Government will follow the process described in Section M, Paragraph 2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology.

3.2.4. Subfactor Two: Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD Offerors are afforded an opportunity to receive best value credit for a proposed approach which exceeds SRD threshold requirements (identified in paragraph a) and/or meets SRD Objective Requirements (identified in paragraph b) listed below.

The best value credit will be applied as strengths or significant strengths to the offeror’s proposal. Within the attached Section L Engineering Tables spreadsheet, the Offeror shall indicate areas of the proposed approach which exceed Threshold requirements and/or meet Objective requirements. Threshold exceedances related to Subfactor 2a below are listed in the spreadsheet in the SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab. Objective requirements related to Subfactor 2b below are listed in the spreadsheet in the SF2b Objective Compliance Tab. Refer to the Section L Engineering Tables, Vol I Instructions tab for guidance regarding how to complete the spreadsheet. The Government will not consider strengths/significant strengths for requirements that are not listed in the SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab or the SF2b Objective Compliance Tab.

For both tabs, the Offeror shall mark “Y” in areas where the Offeror believes the proposed approach should receive consideration as a strength/significant strength for exceeding threshold requirements in Subfactor 2a and/or complying with objective requirements in Subfactor 2b. For all areas marked as “Y”, the Offeror shall provide supporting rationale for the proposed strength/significant strength in the Offeror’s Volume I Technical Proposal. The Government will only evaluate the approach for potential strengths/significant strengths for requirements where the Offeror has indicated a “Y”. For requirements indicated by the Offeror as “N”, or are blank, the Government will not assign any strengths/significant strengths. Details for each subfactor element are as follows:

a) Assessment will consider potential strengths/significant strengths for exceedances for the following (Section L Engineering Tables, SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab). The Offeror shall complete the ARP SRD, Section L Engineering Tables, SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab, in which every requirement is marked as “Y” or “N”. If marked “Y”, include values and supporting information in allotted pages or Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) List as applicable.

Indicate the page and paragraph reference in the Offeror’s Vol I Technical proposal containing supporting information.

i. Temperature Qualifications

ii. Solar hardiness

iii. Reliability

b) Assessment of level of compliance to objective requirements (Section L Engineering Tables, SF2b Objective Compliance Tab).

The Offeror shall complete the ARP SRD, Section L EN Tables, SF2b Objective Compliance Tab, in which every requirement is marked as “Y” or “N”. If marked “Y”, include values and supporting information in allotted pages or Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) List as applicable. Indicate the page and paragraph reference in the Offeror’s Vol I Technical proposal containing supporting information.

i. Reliability

ii. Maintainability

iii. Display Configurability

iv. Sustainability

3.2.5. Subfactor Three: Digital Engineering

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Digital Engineering. As a minimum, the Offeror must provide an approach for the following elements:

a) The Offeror shall provide an approach for model based systems engineering, model based design, and Technical Data Package digital files in accordance with SOW Section 5.1.

b) The Offeror shall provide an approach for Systems Engineering Management Plan incorporation of Digital Engineering over the entire product lifecycle. The Offeror shall also describe the utilization of the Authoritative Source of Truth in the technical reviews. (SOW Section 5.1)

3.2.6. Subfactor Four: Schedule

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Schedule. As a minimum, the Offeror must provide an approach for the following elements:

a) The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The IMS and IMP must identify and address significant events and milestones identified in SOW Appendix E and must include a rationale for how the IMS and IMP will be executed. (SOW Sections 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and SOW Appendix E).

b) The Offeror shall provide an approach describing how the Virtual and Physical prototypes will be available to meet schedule (SOW Section 5.1.7, 5.1.8, 5.12.6.1, 5.12.7, and SOW Appendix E).

c) The Offeror shall provide an approach which identifies long-lead time material/parts. The approach must address how the items will be available in order to meet schedule (SOW Section 4.11.1 and SOW Appendix E).

d) The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive draft Airworthiness Plan, including FAA Certification planning.

The approach must describe how the Offeror will obtain airworthiness certification (SOW Section 5.11.2.1).

e) The Offeror shall provide, based on their proposed approach in regard to data requirements (SOW Section 3.1), either:

i) Signed and dated established Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) or subcontracting arrangements or Letters of Intent (LOIs) with the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), component vendors, and CLS Contractor to satisfy contractual expectations; or

ii) A statement, with supporting rationale, describing how the offeror’s proposed approach will satisfy contractual expectations without any ACAs, subcontracting arrangements, or LOIs with the OEMs, component vendors or CLS Contractor. As a minimum, the approach must describe:

(1) technical approach to design integration/interface in the absence of ACAs and associated engineering, installation, and interface control data.

(2) assessment of impacts to technical risk and schedule

(3) Description of any examples of proposed approach being utilized on other similar projects where OEM ACAs were not utilized. If examples are included, provide additional information such as contract number, point of contact, and contract narrative. This information may be utilized as part of the evaluation for Volume II, Past Performance (Section L, Paragraph 4.0 and Section M, Paragraph

2.4); or

iii) A combined approach in which the offeror shall specify which requirements will be completed by utilizing the OEM(s), component vendor(s) and/or CLS Contractor and provide the signed and dated established ACAs, subcontracting arrangements and/or LOIs with the OEM(s), component vendor(s) and/or CLS Contractor, as applicable. In addition, for the remaining requirements, the offeror shall provide a statement and supporting rationale, describing how the offeror’s proposed approach will satisfy contractual expectations without ACAs, subcontracting arrangements, or LOIs with the OEM(s), component vendor(s) and/or CLS Contractor. Also, the offeror shall provide:

(1) technical approach to design integration/interface in the absence of ACAs and associated engineering, installation, and interface control data.

(2) assessment of impacts to technical risk and schedule

(3) Description of any examples of proposed approach being utilized on other similar projects where OEM ACAs were not utilized. If examples are included, provide additional information such as contract number, point of contact, and contract narrative. This information may be utilized as part of the evaluation for Volume II, Past Performance (Section L, Paragraph 4.0 and Section M, Paragraph 2.4).

f) The Offeror shall provide an approach for technical orders for the T-6A aircraft IAW TO 00-5-3. The approach must address how the technical order data is identified, developed and delivered to meet schedule (SOW Section 10.0).

g) The Offeror shall provide an aircraft installation plan and Aircraft Training Device (ATD) installation plan. The Offeror shall address how the aircraft and ATD installation plans will be delivered to meet schedule (SOW Sections 6.4, 7.3 and SOW Appendix B).

3.2.7. Subfactor Five: Modern Open Integrated Avionics

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Modern Open Integrated Avionics and an Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy. As a minimum, the Offeror must provide an approach for the following elements. Refer to Section L Engineering Tables, Vol I Instructions Tab for a) and b).

a) The Offeror shall provide an approach describing how

Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Avionics Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) will meet a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 7 or higher. The Offeror shall identify COTS LRUs in the attached Section L Engineering Tables, LRU Tab.

b) The Offeror shall provide an approach describing how SRD Human factors and Architecture will ensure suitability for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and minimization of pilot workload. In the attached Section L EN Tables, SF5 Modern Open Integrated Avionics Tab, the Offeror shall mark every requirement as “Y” or “N”. If marked “Y”, include values and supporting information in allotted pages or Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) List as applicable. Indicate the page and paragraph reference in the Offeror’s Vol I Technical proposal containing supporting information. For requirements marked as “N” in the Full Compliance column, the proposal must include convincing rationale describing the Offeror’s approach to achieve full compliance for each Threshold requirement or meet the threshold requirement to the fullest extent possible. For these threshold requirements which are not in full compliance, the Offeror shall provide an approach to attain the best possible value as close to the requirement as possible, providing reasonable rationale as to why this is the best possible value attainable.

c) The Offeror shall provide an IP Strategy for each of the T-6A ARP systems and its components. The Offeror shall identify all IP rights associated with the Technical Data Packages (Drawings, Technical Orders, and specs) as well as Commercial Computer Software to include (source executable and object) (SOW Sections 3.10, 3.11, 3.11.1, and SOW Appendix G). The Offeror shall document any software assertions in SOW Appendix H.

3.3 Factor 2 - Technical Risk

The Offeror is provided an opportunity to address technical risks associated with those aspects of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for Factor 1 Technical, Subfactors 2, 3, 4, and 5. If the Offeror chooses to provide additional information, the Offeror shall address all technical risks that the Offeror considers to have potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each risk identified, the Offeror shall provide the rationale for the risk, including quantitative estimates; potential impacts on schedule and performance;

and the potential of each risk to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of contract requirements. The offeror shall describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of the risk’s potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of contract requirements, whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. For each risk the offeror identifies, the offeror shall outline how that risk is eliminated or reduced to a manageable level in a proposed mitigation plan.

4.0. Factor 3 – 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, vendors, 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, Factor 4 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity. The Government Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) evaluates each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance quality, 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. Attachment 1.4 Consent Letter. This letter shall be executed and signed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner. The letter authorizes the release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

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

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

4.2. Early Proposal Information

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

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 forward them directly to the Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET). (Attn: Stephanie Tinnin). Email address for questionnaires is stephanie.tinnin.1@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES

SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE

OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The PPET will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary.

4.3. Relevant Contracts

4.3.1. The offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts (or efforts). The PPI shall be completed in accordance with 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 five years, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.1 Recency Assessment. Request each offeror submit up to three (3) PPIFs for the prime contractor, and up to three (3) PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 5% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 5% of the total effort, but is determined to be performing a critical function.

NOTE: The requested number of PPIFs for the prime and subcontractors are preferences and not requirements. Offerors may submit more than the preferred number, if the offeror believes the extra contracts are needed to fully describe their relevancy. Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPIFs are not automatically assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable, if the Government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Request each PPIF not exceed a target of 10 pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the T-6A ARP program.

4.3.2. PPI Relevant Contract Narrative

For each PPIF, the offeror shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contract is deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. Specifically, the narrative should focus on similarities to the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, Performance Quality, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment, 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 with effective corrective actions. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. The offeror is requested to limit the narrative to a maximum of 5 pages. However, the offeror may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

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

4.3.4. Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between the conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, 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 4 – Price

5.1. Price Volume

In the price volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information in addition to the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4). These instructions are to assist you in submitting information required to evaluate the reasonableness, balance, and realism 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 that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, shall 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. Offerors shall not input pricing information in Part I – Schedule B – Supplies or Services and Prices of the model contract.

5.2.1. Price Reasonableness

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

5.2.2. Unbalanced Pricing

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

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

5.2.3. Price Realism

The Government will evaluate proposals for price realism to determine whether proposed prices are based on an adequate understanding of contract requirements and to ensure the proposed price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance.

The Offeror shall provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.). All proposed prices shall be sufficient and adequately proposed to ensure performance is not at an unacceptable risk with prices proposed too low.

5.2.4. Pricing Information Requirements

FAR 15.4 applies as appropriate. Specifically, FAR 15.404-1 applies regarding proposal analysis. Price analysis techniques shall be utilized to ensure fair and reasonable pricing in accordance FAR 15.404-1(b). Providing information to assist with pricing evaluation to further support proposed pricing will expedite the source selection process.

In accordance with FAR 15.403(1)(b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of certified 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 Contracting Officer (CO) determine proposed prices 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.

5.2.5. Rounding

In the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4), all dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent. In addition, proposed labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest cent.

The Travel General & Administrative (G&A) rate, Material Handling rate, and Shipping & Transportation G&A rate shall be rounded to four (4) decimal places to the right of the decimal point (ex. 12.15% = 0.1215). If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

5.2.6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Offerors shall complete the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4). Offerors must ensure all required proposed pricing is provided.