Attachment No 5 Instructions to Offerors and Eval Criteria.pdf

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 1 | 18

Solicitation No. FA8750269R001

Attachment No. 5 to the Solicitation

Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria 04 June 2026

1. WHITEPAPER PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

a. The whitepaper will describe the aspects of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the

Enterprise Prototype Initiative Consortium (EPIC) program objectives.

1) Whitepapers must be complete and respond directly to the requirements of the solicitation.

2) The whitepaper must be sent electronically in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Oral presentations, models, mockups, or videos will not be accepted. Email whitepaper to each of the following addresses:

catherine.hulser.1@us.af.mil, erica.ogundadegbe@us.af.mil, matthew.shaver.1@us.af.mil and AFRL.RF.EPIC@us.af.mil

3) The whitepaper must be received by 12:00pm Eastern Daylight time on 12 August 2026. Note that email systems, storage limits, and firewalls may present a risk to successful submission. Recommend allowing enough time to trouble shoot problems surrounding whitepaper submission. It is each Offeror’s responsibility to confirm that the Government has received their whitepaper.

4) Whitepapers should be no more than 10 pages summarizing their proposed approach/solution requested. Any pages in excess of 10 will be removed and not considered in the white paper evaluation. The purpose of the white paper is to preclude unwarranted effort on the part of an offeror whose proposed work is not of interest to the Government.

5) Whitepapers should be formatted as follows

1. Section A: Title, Period of Performance, Proposed Consortium

Management Fee, Name/Address of Company, Technical and Contracting Points of Contact (phone and email) (this section is NOT included in the page count).

2. Section B: Task Objective.

3. Section C: Technical Summary.

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 2 | 18

6) All whitepapers shall be double spaced with a font no smaller than 12 point.

Please note that less than 12-point font is acceptable for graphics and illustrations (as in labels and short descriptions) as long as it is readable when printed out on standard 8x11 paper. In addition, respondents are requested to provide their Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code, their unique entity identifier, and electronic funds transfer (EFT) indicator (if applicable), an e-mail address and reference this solicitation number.

7) Any whitepapers received after the date and time listed above will not be considered.

8) EVALUATION CRITERIA: The criteria listed are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed on whitepapers submitted in response to this solicitation. Evaluation will be accomplished by comparing Offerors' capabilities and whitepaper elements against Government objectives.

While the Government’s evaluators will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

c. Specific Factors for Award: The factors and subfactors identified below, listed in descending order of importance, will be considered during whitepaper evaluation.

1. FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: Factor 1 will be evaluated using streamlined evaluation methodology in that it will receive narrative statements that will document key attributes during the technical evaluation. Plus: A plus is defined as an aspect of an Offeror’s whitepaper that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during agreement performance. There is little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal recipient effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Minus:

A minus is defined as a flaw in the whitepaper that increases the risk of unsuccessful agreement performance. It can potentially cause moderate to significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special Recipient emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties, or is unlikely to overcome difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 3 | 18 monitoring. Please note, a neutral rating may be applied for aspects of an offeror’s whitepaper that meets the Government requirements while not exceeding the requirements set forth in the Solicitation.

The technical/management capability factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following subfactors:

1. Subfactor 1: Implementation Plan and Schedule Risk. The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed plan and timeline to determine when the Consortium will be capable of facilitating, competing, and awarding Government requirements. The evaluation will assess the plan's realism, the soundness of the approach, and the degree to which it minimizes risk and enables the Consortium to begin competing for and executing prototype projects immediately following the OT agreement award. A plan that demonstrates a rapid and low-risk path to operational status will be evaluated more favorably.

2. Subfactor 2: The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the Consortium structure as it relates to competition processes and operational procedures. The Government will evaluate the proposed Consortium solicitation processes, and the operational and management procedures throughout the lifecycle of the OT Agreement award. The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates efficient organizational and operational structure and their expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks.

3. Subfactor 3: Strategy for coordinating and assisting activities of Consortium members at the individual prototype project level. The Government will evaluate the Consortium's strategy as it relates to the processes by which the Consortium will assist the project-level members throughout the entire project lifecycle.

4. Subfactor 4: The ability to attract, retain, and expand Consortium membership. The Government will evaluate the Consortium manager's strategy as it relates to the openness of the Consortium, in particular the ease with which new members are able to join and participate;

specific actions intended to expedite formation of the Consortium; specific actions intended to ensure the Consortium membership aligns with the areas of interest

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 4 | 18 identified in the EPIC Statement of Work (SOW); identify plans to grow and mature the Consortium membership base. Address strategy for exiting members, in particular, how it might negatively affect the pool of subject matter experts in a given field and the effect on the OTA.

2. Cost/Price: In rating the Cost/Price factor indicated by the Offeror’s whitepaper, evaluators will consider the soundness of the Offeror’s approach to:

1. Subfactor 1: Consortium OTA Fees. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed fee structure for greatest overall benefit to the Government. Evaluation will focus on the transparency, consistency, and reasonableness of the fees in relation to the scope of work.

2. Subfactor 2: Consortium membership fees. The Government will evaluate the planned Consortium membership fee structure and how it incentivizes achievement of Government objectives.

2. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

a. Once a whitepaper is evaluated and determined selectable, a proposal will be requested.

b. The Offeror’s proposal will describe in complete detail all aspects of its approach to meeting the EPIC program objectives. For purposes of the evaluation, the offers must address all elements of the Statements of Work (SOW). The SOW will be incorporated into the final Agreement and the successful Offeror will be responsible for performance of all elements of the SOW. The following sections include explanatory guidance for preparing a responsive proposal that is intended to facilitate the Government’s review of the range of proposed approaches to program execution. There must be consistency in structure and content across the Offerors’ proposals for the Government to effectively evaluate them. To accomplish this, it is important that Offerors follow the proposal guidelines that:

1) The proposal must be complete and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation.

2) The proposal must be sent electronically in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Oral presentations, models, mockups, or videos will not be accepted. Email proposal to each of the following addresses: catherine.hulser.1@us.af.mil, erica.ogundadegbe@us.af.mil, matthew.shaver.1@us.af.mil and AFRL.RF.EPIC@us.af.mil.

mailto:catherine.hulser.1@us.af.mil mailto:erica.ogundadegbe@us.af.mil mailto:matthew.shaver.1@us.af.mil

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 5 | 18

3) The proposal must be received at the date and time specified on the request.

Any proposals received after the date and time specified will not be considered.

4) For planning purposes only, Offerors should assume an award date of approximately March 2027; however, proposals in response to this solicitation must be valid for at least 180 days after the due date for proposals.

5) After the due date of the proposal, proposal revisions may only be accepted if requested or approved by the Agreements Officer.

6) The proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to award of the resulting Agreement by providing written notice to the Agreements Officer.

7) The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest.

8) The Government reserves the right to modify this solicitation by publishing subsequent notice(s) to sam.gov.

9) The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs.

10) Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available.

c. Proposal Guidelines

1) The following sections describe the content and structure Offerors will follow in developing their proposals. Offerors must be sure to reference the appropriate SOW paragraphs for each section of the proposal and limit proposal length to the minimum number of pages needed to describe the intended approach. The hard page limit is 50 pages. Page limits referenced in this solicitation will be strictly enforced. Pages exceeding stated limits will not be evaluated. All pages must be numbered and utilize a page size of 8.5” x 11” with 1” top, bottom, and side margins. 12-point font is the minimum. Please note that less than 12-point font is acceptable for graphics and illustrations (as in labels and short descriptions) as long as it is readable when printed out on standard 8x11 paper.

2) Proposal Content (Unless otherwise noted, all elements listed below count against the maximum page count listed above):

3) Table of Contents

1. Cover Page (excluded from page count)

2. Table of Contents (excluded from page count)

3. List of Illustrations/Tables (excluded from page count)

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 6 | 18

4. Executive Summary (excluded from page count)

PART I TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

1.0 Technical/Management Approach

1.1 Technical/Management Discussion

1.2 Technical/Management Program Summary

1.3 Risk Analysis and Alternatives

1.4 References

2.0 Program Organization

2.1 Management and Technical Team

2.1.1 OT Lead Responsibilities

2.1.2 Subrecipient(s) Responsibilities

2.1.3 Project Level Performer Responsibilities

3.0 Cost Factor

3.1 Description of Compensation Structure

4.0 Other Business Issues

4.1 Representations and Certifications (excluded from page

count)

4.2 Exceptions to Articles

4.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest Documentation

(excluded from page count)

5.0 Appendix(es)

PART II OFFEROR’S PROCESSES AND PRACTICES FOR EPIC

EXECUTION (excluded from page count)

PART III OFFEROR’S CONSORTIUM MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT

(excluded from page count)

4) Proposal Content

1. Introduction

a. Cover Page: The cover page shall include the following information:

i. Program title

ii. The solicitation number

iii. The names, addresses, telephone numbers and relevant email addresses for the Offeror’s principal points of contact (both technical and administrative)

iv. Offeror’s web address

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 7 | 18

v. A statement specifying that the Offeror either agrees with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation, or reference to the page(s) in the proposal where those elements the Offeror disagrees with are identified and discussed. (NOTE: exceptions to the terms and conditions will be considered as part of an integrated assessment of offers received. Thus, the most effective time to request clarification or express exception to a term or condition set forth in the solicitation is during the proposal preparation stage, i.e. prior to the proposal due date, not within the proposal.)

vi. Names, titles, telephone numbers and email addresses of persons authorized to negotiate with the Government on the Offeror’s behalf in connection with this solicitation.

vii. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. (NOTE: Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.)

viii. Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall:

1. Mark the title page with the following legend:

“This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed – in whole or in part – for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Offeror as a result of – or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting agreement. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

2. Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 8 | 18

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal”

b. Table of Contents: Follow the previously described table of contents and use it for a final quality control checklist.

c. List of illustrations/Tables: This list is a quick reference of charts, graphs, and other important information. A separate List of Tables is recommended.

d. Executive Summary: The Executive Summary allows Offerors to present, briefly and concisely, the important aspects of their proposals to key management personnel. The summary should present an organized description of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the critical objectives of the SOW, without technical details, so that the reader can grasp the core issues of the proposed program. The Executive Summary should not exceed two pages.

2. PART I: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

a. Technical/Management Approach

In this section, the Offeror should provide as much detail and analysis as is necessary or useful to support the technical/management approach it is proposing. The Offeror must clearly identify the processes and procedures that it will execute in order to meet the objectives of the SOW paragraphs. The Offeror must also describe its approach for aligning financial incentives with the program objectives described in the SOW. The Government is most interested in compensation structures that involve transaction fees that are designed to produce the following program outcomes:

(1) incentivize the OT Lead to pursue more projects and put downward pressure on individual project award prices; and (2) incentivize the number of active competitors participating in each requirement.

i. Technical/Management Discussion: No technical or management approach is without its limitations or shortcomings. Every issue should be identified and compared with the successes/failures of known previous approaches. A tradeoff analysis is one way (but not the only way) to make this comparison and should be supported by sound engineering and management practices. If the Offeror has a new and creative solution to the critical program objectives outlined in

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 9 | 18 the SOW, that solution should be developed and analyzed in this section. The Government’s “Recommended Processes and Practices for EPIC” document (Attachment No. 4 to the solicitation) should represent a baseline for this discussion.

The preferred technical/management approach should be described in as much detail as is necessary or useful to establish confidence in the approach. This discussion should also include a description of how the proposed compensation structure aligns incentives to the Government’s desire to award many relatively low-cost prototype projects and encourage the broadest active participation in the Request For White Papers (RFWP)/Request For Proposal (RFP).

ii. Technical/Management Program Summary: This section summarizes the above discussion by describing the end-to-end process the Offeror envisions for executing the critical program objectives described in the SOW. This discussion must present an orderly progression through the program, emphasizing the strong points of the proposed technical/management approach. The Government’s “Recommended Processes and Practices for EPIC” document (Attachment No. 4 to the solicitation) should provide the general framework for the Offeror’s approach. The Government welcomes approaches that refine and improve upon the described Processes and Practices; however, deviations must be clearly identified with risks and mitigations clearly identified and explained. This section should include a discussion as to how the proposed compensation approach is expected to impact the overall outcome of the end- to-end process.

iii. Risk Analysis and Alternatives: Every approach has its limitations and shortcomings. The proposal evaluator(s) will formulate a risk assessment; therefore, it is in the Offerors’ best interests to have their own understanding of the risk factors presented. Critical technologies and management processes should be identified along with their impact on the overall program as well as alternative courses of action that could still result in successful execution of the objectives in the Government’s SOW. Discussion of the risks associated with the proposed compensation structure should identify

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 10 | 18 both downside and upside risks and explain how the proposed approach balances the Offeror’s downside risk against the upside risk, and aligns upside risk (i.e. opportunity for profit) with the Government’s objectives under this effort. The Offeror should include a narrative describing how its desired compensation approach will align the interests of the Government and of the OT Lead in the performance of this effort. If the compensation structure is not working, the OT Lead and Government can negotiate an alternative, mutually beneficial approach.

iv. References: This section should identify any references of value to the reviewers in evaluating the approach.

b. Program Organization In this paragraph, the Offerors should present their Organization’s ability to conduct difficult technical programs. Any pertinent or useful information may be included in this paragraph, but a minimum recommended response should address the following subparagraphs:

i. Management and Technical Team: This should specifically identify what tasks will be performed by each party and why each subofferor, if any, was selected to perform its task(s).

1. Prime/Offeror’s Responsibilities

2. Subofferor(s)’ Responsibilities

3. Project Level Performer(s)’ Responsibilities

c. Cost Factor

i. In this section, the Offeror should describe the compensation approach to be incorporated into the Agreement terms.

Reference the discussion under Evaluation Criteria with respect to the Cost/Price Evaluation Factor for details of the notional activities to be used to develop the estimated price.

ii. In describing its compensation approach, each Offeror should be sure to include all assumptions made in the development of its compensation structure. These assumptions include estimated fixed costs (e.g. costs of day-to-day management of the OT Lead’s functions) along with a description of the types of costs included in the category; estimated variable costs including a description of the types of costs included in

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 11 | 18 the category; and the premium charged to account for risk (i.e.

the amount over and above the estimated fixed and variable costs due to the uncertainty of future activities under the resulting agreement).

d. Other Business Issues. This section of the proposal will include the Offeror’s completed Representations and Certifications, any exceptions the Offeror takes with respect to the Articles included in the Model Agreement, and any necessary discussion regarding the Offeror’s Organizational Conflicts of Interest and associated plan for mitigating those conflicts.

e. Appendix(es): Appendices may include technical reports, published papers, and referenced material. A listing of these reports/papers with short description of the subject matter is usually adequate. DO

NOT PROVIDE COMMERCIAL PRODUCT ADVERTISING BROCHURES.

3. PART II OFFEROR’S PROCESSES AND PRACTICES FOR EPIC EXECUTION

(excluded from page count) This section of the proposal will mirror the structure laid out in the Government’s “Recommended Processes and Practices for EPIC” document at Attachment No. 4 to the solicitation. This document is intended to be incorporated as an Attachment to the resulting Agreement and will reflect the mutually understood Processes and Practices to be followed by the Government and the successful Offeror in cooperatively executing the EPIC program.

4. PART III OFFEROR’S MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT OR MODEL CONTRACT

WITH PERFORMERS (excluded from page count) This section of the proposal will contain the Offeror’s Membership Agreement, Model Contracts or Membership Terms and Conditions for Government review. This document will reflect the complete terms and conditions governing the relationship amongst the members of the Offeror’s lead organization and between the individual performer.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

This Section outlines those factors which comprise the criteria the Government will consider in evaluating Offerors' capabilities and proposals. The criteria listed are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. Evaluation will be accomplished by comparing Offerors' capabilities and proposal elements against Government objectives.

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 12 | 18

a. Basis for Determining Successful Offeror:

1) The successful Offeror under this solicitation will be that Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, based on an assessment of the proposal’s approach to meeting the critical technical objectives of the Statement of Work.

2) An Agreement may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government will compare differences in the value of technical/management features/capabilities with differences in cost/price to the Government. In making this comparison the Government values superior technical/management features/capabilities greater than lowest cost/price to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Selection Authority (SA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SA will base the award decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all evaluation factors in the solicitation (described below). While the Government’s proposal evaluators and the SA will strive for maximum objectivity, the proposal evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. However, cost/price will still contribute substantially to the best value award decision. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall Consortium OTA Fee(s) to the Government to achieve only slightly superior technical/management features.

3) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award an Agreement without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Agreements Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Agreements Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Agreements Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 13 | 18 that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The Government reserves the right to incorporate features of the Offeror’s proposed approach in the resulting agreement. Innovative approaches and/or approaches that deviate from recommended processes and practices are encouraged, but must include an assessment of risk, risk mitigation strategy, alternatives, and impact on achieving program objectives.

b. Evaluation Procedures:

1) Subject to page limitations described in the proposal instructions, all information furnished by Offerors will be evaluated, including exchanges that occur during post-evaluation discussions, should these discussions be determined to be in the Government’s best interest. Each of the subfactors within the technical/management factor will receive a plus or minus rating.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor. The subfactor assessment depicts how well the Offeror's proposal meets the evaluation criteria and the solicitation requirements.

Proposal risk represents the risks that are identified with an Offeror’s proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. After evaluation of all technical subfactors has been completed, the cost/price terms proposed by each Offeror will be compared against the evaluation results to determine the combination that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the Government’s objectives.

2) The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of the Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

3) The Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

4) The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, agreement terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in pricing terms, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

c. Specific Factors for Award: The factors and subfactors identified below, listed in descending order of importance, will be considered during proposal evaluation.

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 14 | 18

1) FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: Factor 1 will be evaluated using streamlined evaluation methodology in that it will receive narrative statements that will document key attributes during the technical evaluation. Plus: A plus is defined as an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during agreement performance. There is little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal recipient effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Minus: A minus is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful agreement performance. It can potentially cause moderate to significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties, or is unlikely to overcome difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Please note, a neutral rating may be applied for aspects of an offerors proposal that meets the Government requirements while not exceeding the requirements set forth in the solicitation.

The technical/management capability factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following subfactors:

1. Subfactor 1: Implementation Plan and Schedule Risk. The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed plan and timeline to determine when the Consortium will be capable of facilitating, competing, and awarding Government requirements. The evaluation will assess the plan's realism, the soundness of the approach, and the degree to which it minimizes risk and enables the Consortium to begin competing for and executing prototype projects immediately following the OT agreement award. A plan that demonstrates a rapid and low-risk path to operational status will be evaluated more favorably.

2. Subfactor 2: The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the Consortium structure as it relates to competition processes and operational procedures. The Government will evaluate the proposed Consortium solicitation processes, and the operational and management procedures throughout the lifecycle of the OT Agreement award. The Government will

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 15 | 18 assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates efficient organizational and operational structure and their expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed tasks.

3. Subfactor 3: Strategy for coordinating and assisting activities of Consortium members at the individual prototype project level.

The Government will evaluate the Consortium's strategy as it relates to the processes by which the Consortium will assist the project-level members throughout the entire project lifecycle.

4. Subfactor 4: The ability to attract, retain, and expand Consortium membership. The Government will evaluate the Consortium manager's strategy as it relates to the openness of the Consortium, in particular the ease with which new members are able to join and participate; specific actions intended to expedite formation of the Consortium; specific actions intended to ensure the Consortium membership aligns with the areas of interest identified in the EPIC Statement of Work (SOW); identify plans to grow and mature the Consortium membership base. Address strategy for exiting members, in particular, how it might negatively affect the pool of subject matter experts in a given field and the effect on the OTA.

2) FACTOR 2 - COST/PRICE: In rating the Cost/Price factor indicated by the Offeror’s proposal, evaluators will consider the soundness of the Offeror’s approach to:

1. Subfactor 1: Consortium OTA Fees. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed fee structure for greatest overall benefit to the Government. Evaluation will focus on the transparency, consistency, and reasonableness of the fees in relation to the scope of work.

2. Subfactor 2: Consortium membership fees. The Government will evaluate the planned Consortium membership fee structure and how it incentivizes achievement of Government objectives.

d. Evaluation Summary: After evaluation of all Technical/Management Subfactors has been completed, cost or price to the Government will be compared against the evaluation results to determine the combination that provides the Government with the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 16 | 18

4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

a. Government Property: Government Property is not currently being provided.

It is not anticipated that the OT Lead will require access to Government Property in order to carry out its role in this acquisition. Use of Government Property may be considered for Project-Level Orders. Terms and conditions regarding the tracking, use, disposition, and title to Government Property will be included in the resulting Agreement to provide the framework for providing Government Property to Project Level Performers. It is understood and accepted that time may be needed to implement Government Property requirements upon the first instance of property being provided. It is also understood that projects that require Government Property may take longer to award than those without property requirements.

b. Other Government Support:

1) Government Furnished Software and Information may be provided. Each area of interest may involve substantial provision of software and technical data. Upon area of interest identification, these resources will be identified in each applicable PLO and provided through the Government system. As necessary for individual project efforts, other arrangements may be made to transfer data. Software and data requirements following the initial development may require access to export controlled and/or classified information. The OT Lead will be responsible for coordinating clearance verification, access, and safeguarding of required classified resources.

Tracking and disposition of this support will be the OT Lead’s responsibility upon conclusion of the individual project effort(s). Base Support and Government network access are not anticipated for the OT Lead or the Project Level Performers at this time.

c. Intellectual Property:

1) With the exception of commercial software, which will be handled through commercial licensing, all software and technical data developed by the OT Lead or its Project Level Performers is anticipated to be delivered with Unlimited Rights but Government Purpose Rights may be accepted.

2) The Government reserves its right to negotiate intellectual property rights that differ from what is described above, as necessary.

3) Offerors should note that some military information systems require access to source code for accreditation testing. Accreditation is a part of security testing for certain Information Systems. The accreditation process is

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 17 | 18 tailored to each new Information System, so the need for source code must be determined on a case by case basis and will vary based on the Program Office associated with each effort. The Government will make every attempt to identify the extent to which code will be required to complete accreditation and provide this information with initial publication. Any source code requirements will be captured in the Project Level Order that the Government will send to the OT Lead following selection of a successful proposal. In such cases, source code requirements will also be included in the Project Level Agreement between the OT Lead and the Project Level Performer.

d. Organizational Conflicts of Interest: All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest must be disclosed.

(i.e. Offerors must disclose those situations in which, because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person or organization is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person or organization’s objectivity in performing the agreement work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person or organization has an unfair competitive advantage.) The disclosure shall include a description of the potential conflict as well as the action the Offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such conflict. Proposals that fail to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest and/or do not have plans to mitigate this conflict may be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

1) The most effective time to handle potential problems is during the proposal preparation stage, i.e. prior to the proposal due date, not in the proposal.

Therefore, if a prospective Offeror believes that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise), the Offeror is strongly encouraged to promptly raise the issue with the Agreements Officer by sending Offeror's contact information and a summary of the potential conflict by email to catherine.hulser.1@us.af.mil, erica.ogundadegbe@us.af.mil, matthew.shaver.1@us.af.mil and AFRL.RF.EPIC@us.af.mil before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan. If, in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances (including review of the Offeror's mitigation plan), any conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal may be returned without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award under this solicitation.

mailto:AFRL.RF.EPIC@us.af.mil

A t t a c h m e n t N o . 5 P a g e 18 | 18

2) Throughout performance, the OT Lead will be required to monitor potential conflicts of interest between its Project level Performers and the contractors currently developing for and operating the targeted information systems.

e. Foreign Participation: A Foreign Disclosure Review has been completed.

Foreign participation is excluded.