Boresight_LM_Draft_ATT_1.docx

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI)

SSP Attachment 4

L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS SOURCE SELECTION, F-16 BORESIGHT SYSTEM

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. A joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period. The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement, or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the F-16 Boresight System as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by AFLMC/ROKA, Attention: Robert Jackson, Contracting Officer and Tyrelle Stephens, Contract Specialist on the face page of the RFP.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via DoD SAFE. When submitting source selection information electronically, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

The test encrypted message process is as follows:

1. The offeror shall send a digitally signed “test” e-mail message containing no proprietary or source selection information to Robert.Jackson.62@us.af.mil and Tyrelle.Stephens@us.af.mil. Please clearly identify the email as a “Test email for F-16 Boresight System FA8532-25-R-0004.”

2. The Contracting Officer will open the test e-mail and add (or update) the sender’s e-mail address (and corresponding encryption certificate) to their Outlook “Contacts List”.

3. The Contracting Officer will send a digitally signed reply to the sender’s e-mail address.

4. The sender must open the Contracting Officer’s digitally signed reply and add (or update) the Contracting Officer’s e-mail address in their “Contacts List” (For Outlook users - right-click the name in the “From” box, and then click” Add to Contacts” on the shortcut menu. Shortcut menu: a menu that shows a list of commands relevant to a particular item. To display a shortcut menu, right-click an item or press shift + F10. If you already have a contact entry for this person, select “Update New Information” from this contact to the existing one).

5. When you are ready to send an encrypted email, ensure encryption is selected and include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email.

If an offeror's computer system cannot support encryption technology, DoD Safe at https://safe.apps.mil is the preferred alternative method of electronic submissions. The offeror should send an unencrypted email, including “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line, requesting a Drop Link for transmission purposes. When submitting source selection information via email (to include DoD SAFE), file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to .zip files, will not be accepted.

NOTE: When sending files via encrypted email, please note there is a size limit of 20MB.

NOTE: When sending files via DoD SAFE, please note there is a size limit of 8GB, as well as a 25 files number limit. Offerors shall advise the PCO and Contract Specialist of any submissions that will be outside of these limitations so that multiple DoD SAFE drop-off request links can be sent. A formal notice must be sent to the PCO and Contract Specialist for a drop-off link to be sent. Drop-off request/links sent to companies by the Government are only valid for 14 days. Additionally, drop-off request/links are only good for one submittal per use.

If the offeror chooses not to utilize encrypted email or DoD Safe, the offeror shall send the PCO correspondence at the time that it submits the proposal stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail. When submitting source selection documentation, offerors shall contact the Contracting Officer, Robert Jackson, and/or Contracting Specialist, Tyrelle Stephens, via email to advise of information submittal and obtain acknowledgement of receipt. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Consistently use Contracting Specialist or Buyer throughout.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in 4 separate volumes as set forth below:

(See Attachment # of RFP package) for Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE)

*All proposal information shall be submitted in electronic form via encrypted email or DoD SAFE. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format: Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: This should be a header sentence and the next area should be number 1 as this is starting the submission format requirements.

1. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings, color presentations are not desired or required. In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format.

Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: The template language includes the following and I think the most important part of this language is that we will not evaluate extra pages. I think it is important we tailor and add this language in.

3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal is (fill-in) pages. The page limitation for Volume IV, Small Business Participation, is (fill-in) pages. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., (tailor the types of information included in the page limitations) but excludes any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation. " Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA Robert Check the highlighted please

3. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, is (10) pages. The page limitation for Volume IV, Small Business Participation, is (10) pages. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., (tailor the types of information included in the page limitations) but excludes any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation. "

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

5. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: "SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CUI" Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: The legend is left out here.

"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CUI"

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to independently identify exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP outside of those identified in the offeror’s cover letter. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. If Artificial Intelligence (AI) was utilized in development of proposal, specifically identify where in the proposal AI was used for development.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The offeror shall fill out the cross-reference matrix at RFP Attachment #8 indicating where in its proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document The Purchase Description (PD), The Statement of Work (SOW), the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Proposal Requirements), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help an offeror ensure it has responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix. Additionally, Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with Section M of the solicitation. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Add Attachment number. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Tailor this to your requirement as far as whether you have a PD, SOO, or SOW. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office Jose is this right? Comment by INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: Yes, it is right. We have the PD and the SOW.

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS, shall only be submitted by and negotiated with the apparent successful offeror(s) prior to award. Once an apparent successful offeror(s) is identified, whether awarding without discussions or after final proposal revisions are received, the Government shall request the small business subcontracting plan from the apparent successful offeror(s) for negotiating as a part of the responsibility determination. This plan shall be considered outside of the proposal submitted for purposes of proposal evaluation but instead shall be considered as a part of the responsibility documentation required prior to award.

The plan shall set forth the offeror’s plan for subcontracting with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 as supplemented by the DFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by FAR 19.7, DFARS 219.7, and all associated clauses within this RFP.

Should the Government be unable to negotiate an acceptable small business subcontracting plan with the identified apparent successful offeror, a small business subcontracting plan will be requested and negotiated with the next apparent successful offeror, with this process continuing until the Government is able to obtain and negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan.

NOTE: The small business subcontracting plan is required by large business offerors only

Supplier Performance Risk System: If available, offerors shall have a current assessment in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) as required by DFARS 252.204-7019 and DFARS 252.204-7020. An assessment date is considered current within the last three years of this solicitation issuance. The Government will consider the offeror’s risk assessment for item, price, and supplier risk, as applicable. Offerors are able to access their risk assessments by following the access instructions in the SPRS users guide available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm.)

C. Volume II, Small Business Participation Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Have you all spoke with SB to look at possible Acquistion specific goals? Comment by DELUNA, ROMAN CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZC: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA @HOLTZ, MISTY B CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA Have you all talked to SB? What would we look for in a SB proposal from contractors? Comment by JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA: Small Business is reviewing the L&M as well

1. General: The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The offeror/joint venture member and each proposed critical subcontractor shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business Participation proposal is not the same as FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in place of the Small Business Participation proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation proposal for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor Volume II – Small Business Participation”. The Small Business Participation proposal shall address each of the following elements in the proposed performance of this resultant contract: Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Wrong volume here.

· The extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB)* when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

· The description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform; and,

· The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total acquisition value. If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, provide rationale for such. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Rather, adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals. Additionally, if the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor is a small business concern, it should include the work it will be performing when calculating the goals for your Small Business Participation information.

* Small Businesses include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small, disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns.

D. Volume III, Price Proposal Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Have you all spoken with a Price Analyst to review your pricing evaluation language? You all are at the threshold for being assigned a Pricing Analyst. Comment by DELUNA, ROMAN CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZC: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA @HOLTZ, MISTY B CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA Have we been assigned a Price Analyst for the boresight? Comment by JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA: Yes we have been assigned a Price Analyst @ROGERS, HEIDI M CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/HBKB is reviewing the L&M as well Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @DELUNA, ROMAN CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZC @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA She has already made her corrections

1. General Instructions

a. The offeror shall submit cost and pricing information in Volume III. The offeror shall complete the RFP Attachment 4, Price Spreadsheet in addition to Schedule B in the RFP. If discrepancies between RFP Attachment 4 and Schedule B arise, the prices in RFP Attachment 4 will take precedence.

b. Proposed unit/CLIN prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. If any proposed unit/CLIN price does not meet the required rounding, the Government will round that unit/CLIN price to the nearest whole dollar. The Government-adjusted unit/CLIN price will become the offeror’s proposed amount.

c. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

d. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal.

e. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

f. In accordance with DFARS 215.371-3, cost and pricing data may be required in the event only one offer is received. If no exception in FAR 15.403-1(b) applies, the cost and pricing data shall be certified.

g. Pursuant to clause FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, an evaluated price for Option Period 8 (six-month period) will be calculated for all CLINs and applicable ELINs by using the offeror’s proposed unit prices from Option Period 7 divided by two (2).

1. The offeror shall complete, sign, date, and submit the Offeror Certification Survey (see Attachment #6 of RFP) with its RFP package.

2. The offeror shall complete, sign, date, and submit the Bailment Agreement (see Attachment #7 of RFP) with its RFP package. The Government shall not be responsible for any transportation cost to or from the testing facility.

3. In accordance with the completed/signed Bailment Agreement, the offeror shall provide one (1 EA) of its existing F-16 Boresight System, including all Technical Orders (TO), for evaluation and assessment once a date/time has been established by the AFLCMC/ROKA contracting office. A date/time for receipt of the F-16 Boresight System to be delivered to Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Test Command (AATC) will be established after proposals are received. Adequacy of Packaging, Handling, and Storage (PH&S) shall be used as an evaluation factor. The F-16 Boresight System shall be the same model and shall represent the base unit that the offeror intends to provide on the contract effort should it receive the contract award, with the possible exception of additional fixtures. This system will be used for evaluations of the factors and subfactors described below: Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: You did not have any subfactors above.

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor One: Is the boresight equipment effective in an operational environment? Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: These subfactors are not detailed above in Section L in terms of what the offeror should submit in relation to each subfactor.

Evaluate the ability of the boresight equipment system to align F-16 required systems:

· Time required to Establish ABRL (3.3.1.1 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Heads Up Display (HUD) Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Left Angle of Attack (AOA) Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Right AOA Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Gun (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Left Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Right Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Fire Control Radar (FCR) Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Rate Sensing Unit (RSU) Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) Left Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) Right Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) INU Unit Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) FCR Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) RSU Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Boresight System Accuracy (3.3.6 of the PD)

Subfactor Two: Is the boresight equipment suitable in an operational environment?

Evaluate Boresight system reliability:

· Component Durability (3.17 of the PD) Evaluate boresight system maintainability:

· Ability to calibrate boresight equipment (3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the PD) Evaluate boresight system transportability:

· Deployment (3.3.10 and 3.10 of the PD)

· Adequacy of Packaging, Handling, and Storage (PH&S) (4.9.5 of the SOW) Assess boresight system safety (3.13 and all subparagraphs of the PD) Assess boresight system manpower supportability (3.3.8 and 3.12 of the PD) Evaluate boresight system logistic supportability:

· Adequacy of support equipment (Section L, Volume IV, paragraph 3) Evaluate boresight system documentation:

· Adequacy of maintenance documentation (Section L, Volume IV, paragraph 3) Evaluate boresight system training:

· Adequacy of maintenance training (Section L, Volume IV, paragraph 4, OUE phase 1)

4. Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) parameters. The OUE shall consist of two phases. Phase 1 shall be the training part and phase 2 shall be the performance of the test.

· OUE phase 1. The offeror shall provide a minimum of one (1), but no more than five (5) technical representatives to conduct an orientation/instructional session on the proper use and operation of its F-16 Boresight System to Government personnel who shall perform the test in phase 2, prior to the OUE. The date and time of the orientation/instructional sessions shall be scheduled between the AFLCMC/ROKA contracting office and the offeror after receiving the offeror’s proposal. The group of Government personnel will consist of approximately 10-30 individuals. The offeror shall conduct the session for no more than 8 hours in duration, and upon conclusion of the orientation/instructional session the technical representative will depart from the facility. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: This opened end without a maximum and they could show up with 10 or 20 or 30 people if we do not set a maximum. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office Please put a MAX Comment by INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: I added no more than 5 people.

· Functionality training. The contractor shall explain the functionality of components of the boresight system. The contractor shall explain how their system works from the operational point of view. The contractor shall share any training material to help to understand how the boresight system works.

· Hands-on training. The contractor shall demonstrate how the boresight system works in the F-16 aircraft. The contractor shall explain step by step the process on how to boresight an F-16 aircraft.

· OUE phase 2. Contractor representatives shall be given a welcome script upon arrival. Government maintainers shall perform the test with training provided on phase 1. OUE phase 2 shall last no more than 2 days at 8 hours per day. If after 16 hours, if testing has not been completed, then the offeror shall not move on in the source selection process. The date and time of the performance of the test shall be scheduled between the AFLCMC/ROKA contracting office and the offeror after receiving the offeror’s proposal. The contractor shall witness the OUE performed by the Government maintainers. Contractor representatives present during OUE shall not exceed five (5) persons. Contractor representatives shall not interact with government personnel associated with the Testing Facility or any government maintainers participating in the OUE. They may interact with the contracting officer only. A hot wash shall be allowed at the end of each day and if needed if testing is halted. This person shall be identified prior to the event to remove confusion. Government maintainers shall perform the test with no involvement of the contractors’ representatives. Contractors’ representatives shall not perform the test for the Government maintainers. The contractors’ representatives shall not troubleshoot the boresight system during the performance of the test. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: What are the parameters on this? How many ppl can come witness? Can they have any interaction with the Government personnel? etc. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office Check this addition Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: This is too open ended. I think it is either full communication and participate or none. You will never be able to control consistency among offerors with an opened ended "minimum".

SSP Attachment #5 Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Add attachment number.

Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Again, you do not speak to price in Section L.

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs may be made between level of technical performance and price. Note, the previous sentence does not imply nor is it the Government’s intention to conduct the evaluations in sequential order (i.e., first technical, then small business participation, and finally price). The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Again you do not talk to past performance in Section L. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: You did not have any subfactors above.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal and submitted F-16 Boresight System will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor One: Is the boresight equipment effective in an operational environment? Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: These subfactors are not detailed above in Section L in terms of what the offeror should submit in relation to each subfactor.

Evaluate the ability of the boresight equipment system to align F-16 required systems:

· Time required to Establish ABRL (3.3.1.1 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Heads Up Display (HUD) Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Left Angle of Attack (AOA) Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Right AOA Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Gun (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Left Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Right Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Fire Control Radar (FCR) Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Boresight Confidence Check Rate Sensing Unit (RSU) Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) Left Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) Right Hardpoint Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) INU Unit Mount (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Ability to Mechanically Boresight (pot) FCR Mounting Pins (3.3.6 of the PD)

· Component Durability (3.17 of the PD) Evaluate boresight system maintainability:

· Ability to calibrate boresight equipment (3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the PD) Evaluate boresight system transportability:

· Deployment (3.3.10 and 3.10 of the PD)

· Adequacy of Packaging, Handling, and Storage (PH&S) (4.9.5 of the SOW) Assess boresight system safety (3.13 and all subparagraphs of the PD) Assess boresight system manpower supportability (3.3.8 and 3.12 of the PD) Evaluate boresight system logistic supportability:

· Adequacy of support equipment (Section L, Volume IV, paragraph 3) Evaluate boresight system documentation:

· Adequacy of maintenance documentation (Section L, Volume IV, paragraph 3)

Factor II. Small Business Participation

Factor III. Price

2. Relative Importance: Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is significantly more important than price. However, Factor III, Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision. Within Factor I, subfactors One and Two are of the same level of importance. Factor II Small Business Participation will be evaluated only on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and thus will not be a part of the trade-off decision. Factor I, Technical evaluation, includes both technical acceptability/unacceptability or color/adjectival evaluation. The technical acceptability/ unacceptability rating is applicable to Subfactor I and II and will be a part of the tradeoff decision. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. The Government reserves the right to independently identify risks with the proposed approach outside of those risks identified by the offerors themselves. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Per the template you have to have a tailor statement similar to the below:

"Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance when combined are significantly more important, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost/price (choose one). " Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: We do not talk to risk in Section L above, the template language for Section L for tailoring is:

"For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. The Government reserves the right to independently identify risks with the proposed approach outside of those risks identified by the offerors themselves." Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA is this where this goes?

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government anticipates awarding a contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors deemed to be within the competitive range, in accordance with FAR 15.306. However, the Government may determine that the proposals received are sufficient to award a contract without discussions. The Government will evaluate all timely initial proposal submittals to determine if discussions are necessary. As a streamlining technique, if discussions are determined to be required, they will be considered formally opened one week after the RFP closes. The Government will notify offerors selected for discussions if they are to occur.

If the Contracting 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

Comment by ROGERS, HEIDI M CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/HBKB: Gating below must address all evaluation factors. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: I am not sure I follow the reasoning of Gating with only one gate, why would all offerors not just submit the survey with their proposal? Comment by INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: The gate was recommended since we have some requirements in the PD that the contractor shall meet before they participate in the OUE. There is a offeror certification specifying the requirements the contractor needs to meet to participate in the OUE. If the offeror certification, ca replace the gating, then we do not need a gate section in the L&M. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: When will this survey be provided? This is something you want after submission of proposals? Everything should be submitted with the proposals. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: In Section L there needs to be language that details the requirements of the unit they should submit and that information should come from the PD mentioned here. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @INGALUQUE, JOSE A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office Can you do this please?

C. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements and thus render the proposal not eligible for award. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: We do not request nor speak to a cover letter in Section L. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA is it okay to remove this?

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document (Purchase Description (PD) Statement of Work (SOW), the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Proposal Requirements), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Tailor this to your Acquistion.

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS and DAFFARS, to assure it reflects a sound approach to the offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting. Failure by the large business offeror/joint venture to submit this small business subcontracting plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.)

Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: We need to add in evaluation language for the Supplier Performance Risk System. Below is some sample language to be tailored.

"The Offeror’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) will be evaluated to verify the assessment date is current (within the last three years of the solicitation issuance) and verify that the score is 110. If the current score is less than 110, the Offeror shall formally acknowledge their current non-compliance with the requirement for a score of 110 and provide documentation of its remediation efforts. Failure to have either a current assessment with a score greater than 110, or to provide a plan to become compliant will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award." Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA Is this right? What is 110?

The Offeror’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) will be evaluated to verify the assessment date is current (within the last three years of the solicitation issuance) and verify that the score is 110. If the current score is less than 110, the Offeror shall formally acknowledge their current non-compliance with the requirement for a score of 110 and provide documentation of its remediation efforts. Failure to have either a current assessment with a score greater than 110, or to provide a plan to become compliant will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

D. Volume II Small Business Participation Factor Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: This needs a Volume label. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA Can you do this?

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total acquisition value is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY23 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals as the FY24 and FY25 subcontracting goals have not been published.

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Note: Offerors are hereby notified that the Small Business Participation proposal will be formally incorporated into the contract.

E. Volume III, Price Proposal Factor Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: Make sure you coordinate with your Pricing Analyst on this language. Comment by GUEST, KIMBERLY L CIV USAF AFMC AFSC/PZCA: You do not want to look at Technical Risk, is that correct?

1. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C. Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404. As Price Realism is not a proposal analysis technique listed under FAR 15.404-1, Price Realism will not be considered nor included in the evaluation criteria.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response in RFP Attachment 4, Price Spreadsheet. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. TEP: The sum of the evaluated prices for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs and ELINs will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as follows: Comment by ROGERS, HEIDI M CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/HBKB: Robert - Please provide the firm CLIN structure so I can complete this section. Thanks. Comment by ARMSTRONG, IRIS A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROZ, Support Equipment and Vehicles Program Office: @JACKSON, ROBERT A CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/ROKA Did you do this?

i. For CLINs 0001, X002, X003, X004, X005, X006 and all ELINs (FFP): an evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity.

ii. Pursuant to FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, an evaluated price will be calculated for CLINs 8003, 8004, 8005, 8006 and all applicable ELINs by dividing each of the…