Combined Synopsis Solicitation - ACC A589 TDL Interoperability Software and Training v4.docx

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation for

TACTICAL DATALINK (TDL) INTEROPERABILITY SOFTWARE

31 AUG 2026

1. FORMAT: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

1.1. DESCRIPTION: This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with part 12. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. Offers are being requested and a separate written solicitation will not be issued.

Solicitation Number FA489026Q0016 is issued as a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Tactical Datalink (TDL) Interoperability Software.

This solicitation is not set-aside for small business concerns. This solicitation incorporates all provisions and clauses by reference. The full text of provisions and clauses may be accessed electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

There is no assigned Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) assigned rating.

1.1.1. List of contract line-item numbers (CLINs), items, quantities, and unit of measures:

Table 1 – CLIN Structure

NOTE 1: The CLIN structure includes support for the base year and four option years (if required). See PWS Section 4.3 for training session requirements.

1.1.2. Description of requirement/documentation supporting any brand name descriptions:

1.1.2.1. Air Combat Command's (ACC) mission requires robust Tactical Datalink (TDL) interoperability to improve mission effectiveness for United States Air Force (USAF), Joint, and coalition forces. To support this mission, the Government requires a modern software solution that serves as a relational database and analysis toolset. This toolset is essential for the iSMART (interoperable Systems Management and Requirements Transformation) process and is used to populate, edit, analyze, and manage TDL message data, platform implementations, and interoperability evaluations.

1.1.2.2. The Contractor shall provide an existing commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software solution, including all necessary licenses, updates, training, and technical support. The software shall provide a comprehensive toolset for managing TDL platform specifications, conducting interoperability analysis, and supporting mission planning across the TDL enterprise. The TDL software solution must meet all requirements as listed in the Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement.

1.1.3. Date(s) and place(s) of delivery and acceptance and FOB point: This award will be for a base year and four option years as listed below:

Table 2 – Period of Performance (POP)

1.1.4. A list of solicitation provisions that apply to the acquisition: as applicable to this anticipated acquisition, see Attachment 2 – Provisions and Clauses.

1.1.5. A list of contract clauses that apply to the acquisition: as applicable to this anticipated acquisition, see Attachment 2 – Provisions and Clauses.

Table 3 - Requirement Information.

Knowledge-Based Services Branch (PKAB), Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE), VA 23665

2. INSTRUCTIONS: Please provide a proposal for all requested items and structure your proposal in accordance with the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure listed in Table 1. The requested item(s) in this RFP is not a “brand name or equal” item; however, the quoted and existing software solutions must meet all specifications listed in the PWS. If quoting a product other than the product indicated herein, offerors must provide descriptive literature (e.g., specifications, product data sheets, illustrations, or drawings) and substantiate that their software being offered is an “equal” product. The information provided should clearly and comprehensively demonstrate how the equal product fulfills or surpasses the requested brand name TDL capability and the salient characteristics included in Attachment 1. The information provided should clearly explain the link between the proposed product and the salient characteristics, so the Government can make an assessment. If the Government cannot determine a clear “equal” product or is unable to verify (as no testing of software not currently available on Government Networks will be authorized), the Government can deem the product not sufficient.

PROPOSAL RESPONSES ARE DUE BY: 9 OCT 2026 @ 13:00 EST

2.1. Questions Due Date: No Later Than 4 SEP 2026 at 3:00 PM, Eastern Standard Time (EST). The Government will allow a Question and Clarifications session (in accordance with RFO 15.202) for this requirement starting from the solicitation start date for five calendar days. Questions and clarifications regarding this solicitation must be submitted in writing using the provided Question-Comment Matrix (Attachment 6) to the Contract Manager (CM), Thomas Helms at thomas.helms.3@us.af.mil AND the Contracting Officer (CO) Timothy Overby at timothy.overby.1@us.af.mil. Questions received after this date/time will be addressed at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer (CO). Questions will not be answered over the phone or submitted by any other means. All questions impacting this solicitation will be answered in an Amendment and will be available to all offerors. Do not submit proprietary information in your questions submissions.

2.2. The date, time, and place for receipt of offer and point of contact: The proposal shall be submitted via email no later than the response date/time listed in Table 3 (below) to thomas.helms.3@us.af.mil and timothy.overby.1@us.af.mil. Incomplete and/or late proposals will not be considered for evaluation. A proposal that does not conform to the solicitation will be considered ineligible for award. Offerors are solely responsible for ensuring the Government receives any submission prior to the established response deadline. The Offeror shall include with its submission: a proposal for the requested item structured in accordance with all items listed herein and the PWS.

2.3. This solicitation may result in a single Purchase Order (PO) for the requirement(s) listed in the Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement.

2.4. To ensure timely and equitable proposal evaluation, the Offeror must comply with the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this RFP. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable evaluation or non-selection for award. Likewise, failure to meet all solicitation requirements may result in the proposal being ineligible for award.

2.5. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before, during, or after the closing date. The Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs incurred in the development of the proposal.

2.6. TIMING: The Government is subject to soliciting for a minimum of 40-days for acquisitions above Simplified Acquisition Thresholds (SAT) that are subject to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with an included annual forecast, in accordance with RFO 5.2, Table 5-3. Additional instructions include:

RFO 5.101(c)(4)(iii), One or more of the items under this acquisition is subject to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and Free Trade Agreements.

RFO 25.202(a)(2) When one of the following exceptions applies, the contracting officer may acquire a foreign end product without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American statute:

(b) Nonavailability. The Buy American statute does not apply with respect to articles, materials, or supplies if articles, materials, or supplies of the class or kind to be acquired, either as end items or components, are not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.

3. GENERAL INFORMATION:

3.1. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT. The firm must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at (www.sam.gov) to be considered for award. The prospective awardee shall be registered in SAM prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of a contract agreement, IAW RFO 52.204-7, System for Award Management. Also, IAW RFO 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance, a contractor is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the data within the SAM database and is required to review and update their SAM registration on an annual basis.

3.2. WIDE AREA WORKFLOW (WAWF): The proposing firm must be registered SAM.gov at time of proposal submission. Once award to an offeror is determined, the offeror must maintain registration in SAM.gov.

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION REGULATORY INSTRUCTIONS: The provisions at RFO 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and RFO 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services, applies to this acquisition. Per RFO 52.212-2, the following instructions are provided:

As prescribed in 12.205(a)(2), insert a provision substantially as follows:

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Deviation Date)

(a) Evaluation factors. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

1. Technical Acceptability

2. Price

(b) Options (if applicable). The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

1. Technical Acceptability

2. Price

(c) Notice of award. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

5. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors submitting a proposal package in response to this solicitation shall submit two separate Volumes: 1) Technical, and 2) Price. The volumes should be labeled as the Technical Volume and Price Volume. The page limits prescribed in the table below are maximum page limits for each volume. Cover page, table of contents, appendices, and glossaries shall be counted against prescribed page limits (as these will be evaluated under the Technical or Price evaluations for award). Pages submitted in excess of these limits will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation. All proposal information shall be submitted in Adobe reader (pdf) or Microsoft Word (.docx) format except for any additional pricing information provided by the offeror (which may be submitted Appendices to the Price Volume). Font size for all document and proposal files must be no smaller than Times New Roman size 10 for all text, graphics, tables, etc. Margins shall not be any smaller than 1/2 inch on all document sides (as illustrated in this document). Each Volume shall be submitted as a separately labeled electronic file and adhere to the required page limits.

Table 4 – Format for Proposal Volumes / Page Limits

5.1. TECHNICAL VOLUME (VOLUME 1) FACTOR

5.1.1. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal must demonstrate a clear and complete capability to satisfy all requirements outlined in Paragraph 3.0 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient technical detail to substantiate all stated claims. Simply restating, rephrasing, or promising to meet the PWS requirements without supporting evidence will be considered unacceptable. No labor or manpower staffing plans shall be proposed, as this is a commodity software license procurement. NOTE: Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated software that is not tested and approved for use on Government networks will not be accepted. This must be a commercial off the shelf (COTS) existing software solution.

5.1.2. To successfully substantiate the software's capabilities, Offerors must include a combination of all the following elements listed below within their technical proposal. However, for Sub-factor 1 (Software Capabilities) and Sub-factor 2 (Data Migration), the inclusion of functional screenshots and step-by-step workflow diagrams is mandatory.

· Technical Specifications/Product Literature: Official commercial data sheets detailing the software's architecture, APIs, and data export formats.

· Functional Screenshots: High-resolution images of the graphical user interface (GUI) demonstrating the actual operator views for core tasks (e.g., data ingestion, issue management, interoperability evaluation).

· Step-by-Step Workflow Diagrams: Visual maps or structured tables demonstrating exactly how the software processes data (e.g., mapping the automated ingestion of a MIL-STD file from import to database population).

· Historical Case Studies / Proven Capability: Real-world examples demonstrating where the proposed commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software has successfully performed these specific functions in an operational or enterprise environment.

5.1.3. Technical Specifications to be Addressed

Using the required substantiating materials listed above (screenshots, diagrams, etc.), Offerors shall explicitly demonstrate how their software satisfies the following requirements from Paragraph 3 of the PWS, for FACTOR 1, to include all sub-factors below:

· Sub-factor 1: Software Capabilities (PWS 3.1)

· 3.1.1 User Interface and Training: Provide a product syllabus or training plan alongside GUI screenshots demonstrating that a new operator can achieve proficiency on core tasks in no more than three (3) standard working days, and that the interface mitigates skill fade for infrequent users.

· 3.1.2 Automated Data Ingestion and Platform Data: Provide workflow diagrams and technical specifications demonstrating the software's ability to provide multiple pathways for ingesting platform implementation data, including manual entry via a unified display, automated import from pre-defined Microsoft Excel formats, and import from internal system templates. The system must include features like automatic “fill-down” to increase the speed and accuracy of manual data entry.

· 3.1.3 Data and Issue Management: Demonstrate via screenshots and narrative how the software captures deviations from a standard TDL baseline and generates a consolidated capabilities and limitations summary.

· 3.1.4 Interoperability (IO) Evaluation: Demonstrate the software's capability to execute multi-platform IO evaluations (including multi-link environments) and generate interactive HTML and "Kneepad" outputs.

· 3.1.5 Mission Thread Analysis: Provide use cases or workflow diagrams showing the ability to analyze and visualize IO evaluation results within operational mission threads.

· 3.1.6 Data Export and Reporting: Provide technical specifications proving the software's capability to export data in open, machine-readable formats (XML, HTML, CSV, XLSX).

· Sub-factor 2: Data Migration Support (PWS 3.2)

· Provide a Data Migration methodology and workflow diagram demonstrating how the software executes a single-action database migration of legacy platform specifications and generates a pre-migration conflict report within a 60-day transition window.

· Sub-factor 3: Licenses, Maintenance, and Training (PWS 4.0)

· Confirm the ability to deliver 120 individual user licenses (PWS 4.1).

· Detail the commercial software maintenance plan, including patches for critical errors and bi-annual releases (PWS 4.2).

· Provide a training delivery plan to deliver in person advanced practitioner training once per year for up to 10 students within the continental United States, and online platform user once per year for up to 10 interactive students and unlimited “listen only” students. (PWS 4.3).

· Sub-Factor 4: Case Studies / Proven Capability (Section 1 above) – Provide real-world examples demonstrating where the proposed commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software has successfully performed these specific functions in an operational or enterprise environment.

5.2. PRICE VOLUME (VOLUME 2) FACTOR

5.2.1. Offerors shall submit a price narrative within the Price Proposal volume that explains in detail the offerors proposal prices. The price narrative shall be clear and concise and provide sufficient detail so the Government can ensure the proposed price reflects the work to be performed. The intention of the price narrative is to correlate pricing/market data with the Offeror’s pricing structure. A breakout of all costs is required for any bundled or grouped items.

5.2.2. Certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, supporting data/other than cost or pricing data may be requested in order to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

5.2.3. The PRICE VOLUME proposal shall include a cover letter/page that contains the Offeror name, address, UEI, Cage Code, Tax ID (if applicable), Terms & Conditions, Business Size under the required NAICS, and offeror Points of Contact name, email and phone number. The cover letter/page shall also include a statement that the Offeror’s proposal is valid until 1 December 2026 to allow the Government time to award the contract.

6. BASIS FOR AWARD:

6.1. TECHNICAL VOLUME (VOLUME 1) EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

6.1.1. Award will be made in accordance with RFO Part 12 procedures, the procedures specified in this RFP and on the basis of the lowest priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards. A contract may be awarded to An offeror deemed responsible IAW RFO 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP instructions and herein) and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria to represent the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest price.

6.1.2. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without negotiations IAW RFO 15.203, Competitive award without negotiation. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the award decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all contractors responding to this RFP.

6.1.3. As this purchase order will be based on lowest price meeting technical acceptability, notices of non-selection (aka, debriefings) will not be conducted.

6.1.4. The offeror proposal will be evaluated at the Factor level (in Section 5.1. above) and shall address all sub-factors and criteria listed in the factor. The technical proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to perform all technical requirements (listed below). Technical proposals will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis. To receive a rating of “Acceptable,” the offeror must adequately address their plan to meet the aforementioned factor. Award will be made to the lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) offeror whose proposal meets all of the requirements of the PWS.

Table 5 - Technical Evaluation Ratings

6.1.5. Substantiation Standard for Evaluators: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will verify that all claims made by the Offeror are physically substantiated in the proposal.

· Unsupported Claims: Simple statements of compliance (e.g., "The software will automatically ingest MIL-STD 6016") without a corresponding step-by-step workflow diagram or functional screenshot showing the capability in action will be graded as Unacceptable.

· Non-Compliant Formats: Proposals requiring manual copy-pasting of legacy data rather than a demonstrated, single-action database migration will be graded as Unacceptable.

6.2. PRICE VOLUME (VOLUME 2) EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

6.2.1. The Government will organize the proposals based on the proposed prices (lowest to highest) and evaluate the lowest priced Offeror for technical acceptability first. If the lowest priced Offeror is technically acceptable and that offer represents the best value for the Government, award of the contract will be made to that Offeror. This evaluation process will cease once the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal is selected. All other offerors’ proposals will not be evaluated.

6.2.2. The price evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s total proposal price for the required items meeting all specifications. Additionally, pricing will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. An Offeror whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

6.2.3. Completeness: The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all price elements have been addressed. To be considered completely, the Offeror shall provide a proposal for the requested item and structure the proposal IAW paragraph 7 and the Tables herein.

6.2.4. Reasonableness: For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable IAW RFO Part 12.204.

TIMOTHY E. OVERBY, CIV, USAF

Contracting Officer

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement (PWS) Attachment 2 – Provisions and Clauses