Atch_3-Instructions_and_Evaluation.pdf

FA3002‐18‐R‐0001 Attachment 3 – Instruction and Evaluation Criteria

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (52.212-1 Addendum)

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1.1 To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all Solicitation Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements, including terms and conditions, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. The solicitation proposal response shall consist of two (2) separate volumes: Volume I – Technical Proposal; and Volume II – Price Proposal. FAX proposals will NOT be accepted. By submission of its proposal the offeror agrees to hold the prices firm for 180 calendar days from the closing date.

1.2 All submissions shall reference solicitation number: FA3002-18-R-0001. All volumes shall be mailed or hand delivered to 338 SCONS/PKD, Attn.: Jaclyn Rodriguez/Ella Smith, 2021 First Street West, JBSA-Randolph AFB, TX 78150. The Technical Volume (not including oral slides and videos) and Pricing Volume shall be e-mailed to jaclyn.rodriguez@us.af.mil and ella.smith.2@us.af.mil. Proposals must be received no later than 1000 CST 28 November 2017. E-mail submissions are subject to size and type restrictions (typically limited to less than 2 megabyte in size and only non-executable attachments such as .doc or .pdf files, excluding the excel spreadsheet for Volume I - Price Proposal), as well as any other appropriate network security measures. It is the offeror's responsibility to verify the e-mail was received and can be viewed with the contracting point of contact as listed in paragraph 1.8 below.

1.3 Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawal of offers.”

1.4 Gaining Access to Base Facilities: 338 SCONS is located on a U.S. Air Force installation, and access to the installation is controlled by the U.S. Air Force. If proposals are to be hand delivered, the contractor must pre-coordinate with the points of contact listed in paragraph 1.8 in order to gain base access. Furthermore, the U.S. Air Force conducts random exercises which may further limit access to the installation.

1.5 Probability of adequate price competition: The Contracting Officer (CO) expects there will be adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

1.6 In accordance with (IAW) FAR Subpart 4.8., Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

1.7 The offeror shall apply all appropriate markings to the proposal including those prescribed in FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

1.8 Point of Contact (POC): The CO is the sole POC for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you have only to the CO. The CO for this acquisition is Jaclyn Rodriguez. Written questions will be accepted via email and may be sent to Jaclyn Rodriguez at jaclyn.rodriguez@us.af.mil and Ella Smith at ella.smith.2@us.af.mil. For verification your written question/concern was received, offerors may contact Jaclyn Rodriguez at 210-652-4259 or Ella Smith at 210-652-7100.

1.9 Attention to Clauses: Special attention is directed to the following clauses/FAR references:

1.9.1 FAR Clause 52.227-17, Rights in Data – Special Works

1.9.2 FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards

2. SPECIFIC PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 The offeror shall prepare their proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below.

The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all must be within the required page limitation and with the number of copies as specified. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section will be removed from the proposal and will not be read or evaluated and may render the proposal unacceptable.

Table 1 Proposal Organization:

2.2 The page limitation for all volumes is inclusive of all material except: the front and back cover, title page, transmittal letters, tabs, and table of contents. When both sides of a page display

ELEMENT TITLE MAXIMUM # PAGES NUMBER OF

HARD COPIES

Digital Copies (CD)

Volume I Technical Proposal 50 (QCP is not included in the page count)

5 2

Oral Presentation As Required, but limited to power point or video files only

– all must be presented during one hour oral presentation

0 2 (only if necessary)

Storyboard As Required, but limited to a single storyboard to be presented during the one hour oral presentation, and will become part of the technical proposal package after the conclusion of the offeror’s presentation. The offeror’s storyboard may in no way conflict with the offeror’s hard copy proposal.

1 2

Volume II Price Proposal As Required 2 1 printing, it shall be counted as 2 (two) pages. No material may be incorporated by reference. The Technical Proposal shall contain a table of contents. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. If Interchanges and Proposal Revisions are required, the same page limitations will apply, and any changed pages submitted shall have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page identifying the changed content. The date of the revision and revision number shall be reflected in the top right corner of the page on each changed page. The offeror shall highlight cells on any spreadsheet revisions.

2.3 Format for proposal Volumes I and II shall be as follows:

2.3.1 Proposals will be printed on 8.5" x 11" paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables or diagrams, which may not exceed 11" x 17".

2.3.2 A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Page margins shall be no less than 3/4 inch.

2.3.3 Body text shall be 12 point font, Times New Roman. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 8 point font, Times New Roman.

3. Volume I - Technical Proposal (Factor 1)

3.1 Technical proposals must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in offerors’ proposals. Each offeror shall submit a complete proposal IAW these instructions. The Government may consider any failure to comply with these instructions to be indicative of what could be expected from an offeror during contract performance and may consider it a weakness of the proposal.

3.2 The offeror’s technical information shall be organized and submitted by Subfactor and Element. No Pricing information shall be addressed in this volume. The Technical Volume shall be clear and concise with sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The offeror should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but instead provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to fulfill the requirements.

3.3 The Government reserves the right to incorporate all or parts of the offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract. In the Technical volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the performance or capability requirements of each technical Subfactor individually. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly address all of the elements below.

3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Mission/Staffing Capability

3.3.1.1 Element 1: Thoroughly describe the foundational and philosophical approach the offeror is taking to the performance of Airmen's Week. Detail the offeror's approach to training within the affective domain. (PWS - 4.3, 4.4.1, & 4.10)

3.3.1.2 Element 2: Describe the approach the offeror will take to execute/enhance the Train-the-Trainer program. Describe an outline of the proposed one-day refresher course. (PWS 4.12.1)

3.3.1.3 Element 3: Provide a staffing plan and organizational chart that identifies the number (by FTE) and roles of full time and part time personnel to include facilitators (PWS 4.10), Program/Site Manager and alternate (PWS 6.1.1.), Quality Control Representative (PWS 4.15.8.3.), train-the-trainer (PWS 4.12), courseware/video development (PWS 4.4), etc. Explain how the student to facilitator ratio will be maintained (PWS 4.11) and how fluctuation in student load and fill and lapse rates (PWS 6.1.4.) will be managed. Identify what positions, if any, will be performed by subcontractors along with the company name.

3.3.1.4 Element 4: Provide the management processes that will be used for recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified personnel for initial contract performance and throughout the life of the contract. Describe what steps, events, approaches, and incentives will be used to recruit, hire, and retain a professional, technically qualified workforce with the necessary experience and knowledge for this requirement IAW PWS 6.1 & Appendix B.

3.3.1.5 Element 5: Provide a draft Quality Control Plan (stand-alone document) including approaches, tools, and processes to proactively recognize, react to and correct problems. The plan shall include, at a minimum, an inspection system covering the services contained in the Services Summary. The plan must clearly indicate that the offeror (not the government) is responsible for quality control and identify the offeror’s point of contact for quality control. (PWS 4.15.8)

3.3.1.6 Element 6: “What Now, Airman?” Video –Detail the development plan to include any subcontractors for creating/producing What Now videos. Describe plan to use Professional Actors IAW PWS para. 4.4.1.3. (PWS 4.4.1)

3.3.1.7 Element 7: End of Course Event - Describe the offeror's approach to maintain/revise the culminating event for Airmen's Week. (PWS 4.5)

3.3.1.8 Element 8: Sustainment, Enhancement, Innovation and Adjustment – Outline how the offeror plans to keep a pulse on changes and incorporate these changes into courseware. (PWS 4.6 - 4.8)

3.3.2 Subfactor 2: Oral Presentation

3.3.2.1 Element 1: Lecture/Presentation sample for large group audience (18-24 year old demographic). Present a sample lecture based on the attached Welcome to the Family sample presentation. Address appropriate character and mission related expectations in Appendix A.

3.3.2.2 Element 2: Scenario/activity/exercise sample for small group (18-24 year old demographic). Present a sample exercise based on the attached The Profession of Arms sample exercise and PWS paragraph 4.1. Address appropriate character and mission related expectations IAW PWS Appendix A. Blend two additional character and mission related values/behaviors from Appendix A, Item 3, into the sample exercise.

3.3.2.3 Element 3: “What Now, Airman?” video storyboard presentation (18-24 year old demographic). Provide and present a “What Now Airmen?” video storyboard (see PWS paragraph 4.4.1) that addresses Warrior Ethos IAW PWS Appendix A, Item 3.b. In addition, blend two additional character and mission related values/behaviors from Appendix A, Item 3, into the video storyboard.

3.4 Oral Presentation Guidelines for Subfactor 2. The guidelines for the oral presentation portion of the technical proposal are intentionally brief to allow maximum creativity.

3.4.1 Oral Presentations are a mandatory element of each Offeror’s technical proposal. Oral presentations will be held at the 338th Specialized Contracting Squadron, Building 854, Stillman Training Room, located at 2021 First Street West, JBSA-Randolph, TX 78150- 4302. The oral presentation will be presented separately on a date and time designated after the proposal due date. The order of oral presentations will be randomly generated and documented. The CO will notify each Offeror of the date and time of their scheduled presentation approximately two (2) days after receipt of proposals. Upon notification of the date and time of the scheduled presentation, the Offeror shall identify the name and title of all personnel attending and participating in the oral presentation.

3.4.2 Only identified members of the Offeror’s and teaming partners/subcontractor’s staff may participate in the oral presentation (not to exceed eight).

3.4.3 Each offeror will have one hour to complete the oral presentation with an additional 30 minutes for set up and 30 minutes for tear down, a total of two hours maximum. There will not be any breaks allowed during the presentation. Oral presentations will be videotaped by the Government to maintain an accurate accounting of the proposal as presented. If during an Offeror’s oral presentation the Government’s recording equipment malfunctions, that Offeror will be able to redo their oral presentation at a later date. The contractor may also videotape their presentation.

3.4.4 Standard equipment for a PowerPoint presentation or video clip presentation will be available, however the Offeror is not required to utilize it. Please note, the Government is offering the equipment as a convenience. Thus, the Government is not responsible if the equipment does not work. Offerors may use their own standard equipment or provide any other additional equipment needed for their presentation.

3.4.5 If the offeror chooses to present media (PowerPoint or video), these files MUST be provided with the Offeror’s technical proposal by the proposal due date. These files must be provided on a separate CD/DVD in electronic format only. This content does not count against the offerors Technical proposal page limit, but all slides and or videos must be presented during the offeror’s one hour oral presentation. The Government will ONLY evaluate slides and or videos as presented during the oral presentation.

3.4.6 No handouts will be accepted during the oral presentation, with the exception of the single storyboard.

4. Volume II – Price Proposal (Factor 2)

The contractor shall complete the Price Proposal Template (Attachment 2). The pricing on Attachment 2 will form the basis for the price evaluation and determination of total evaluated price (TEP). Pricing on the Price Proposal Template will be used to determine price reasonableness and balance of your proposed price. Offerors shall submit pricing in whole dollars with no decimal points for unit prices.

Note that unrealistically low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

4.1 Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror. The Price Proposal Template shall contain the following information IAW the Proposal Process:

4.1.1 Unit Price and total cost for each CLIN and total overall cost for each performance period.

4.1.2 Statement on compliance with the requirement of the small business prime to perform over 50% of the effort on the total contract IAW Limitation on Subcontracting Clause

FAR 52.219-14.

5. Past Performance. Past Performance will not be an evaluation factor; however, the PCO will review past performance to support a determination of offerors’ responsibility or nonresponsibility. The PCO may use any sources available in making the determination, to include, but not limited to, PPIRS or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials;

and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

6. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless it is essential to document or support the offeror’s price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the Price volume.

EVALUATION OF OFFERS (52.212-2 Addendum)

7. 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 shall be used to evaluate offers:

i. FACTOR 1 – Technical SUBFACTOR 1 – Mission/Staffing Capability SUBFACTOR 2 – Oral Presentation

ii. FACTOR 2 – Price

7.1 Basis for Award. Award of a single contract shall be made on a competitive basis, using a tradeoff process, in which the Government will consider price and non-price factors and may award to other than the lowest priced offeror. The resulting contract shall be firm-fixed-price. To be considered for award, the proposal must conform to the evaluation criteria described herein, conform to all RFP requirements and other information required above (i.e. Instructions to Offerors), and the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.104-1.

7.2 The Government will select the offer representing the best value to the Government, based upon an assessment of Technical and Price. Technical will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the best value decision. Technical Subfactor 2 (Oral Presentation) is deemed more important than Technical Subfactor 1 (Mission/Staffing Capability). The Government seeks to award to the offeror who provides the best value of technical capability and price in meeting the requirements.

This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Government reasonably determines that a superior technical capability of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost/price difference.

7.3 The Government will simultaneously evaluate all offerors’ Technical and Price volumes. If the lowest priced offeror, with an acceptable rating for Subfactor 1, receives a blue/outstanding technical rating for Subfactor 2; that offer represents the best value and award will be made to that offeror. If the lowest priced offeror, with an acceptable rating for Subfactor 1, does not have a blue/outstanding technical rating for Subfactor 2; the Government will make an integrated assessment best value award decision balancing price and technical ratings.

7.4 Although the technical factor is more important than price, price is an important factor and should be considered when preparing responsive proposals. The importance of price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to technical evaluation.

When offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the government, price may become the determining factor for award.

7.5 Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically low in terms of price, may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence; or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal or may be considered a performance risk and may lower the technical rating. Government evaluators will not assume that the offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

7.6 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without interchanges with offerors. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain your best terms; however, the Government reserves the right to seek clarifications, and/or conduct interchanges with all, some, or none of the offerors if determined necessary by the Government.

8. Factor 1- Technical. The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on an assessment of how well the offeror addressed each of the technical criteria. Statements such as “will comply,” “noted and understood,” “in accordance with best/industry practices/standards,” etc. without supporting narrative are not acceptable. Cursory responses or responses that merely reiterate or paraphrase the PWS language will not be considered to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. Evaluation of this factor will focus on how well the offeror meets the Government’s requirements (for subfactor 1); and any strengths, weakness and/or deficiencies identified in the offeror’s proposal (for subfactor 2) using the ratings below. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without interchanges.

8.1 Assignment of Ratings. Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level.

8.1.1 Subfactor 1 (Mission/Staffing Capability) will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as being rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award. Explanations of the ratings are in the Technical Ratings Figure 1 below.

The Government will consider risk as part of its evaluation of subfactor 1 in determining whether a particular technical approach for subfactor 1 receives an acceptable or unacceptable technical rating. For subfactor 1, if the Government determines that the proposed solution presents too much risk, the subfactor may be determined unacceptable.

TECHNICAL RATINGS – Figure 1

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

8.1.2 Subfactor 2 (Oral Presentation) will receive one of the color ratings described in Figure

2 below.

Figure 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of the oral presentation proposal.

Favorable assessments will consider the benefit, impact, and feasibility of additional commitments (strengths) by the offeror.

8.1.2.1 Strength. A strength is 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 contract performance.

8.1.2.2 Weakness. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

8.1.2.3 Deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

8.2 Subfactor 1 – Mission/Staffing Capability This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to and plan for Airmen’s Week. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from the Instructions above and is provided again for reference only):

Instructions To Offerors Evaluation Criteria

3.3.1.1 Element 1 - Thoroughly describe the

foundational and philosophical approach the offeror is taking to the performance of Airmen's Week. Detail the offeror's approach to training within the affective domain. (PWS - 4.3, 4.4.1, & 4.10)

The offeror’s approach demonstrates understanding of the Airmen's Week concept, goals, mission and overall objective. Specifically, the proposal represents a solid understanding of Air Force core values, Airman’s Creed and AF heritage.

The offeror’s approach to training demonstrates a sound understanding of the affective domain and is in line with the expectations as identified in the PWS 4.3, 4.4.1, & 4.10.

3.3.1.2 Element 2 - Describe the approach the

offeror will take to execute/enhance the Train-the-Trainer program. Describe an outline of the

The proposed Train-the-Trainer approach to execute/enhance is comprehensive and designed to adequately proposed one-day refresher course. (PWS 4.12.1) equip the facilitators to facilitate the Airmen's Week course.

The proposed one-day refresher course outline adequately describes a sound approach that addresses the challenges faced by a facilitator who has facilitated the same material for more than one year.

3.3.1.3. Element 3 – Provide a staffing plan and

organizational chart that identifies the number (by FTE) and roles of full time and part time personnel to include facilitators (PWS 4.10), Program/Site Manager and alternate (PWS 6.1.1.), Quality Control Representative (PWS 4.15.8.3.), train-the-trainer (PWS 4.12), courseware/video development (PWS 4.4), etc.

Explain how the student to facilitator ratio will be maintained (PWS 4.11) and how fluctuation in student load and fill and lapse rates (PWS 6.1.4.) will be managed. Identify what positions, if any, will be performed by subcontractors along with the company name.

The proposed staffing plan and organizational chart provides an adequate number of personnel for performance of the PWS requirements.

The offeror proposed a reasonable plan to manage fluctuations in student load, maintain the student to facilitator ratio, and manage fill and lapse rates.

3.3.1.4. Element 4 – Provide the management

processes that will be used for recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified personnel for initial contract performance and throughout the life of the contract. Describe what steps, events, approaches, and incentives will be used to recruit, hire, and retain a professional, technically qualified workforce with the necessary experience and knowledge for this requirement IAW PWS 6.1 & Appendix B.

The offeror proposed sound processes to recruit, hire and retain a qualified workforce for initial contract performance and the duration of the contract.

3.3.1.5. Element 5 – Provide a draft Quality

Control Plan (stand-alone document) including approaches, tools, and processes to proactively recognize, react to and correct problems. The plan shall include, at a minimum, an inspection system covering the services contained in the Services Summary. The plan must clearly indicate that the offeror (not the government) is responsible for quality control and identify the offeror’s point of contact for quality control.

(PWS 4.15.8)

The proposed draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) was sound and covered, at a minimum, the services in the Services Summary. The plan clearly indicated that the contractor and not the Government is responsible for quality control for the contract.

3.3.1.6. Element 6 - “What Now, Airman?”

Video – Detail the development plan to include any subcontractors for creating/producing What Now videos. Describe plan to use Professional Actors IAW PWS para. 4.4.1.3. (PWS 4.4.1)

The development plan interweaves PWS Appendix A objectives and expectations in a thought provoking way.

The proposed plan for the What Now, Airman video demonstrated a modern approach utilizing professional actors and the correct use of military terms/insignia/regulations/dress and appearance.

3.3.1.7. Element 7 - End of Course Event -

Describe the offeror's approach to maintain/revise the culminating event for Airmen's Week. (PWS 4.5)

The offeror's approach to the End of Course Event displays creativity and reasonableness while representing the fundamental concepts of Airmen's Week.

3.3.1.8. Element 8 - Sustainment, Enhancement, Innovation and Adjustment – Outline how the offeror plans to keep a pulse on changes and incorporate these changes into courseware.

(PWS 4.6 - 4.8)

The offeror presents a reasonable plan to incorporate new information, media, updated rules, relevant hot topics/scenarios, and overall plans to continuously improve the courseware and its facilitation.

8.3 Subfactor 2 – Oral Presentation – This subfactor addresses what the Government can expect if the offeror were selected to sustain, enhance, and make innovative adjustments to the Airmen’s Week course. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from the Instructions above and is provided again for reference only):

Instructions To Offerors Evaluation Criteria

3.3.2.1. Element 1 - Lecture/Presentation

sample for large group audience (18-24 year old demographic). Present a sample lecture based on the attached Welcome to the Family sample presentation. Address appropriate character and mission related expectations in Appendix A.

The large group sample lecture/presentation reflected Air Force Core Values and seamlessly incorporated Appendix A character and mission related expectations.

The presentation was engaging, maintained audience interest, and demonstrated audience involvement.

Presentation approach was appropriate for the topic (Welcome to the Family) and the target demographic.

3.3.2.2. Element 2 - Scenario/activity/exercise

sample for small group (18-24 year old demographic). Present a sample exercise based on the attached The Profession of Arms sample exercise and PWS paragraph 4.1.

Address appropriate character and mission related expectations IAW PWS Appendix A.

Blend two additional character and mission related values/behaviors from Appendix A, Item 3, into the sample exercise.

The small group scenario/activity/ exercise sample reflected Air Force Core Values and seamlessly incorporated Appendix A character and mission related expectations.

The presentation was engaging, maintained the group’s interest, and demonstrated an interactive approach and facilitation that encouraged resolution in a mature way, in line with Appendix A expectations.

Presentation approach was appropriate for the topic (The Profession of Arms) and the target demographic.

The presentation incorporated PWS Appendix A, item 3 character and mission related values/behaviors seamlessly.

IAW 3.3.2.3. Element 3 - “What Now, Airman?” video storyboard presentation (18- 24 year old demographic). Provide and present a “What Now Airmen?” video storyboard (see PWS paragraph 4.4.1) that addresses Warrior Ethos IAW PWS Appendix A, Item 3.b. In addition, blend two additional character and mission related values/behaviors from Appendix A, Item 3, into the video storyboard.

Storyboard is professional, well thought out, and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the concept.

Storyboard is creative, believable, relatable, compelling, relevant, relays meaning, and is designed to appeal to the target demographic.

Incorporation of Warrior Ethos and additional Appendix A, Item 3 elements is seamless and appropriately ties in AF Core Values.

8.3.1 Interchanges will not be held during the oral presentation. Government personnel will not ask questions or interact with the offerors. After completion of the oral presentation, the Government may request clarification of any points addressed which are unclear. The time required for clarifications, if any, will not be counted against the offeror’s time limit.

9. Factor 2 - Price. This contract selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on competitive market forces and price analysis to ensure awarded prices are reasonable. The Government intends to evaluate pricing at the ‘bottom-line;’ however, reserves the right to conduct a detailed price analysis at the element level if price reasonableness cannot otherwise be established.

9.1 Offers shall be submitted in WHOLE DOLLARS. This includes unit, extended, and total prices.

9.2 The offer will be evaluated on the total price proposed in Attachment 2 of this RFP, Total Evaluated Price Summary (Offeror’s proposal at Volume I). The total evaluated price (TEP) will consist of the total of all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) to include the base period, option year one, and option year two.

9.3 An offeror whose TEP is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 13.106-3(a)), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)), or unaffordable (not within AF budget) may not be considered for award.

9.4 A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to efforts described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

9.5 Arithmetic Discrepancies. For evaluation purposes, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the completed Price Proposal as submitted by the Offeror:

(a) Discrepancy between unit price (stated as a whole dollar value) and extended price, the unit price will govern and be used to calculate the extended price

(b) Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected.