FA4452-12-R-0002 Amendment 0002.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the government. The government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, 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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The government intends to award one contract for the Applications, Infrastructure and Systems Support, Increment II (AISS II) program. However, the government reserves the right to make no award at all.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

Subfactor 3: Configuration Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical/Technical Risk and Past Performance are of equal importance. Within the Technical factor, the subfactors are considered of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

b. Technical Factor

The offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated by following DoD Source Selection Procedures Methodology 2, Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process. The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach – Each offeror shall provide an integrated technical solution. The technical solution must represent the offeror’s approach to meeting the overall PWS requirements. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when your firm’s technical approach provides the following essential elements:

(a) Level 3 knowledge of software and systems listed in section 1.2 of the PWS.

(b) Expertise in Enterprise Support Services which pertains to the tasks and work specific to engineering efforts defined in the PWS sections 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, and 2.2.7.

(c) Requirements analysis and tracking processes.

(d) Effective 24/7/365, on-call Level 3 Technical and Engineering Support of production and infrastructure systems as defined in PWS section 2.3.4.

(e) Upgrade, sustainment, and maintenance of the various MAF C2, ITV/Business System environments and infrastructures as defined in PWS sections 2.2 and 2.3.

(f) Exercising and support multiple Continuity of Operations Plans as defined in PWS section 2.3.4.1.1.1.

(g) Compliance with DODD 8570.01-M IAW PWS paragraphs 2.3.6 and 7.12.

(h) Draft Quality Plan (QP) described in CDRL B010 and PWS sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.

In the QP, provide the process your firm would use to systematically provide for early identification of non-conforming supplies or services, develops metrics to track performance trends, details the corrective actions required to ensure timely and acceptable delivery/performance in accordance with the PWS, and details their partnering approach with the government to ensure mission objectives are met. The QP shall also comply with ISO 10005.

(i) Draft testing plan as described in the PWS section 2.3.7, CDRL C002 and provide an explanation of your approach for testing. The plan must include methodology for reporting test results, managing multiple test activities, assisting in fault isolation, and managing dynamic testing schedules for multiple test events.

(j) Draft training plan as described in the PWS section 2.3.8, CDRL D002 and D003 to include an explanation of your approach for training.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach – Each offeror shall provide a plan with their approach to overall staffing of and transition to AISS II. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the offeror’s proposed plan provides the following essential elements:

(a) A staffing plan containing a personnel matrix that identifies the personnel resources to perform the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall provide a logical approach that ensures timely support and shall specifically address the following requirements:

1 Process to recruit/retain/replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, training, language ability, and technical expertise/certification/security clearances commensurate with the requirements of the PWS.

2 Identification of key personnel listed in 6.3 of the PWS to include position descriptions identifying the educational and experience level, requisite security clearances and (IA) certifications and any other qualifications showing the key individual’s ability to be a key personnel for the services required by the PWS. Additionally, the contractor shall include the specific resumes of the key personnel listed in 6.3 of the PWS. An overview of salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract should be included in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, incorporated by reference. Any dollar value related salary and fringe benefit information should be included in Volume IV – Contract Documentation and Price.

3 Provide a hierarchy chart displaying proposed organizational structure.

(b) Transition Plan: Offerors shall provide a plan for the transition of services that includes specific details of the timelines needed to meet all government requirements as detailed in the PWS. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. In addition, the proposed plan must provide the following transition plan requirements:

1 An explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished starting at Task

Order award in order to meet all requirements of the PWS.

2 Provide a listing of risks, their severity or probability and what actions you would take to mitigate those risks.

Subfactor 3: Configuration Management Approach – Offerors shall provide their approach to overall Configuration Management and Asset Management. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the offeror’s proposed plan provides the following essential elements:

(a) A draft Configuration Management Plan (CMP) described in CDRL B011 and PWS sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2, and provide an explanation of how your organization will manage multiple MAF C2, ITV/Business System configurations and baselines. Include with the plan, the organizational structure identifying assignments, roles and responsibilities for each element of the CMP. The CMP should provide an integrated configuration management program as it relates to PWS sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2.

(b) A draft Asset Management Plan for managing hardware and software assets for each of the MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems as described in PWS Section 2.3.3 and CDRL B013.

In arriving at a best value decision, the government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of objective requirements.

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weaknesses identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

c. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section 2, paragraph a. (2). The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers; Past Performance Questionnaires; and commercial sources.

(a) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment

The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference Section 2, paragraph a. (2)). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the scope and complexity of effort and the contractor’s ability to provide functional, technical, analytical, and management support expertise. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). Each team member’s (prime and subcontractors) past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate with all contracts submitted being of equal importance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheets (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts ( Relevancy Ratings, Table 4):

RELEVANCY RATINGS

- Enclave and data replication support

- MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems software and hardware

- Training for systems utilized DoD wide to include

Classroom, web based, and customized, as well as development of user manuals and CBTs

- Testing AF systems to include test plans, test reports, and

JITC testing

- LAN/WAN network communication within TACC, AMC and USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Support of DoD/AF Security, accreditation and IA activities

- The Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV/Business Systems

- Enclave and data replication support

- MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems software and hardware

- Training for systems utilized DoD wide to include

Classroom, web based, and customized, as well as development of user manuals and CBTs

- Testing AF systems to include test plans, test reports, and

JITC testing

- LAN/WAN network communication within TACC, AMC and USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Support of DoD/AF Security, accreditation and IA activities

- The Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV/Business Systems

- Enclave and data replication support

- MAF C2, ITV/Business Systems software and hardware

- Training for systems utilized DoD wide to include

Classroom, web based, and customized, as well as development of user manuals and CBTs

- Testing AF systems to include test plans, test reports, and

JITC testing

- LAN/WAN network communication within TACC, AMC and USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Support of DoD/AF Security, accreditation and IA activities

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy assessments of the recent contracts evaluated and how well the contractor performed on contracts reviewed through CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, etc. and contracts listed in PPIS’s, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor past performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and higher rated relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or lower rated relevant performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

d. Price Factor

Each offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated but not rated. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness, as defined below.

Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which cost elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

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 offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total price proposed for base period and all options, except for the phase-in. Phase-in will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness but will not be considered as a part of the evaluation of total price. Evaluation of options does not obligate the government to exercise such options. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The government anticipates using the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (v) to determine prices fair and reasonable. In the event these techniques are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used. Specifically, the government reserves the right to evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs. Cost realism analysis is not typically used for FFP contracts; however, IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(3), cost realism analysis may be used on competitive fixed-price-type contracts when, “…there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates that contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls.” A cost realism analysis will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor. Unrealistically low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

e. Discussions

The government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. However, the government reserves the right to hold discussions if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

(1) If the government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions are necessary, the government may make a competitive range determination (limited to a restricted number of the highest rated proposals) in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions.

(2) Discussions will be initiated by the CO issuing the ENs to the offerors within the competitive range. ENs may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

(3) Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO) – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.0 General Instructions

(a) The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The solicitation issue date of 18 May 12 and offer due date of 21 Jun 12 are specified in blocks 6 and 8, respectively, of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Volume IV that the proposal is valid through 31 Dec 12.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

1.1 General Information

1.1.1 Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO), Mr. Eric Hassenplug and Contract Specialists, Ms. Jacqueline McGlone and Ms. Jennifer Gasparich, are the points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contract Specialists. Please submit all questions regarding the solicitation to the Contract Specialists by 2:00pm CDT 12 Jun 12. Questions received after this date and time may or may not be addressed prior to the solicitation due date. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the Contract Specialists at the address listed below. Contract Specialist, Ms. Jacqueline McGlone, may be reached via telephone at (618) 256-9826 and via email at jacqueline.mcglone@us.af.mil. Contract Specialist Ms. Jennifer Gasparich may be reached via telephone at (618) 256-9978 and via email at jennifer.gasparich@us.af.mil. They can be reached via mail at:

HQ AMC/A7KQA

Attn: Solicitation FA4452-12-R-0002

Attn: Jacqueline McGlone/Jennifer Gasparich

507 Symington Drive, Room W202

Scott AFB IL 62225-5022

1.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a preaward debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a postaward debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

1.1.3 Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Contract Specialist to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

1.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

1.1.5 Oral Presentations

Oral presentations will not be permitted.

1.1.6 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via mail or picked up/dropped off by a local contractor representative.

1.1.7 Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this request by the day and time specified in the amendment (s).

1.1.8. Use of Non-Government Personnel in Source Selection

(a) It is the government’s intent to utilize non-government advisors in the conduct of this source selection. Offerors are advised that data, including proprietary data, submitted to the government in response to this solicitation will be released to non-government advisors for review and analysis.

(b) The non-government advisors who will be involved in this source selection and the manner in which they will be involved are as follows:

MITRE: Employees of this firm will serve as non-voting advisors to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). These advisors may be required to provide advice regarding proposal strengths and weaknesses but will not determine ratings or rankings of offerors’ proposals. Non-government advisors will be prohibited from reviewing Past Performance information. All participants have signed nondisclosure agreements.

(c) Submission of offeror’s proposal in response to this request for proposal will constitute acceptance of non-governmental personnel participation as advisors in the source selection. If the offeror has any objection to non-government advisors access to its proposal information, the offeror shall provide grounds and justification for its objections to the Contract Specialist. The CO will then make a determination whether the non-government advisor(s) shall be permitted to participate in the source selection. The Contract Specialist will inform objecting offeror of the final determination, and, if the use of non-government advisors has been changed, will inform all offerors of the change.

1.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.2. The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraphs as noted in the table below:

Table 1.2 - Proposal Organization

Number

*Limit past performance to five pages per past/present contract submitted. Complete a Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1) for each contract submitted.

1.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, cover pages, table of contents, tabs, glossaries, resumes of key personnel, and those noted in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.2) as unlimited.

1.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall single spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

1.2.2 Cost or Pricing Related Data

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

1.2.3 Cross-Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is not permitted.

1.2.4 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections and will not count against page limitations.

1.2.5 Title Page

Each volume must include a title page. The title pages must show:

(a) Solicitation Number

(b) Name, address, telephone numbers and e-mail address of the offeror

1.2.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.2.7 Tables and Figures

Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures. This index will not count against page limitations.

1.2.8 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

1.3 Electronic Offers

Electronic offers alone, will not be accepted. However, each offeror is required to submit an identical electronic copy of their proposal on a CD no later than the required proposal due date. The CD shall be in addition to the required number of hard copies designated in Table 1.2 above. The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. The outside of the CD or the CD jacket must be labeled to correspond with the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate volume number and title, and use separate files to permit rapid location of information. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 suite of applications. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

1.4 Distribution

The “original” proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the following and mailed or hand carried to:

HQ AMC/A7KQA

Attn: Solicitation FA4452-12-R-0002

Attn: Eric Hassenplug and Jacqueline McGlone

507 Symington Drive, Room W202

Scott AFB IL 62225-5022

Access to Scott AFB for Delivery of Hand Carried Proposals: Offerors are cautioned that when hand-carrying proposals individuals not affiliated with this installation must obtain visitors’ passes prior to entrance. The Shiloh gate has been designated as the “Visitor’s Control Center.” Some delays can be anticipated for visitors to process through the “Visitor’s Control Center” and offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain visitors’ passes. Each visitor must have an on-site sponsor to obtain a visitor’s pass. Please contact Jacqueline McGlone at (618) 256-9826 for more information.

Proposals are due by 2:00pm Central Time 21 Jun 12. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) Late Submissions, Modifications, Revisions, and Withdrawals of Offers.

2.0 Volume I ‑ Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

2.1 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price. The salient features should tie in with Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

2.2 Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal. The master table of contents is excluded from the page limitations.

3.0 Volume II - Technical Volume

3.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

3.2 Format and Specific Content

3.2.1 Technical

In the technical volume, address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

3.2.1.1 Technical Risk

Address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance by submitting a Risk Matrix. Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating (listed in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2). Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: PWS), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "work‑around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

3.2.2 Volume Organization

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

(1) Title Page

(2) Teaming Matrix

(3) Table of Contents

(4) List of Table and Figures

(5) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

(6) Technical Approach (Subfactor One)

(7) Staffing Approach (Subfactor Two)

(8) Configuration Management Approach (Subfactor Three)

(9) Risk Matrix

3.2.3 Teaming Matrix

A Teaming Matrix (if applicable) shall be submitted with the Technical Approach – Volume II. Teaming arrangements are encouraged. Offerors shall describe which tasks each member of their teaming arrangement will be responsible for and indicate any potential OCI concerns and mitigations.

3.2.4 Subfactor One – Technical Approach

Each offeror shall provide an integrated technical solution. The technical solution must represent the offeror’s approach to meeting overall PWS requirements. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Required documents for the offeror’s technical approach include a draft quality plan, draft testing plan, and draft training plan. These documents will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit. Additional requirements for Subfactor One – Technical Approach are described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2 – Evaluation Factors, paragraph b. – Technical Factor.

3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach

Each offeror shall provide a plan with their approach to overall staffing of and transition to AISS II. Required documents for each offeror’s staffing approach include a staffing plan and a transition plan. These documents will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit. Additional requirements for Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach are described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2 – Evaluation Factors, paragraph b. – Technical Factor.

3.2.6 Subfactor Three – Configuration Management Approach

Offerors shall provide their approach to overall Configuration Management and Asset Management. Required documents for each offeror’s configuration management approach include a draft configuration management plan and a draft asset management plan. These documents will not count against the 50-page technical volume limit.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 describes the measures of merit for each Technical subfactor.

4.0 Volume III - Past Performance

4.1 General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 2) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter (see sample at Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 3), authorizing release to the government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

4.2 Early Proposal Information

Each offeror is requested to submit the information shown in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1 for each relevant contract no later than 4:00pm CDT 13 Jun 12 . Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification.

As soon as practicable, offerors shall e-mail the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 4) with section 1 completed and the Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter (Attachment 5) to the points of contact (POCs) the offeror has listed in the PPIS (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1). The POCs listed in the PPIS’s should represent the individuals most knowledgeable about the offeror’s performance on the identified contract or program, such as the following: (1) Contracting Officer’s Representative; (2) Program/Project Manager; (3) Contracting Officer. The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by email directly to the Contract Specialist, Jacqueline McGlone at jacqueline.mcglone@us.af.mil and to Jennifer Gasparich at jennifer.gasparich@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will conduct follow-up with any POC as necessary. PPQs should be submitted to the Contract Specialist no later than 4:00pm CDT 13 Jun 12. The CO will use discretion in accepting PPQs and PPIS’s received after the requested date.

4.3 Relevant/Recent Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Attachment 1: Past Performance Information Sheets shall consist of no more than ten contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your team’s ability to perform the proposed effort. A contract is considered recent if it is an ongoing contract or if it was completed within three years of the date of issuance of the solicitation. As stated above, no more than ten contracts total shall be submitted for each offeror/team. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section 2 - Evaluation Factors, paragraph c. - Past Performance Factor. The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. Contractors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that a confidence assessment cannot be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

4.3.1 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical subfactors and Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

4.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection.