Amendment 0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 6A - ADDENDUM TO 52-212-1

The following have been modified:

SECTION 6 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2008)

ADDENDUM 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items JUN 2008)

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors—Competitive Acquisition. (Jan 2004)

BUDGET: The Government has budgeted $16 million for the basic core for this acquisition which encompasses Phase-In, Base Year and all Option years (Note: Does not include Optional CLINs for F-35 CAT). This figure is provided for informational purposes only. Although the Government does not anticipate obtaining any further funding, this budget figure in no way restricts the Government’s right to award to a higher or lower priced offer if that offer is determined to represent the “best value” to the Government as evaluated in accordance with this solicitation (reference FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items) and Section 7, Evaluation Factors for Award.

INCREMENTAL FUNDING: “DFARS Clause 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government’s Obligation, is included in this contract for potential planning purposes. Should the Government need to exercise this funding flexibility during the life of the contract, a bilateral modification will be negotiated to identify parameters and the appropriate fill-in areas of the clause.”

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. This section of the RFP provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested in the RFP. The offeror shall comply with the solicitation requirements as stated and the Statement of Work (SOW). The offeror’s proposal must reflect a thorough understanding of the services required and display a logical development of the offeror's plans to implement all tasks.

2. ONLY THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION IS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE FOR PROPER EVALUATION. EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO KEEP OFFERS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE, CONCENTRATING ON SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER EVALUATION. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.

3. Offerors, please mark all information contained within any portion of the proposal which you feel is not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as proprietary.

4. Include acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation if appropriate.

5. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition so offerors are cautioned to submit their best pricing and technical information up front. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed price.

6. Teaming Arrangement (If Applicable): If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

7. Sub-contractor Consent (If Applicable): Past performance information pertaining to a sub-contractor/teaming partner cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the sub-contractor’s/teaming partner’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all sub-contractors/teaming partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. Following is an example consent letter:

SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT FORM LETTER

Date:

TO: Department of the Air Force

ACC AMIC/PKB

11817 Canon Blvd., Suite 306

Newport News, VA 23606-4516

Attention: MSgt Imelda Reantaso

FROM: (Company name, address and POC)

REFERENCE: Request For Proposal FA4890-11-R-0002, Cockpit/Crew Resource Management (CRM) Contract Aircrew Training and Courseware Development (CAT/CWD)

SUBJECT: Letter of Consent to Release Past Performance Information to (XXX Company)

Per paragraph (xxx) in the Instructions to Offerors of the referenced Request for Proposal (RFP) I hereby authorize the release of past performance information to (XX Company) who is the proposed prime contractor for this effort. If you have any questions or comments, please call the undersigned at _______________________.

Very Respectfully, (XX Company Name)

Signature of Authorized Official

Typed Name and Title

8. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure the ACC AMIC/PKB Contracting Office receives the past performance information. To facilitate the evaluation process, offerors shall provide a matrix of the most recent and relevant past and present contracts/task orders performed for Federal agencies and commercial sources within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation for the same type of effort as this requirement. This matrix shall not exceed four (4) recent/relevant references for the prime contractor and up to two (2) for each subcontractor. Formal documented performance (i.e. Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR) is preferred. Please include the following information in the matrix:

Company/Organization Name

Name of Contact POC (i.e., Contracting Officer, COTR, etc.,) (Current information only)

Contract Number in reference

POC Telephone Number

9. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation team to fully ascertain offerors capability to perform all of the requirements contemplated by this solicitation, and be consistent with the following:

(a) Requirements of the RFP (CLINS and SOW), Government standards and regulations pertaining to the SOW.

(b) Evaluation factors for award in this RFP.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. Proposals shall be prepared in three (3) volumes: (I) Past Performance Volume, (II) Mission Capability Volume, and (III) Price Volume. Specific guidance regarding content of these volumes is discussed in the following paragraphs. The Government will only read/evaluate the maximum number of pages allowed. All pages provided by the offeror in excess of the stated limitations will be returned to the offeror unread.

Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

Vol Title

Hard Copies Max Pages

Min Font Size

I.

Past Performance 10 NONE 12 PT

II.

Mission Capability

12 PT

III.

Price

Completed Section 3

12 PT

**** The Government requests (2) electronic copies of each volume of the proposal (total of six electronic copies per offeror).

2. Number of copies includes the original. Page limitation is subject to exclusions stated in the paragraph titled “Exceptions” below. In addition, the Government will not include cover page(s), tab-divider pages, technical definition page(s) or tables of content in the page limitation.

EXCEPTIONS

1. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, clearly indicate such exception(s) in the appropriate volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit accrues to the Government. All substantive exceptions to the solicitation requirements and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject volume. An overview section is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation (the overview section will not be included in the proposal page limitation described above).

2. In the event the offeror takes no exception to the stated requirements, a statement to this effect shall be included at the front of the subject volume.

(VOLUME I) PREPARATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

1. Past performance references and information are due no later than 30 Nov 10, 12:00 PM (noon), EST. Current anticipated closing date for receipt of proposals is 3 Dec 10, 4:30 PM EST. The offeror’s Past Performance Information, VOLUME I, shall be provided in a format and content which facilitates an assessment according to the Past Performance evaluation factor set forth in Section 7, Evaluation Criteria, of this solicitation. In Volume I, the offeror shall provide information for up to FOUR (4) separate contracts that comprise its most recent and relevant past performance for the prime contractor and up to TWO (2) for each subcontractor as it pertains to this requirement.

Note: For past performance consideration, Recency for this solicitation is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of the final solicitation. Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Offerors are discouraged from submitting references for contracts which closed or expired over one year ago. Further, references for contracts with less than one year performance will not be considered.

Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as courseware development and aircrew training as related to Factor 2, Mission Capability experiences and the SOW, especially those provided to Air Force installations and for multiple years of performance. Past/present performance of combined courseware development and aircrew training will be viewed more favorably. Experience with training contracts which utilize the Air Force’s model of Instructional Systems Development as outlined in AF Manual 36-2234 and AF Handbook 36-2235 will also be viewed favorably.

2. If the offeror does not have Government past/present performance references, the offeror shall provide references from private industry sources. All reference information must include the following in order to be reviewed:

(a) Contract Number

(b) Brief Description of Services Provided - per contract, specifically highlighting those areas relevant to this specific requirement

(c) Total Contract Performance Period (note option years, if applicable)

(d) Total Contract Amount (cumulative of all option years, if applicable)

(e) Contracting Office - to include current address, phone number, and e-mail address of a Point-of-Contact (preferably both a contracting point-of-contact and a program office or technical Point-of-Contact)

(f) Contract Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or equivalent

3. Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). Fully completed CPARs, or similar equivalent systems and forms used in the evaluation of relevant past performance data shall be submitted. If a Government office in conducting annual performance assessments has used another evaluation form, the offeror may submit that existing form/survey in lieu of the CPARs form. If a CPAR or other evaluation form has been accomplished on contractor’s existing work but the contracting office for that requirement will not release the information to the offeror, the offeror will immediately notify the Contract Manager for this solicitation, providing the contract number, point-of-contact and phone number from which the past performance information should be obtained. This information should be provided to the Contract Manager for this solicitation as soon as any difficulty occurs and before the proposal due date. If the offeror is obtaining information for a commercial contract, the information provided should coincide with that required by the CPAR form. Offeror’s Rebuttal To Any Negative Information Provided In Past Performance Information (if not already provided on the form/survey). The offeror shall limit this rebuttal to addressing the specific negative comments. The offeror shall clearly distinguish between any rebuttal already provided on a form/survey versus those rebuttals provided for the purposes of this proposal.

4. NOTE: The offeror shall not alter in any way, including extracting or paraphrasing, portions of past performance information provided by any other party. Past performance forms/surveys shall be provided unaltered in their entirety.

5. The Government may further query, conduct interviews, and/or request performance samples from any of the past performance references submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal. Past performance information shall also be obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, from Defense Contract Management Agency, from interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, or from other sources known to the Government. Available information from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments shall be used if the information is recent and relevant. The recency and relevancy of the past performance information is important in determining what contracts/programs/efforts are evaluated. The Government also reserves the right to obtain more past performance data from any source it deems appropriate. This information may all be used in making the past performance confidence assessment.

6. When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. Should offerors wish to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and their corrective action in accordance with FAR 15.305(2)(ii), please submit such information with proposals as well.

(VOLUME II) PREPARATION OF MISSION CAPABILITY PROPOSAL

1. General: The offeror’s proposal, Volume II, shall at a minimum be prepared in a form consistent with the Mission Capability Criteria set forth in Section 7, Evaluation Factors for Award, of this solicitation. All information the offeror deems appropriate to address within this factor and its sub-factors must be included in the proposal in an orderly format. If an offeror proposes the use of subcontractor or any form of teaming or partnering arrangement, the Mission Capability Volume must clearly specify which tasks of the SOW each party will perform in the execution of the awarded contract. Proposal risk shall be assessed at the Mission Capability sub-factor level. A separate volume for Proposal Risk is not requested. The Mission Capability Volume shall include the following:

SUB-FACTOR 1: MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor examines contractors’ proposed manning levels and personnel mix for all workload identified in the Statement of Work (SOW), and includes all aircrew instructors, courseware developers and any other required positions. All manning positions must be fully supported by the contractors’ workload analysis. Workload analysis will be evaluated on the methodology and level of detail of how manning levels were determined, to include all direct, non-direct and ancillary workload hours. This sub-factor will also be evaluated to ensure the offeror is employing personnel with qualifications commensurate with requirements of the SOW (to include the site manager).

SUB-FACTOR 2: TRAINING MANAGEMENT AND APPROACH

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor examines the soundness and flexibility of the proposed Training Workload Plan to include short and long range planning and scheduling procedures. The plan will be evaluated on management approaches, methods, innovations and policies for managing the training program proposed including methods for mitigating scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations. This sub-factor will also evaluate stated duties and responsibilities of the site manager including effective management of personnel. Communication with the USAF to include formal and informal lines of communication will also be evaluated. This evaluation will include descriptions of all prime and sub-contractor responsibilities including an organization chart with all responsibilities (if required). Lastly, the proposed Training Management and/or Learning Management Systems (LMS/TMS as outlined in the SOW) will be evaluated to include a detailed description of the use, benefits, application and transferability of the LMS/TMS.

SUB-FACTOR 3: COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISDMP) AND QUALITY PROGRAM PLAN

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor will evaluate the offerors’ understanding of and application of the principles and processes outlined in the Air Force’s current model of ISD throughout the life cycle of the training system (Ref AF Handbook 36-2235). This sub-factor evaluates the entire ISD Management Plan (to include a courseware development workload chart). Specific methods and procedures used in the application of the ISD process including tracking of courseware development milestones and methods of validating courseware effectiveness will be evaluated (Ref to SOW paragraph 1.6.1 and Section 2, Service Delivery Summary). Additionally, this sub-factor will evaluate the Contractors’ Quality Program Plan (QPP) as referenced in SOW paragraph 4.4.

SUB-FACTOR 4: ALL OTHER PLANS AND CONTRACTOR FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor will evaluate the offerors’ Transition Plan which includes both Phase-In and Out Plan; Training and Certification Plan; Strike Mitigation Plan for dealing with labor disputes; and an overall Risk Mitigation Plan which provides an overall assessment for mitigating risks associated with workload requirements of the SOW. Also, offerors will be evaluated on a detailed list of all proposed contractor furnished equipment to include all desktop and courseware development computers, support equipment, and modernization/upgrade plans (if any).

2. To facilitate the evaluation, Volume II should be specific and detailed, clearly demonstrating the offeror has a thorough understanding of the actions required to accomplish this effort. Offerors are required to provide a manning table to include the manning mix showing full and part time positions with full explanation of the offerors methodology. All manning positions must be fully supported by the contactor’s workload analysis (Sample Manning Chart Format provided below). The Government also requires a Courseware Development Workload Chart. The CWD chart is to include the breakdown for ICW and Instructor-Led Non-ICW development. The breakdown should show the estimated development effort for each one-hour lesson package showing the percentage of work each specialty on the CWD team contributes. (See sample tables below). Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the SOW, and phrases such as "standard procedures will be employed", or "well known techniques will be used" etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors should note that data previously submitted under any prior or existing contract or solicitation will not be considered. Therefore, such data should not be relied upon, nor incorporated in the Mission Capability proposal by reference. Further, Volume II shall not contain any pricing information.

***SAMPLE MANNING CHART

Total Manning Requirement

Site Manager

I/SME

0.5

0.8

0.4

0.5

0.1

0.43

1.73

Planned Off-Site

***SAMPLE COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT CHARTS

CAT/CWD MANNING

FY12

CAT Manager

I/SME

ID/CWD Manager

ET

GA/ILL

CBT Prog

Scheduler

Administration

Total Manning

Courseware Development Effort per Hour/Unit

Instructor Hdbk

Test

*** Note. Numbers and position information presented in this manning table is for clarification purposes only. This table is not a representative manning profile or workload effort for this solicitation.

(VOLUME III) PREPARATION OF PRICE PROPOSAL

1. General: Price proposals unrealistically high or low when compared to the Independent Government Cost Estimate and the offeror’s proposed technical approach may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal rejection. Price will be evaluated by adding the extended prices for the phase-in, basic award period and all option quantities.

2. Volume III shall contain the following:

(a) Complete in its entirety the "Offeror" portion of the Standard Form 1449. An official having the authority to bind your company contractually must sign and date the Standard Form 1449. One copy of the Standard Form 1449 must bear an original signature.

(b) Offerors will insert the price elements (unit price and extended price) for all contract line item numbers (CLINS), including optional CLINS. Ensure that the extended totals agree with the quantity multiplied by the unit price. For ease of administration, all prices should be rounded to whole dollar amounts. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.

(c ) Insert the required information in the spaces provided, as applicable.

(d) Complete ALL required certifications and representations and acknowledge all, if any, amendments to this solicitation. (Note: Be sure to sign and date when required).

DEBRIEFING OF OFFERORS

1. Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying to unsuccessful offerors where changes can be made to improve future source selection participation.

2. Successful or unsuccessful offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Procuring Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505(a)(1) for pre-award debriefings and FAR 15.506(d) for post-award debriefing of offerors.

DISPOSITION OF UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS

In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, the Government will retain one hard copy of all unsuccessful proposals; all additional copies will be destroyed by the Government.

SECTION 7 - EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

1. The Government will award one 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:

The proposals will be evaluated using four Factors which are as follows and listed from most to least important: (1) Past Performance, (2) Mission Capability, (3) Risk, and (4) Price. In terms of the hierarchy of importance, the Past Performance and Mission Capability factors are equally important, and when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Price Factor is the least important factor however; cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2. Options. 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

3. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise 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.

4. IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, and 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Proposals will be evaluated using four Factors which are as follows and listed from most to least important: (1) Past Performance, (2) Mission Capability, (3) Risk, and (4) Price. In terms of the hierarchy of importance, the Past Performance and Mission Capability Factors are equally important. The Price Factor is the least important factor. Furthermore, there are four sub-factors within the Mission Capability Factor: (1) Manning Requirements and Analysis, (2) Training Management and Approach (3) Courseware Development Approach and Instructional Systems Development Management Plan and Quality Program Plan, (4) All Other Plans and Contractor Furnished Equipment. Sub-factors are also listed from most to least important. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation. All proposals will be evaluated against the stated evaluation criteria. The proposals will be evaluated for the entire performance period. Following an in-depth analysis and evaluation of the primary “areas” of importance as well as thorough evaluation of prices quoted for the services to be performed, award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous (best value) to the Government. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government is implicit in the technical evaluation process. The application of the technical evaluation procedures to the primary “areas” of importance permits placing technical considerations above total price.

2. As a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Price is not expected to be the most significant factor in the selection of an offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be equal, total price and other price factors would become the most significant factor. Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is reasonable and to assess the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally priced cost estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price credibility rests solely with the offeror. Price proposals will not be rated or scored. The Government will make a subjective evaluation to determine if the offeror’s technical approach and proposed price represents the greatest value to the Government.

FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION (FPR)

1. The Government may award based on initial proposals; therefore, contractors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, discussions or negotiations may be held and result in a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to pricing, technical, and all other terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions. Any technical revisions or non-concurrences to contract terms and conditions submitted in the “Final Proposal Revision” offer may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. The Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

2. This provision is not limited to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures, (e.g. prices, discounts, percentage rates, etc.). Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new, or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the “Final Proposal Revision” that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the “Final Proposal Revision”, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

MAJOR EVALUATION FACTORS

The Factors listed below are in descending order of importance, with Past Performance and Mission Capability being equal in importance. All sub-factors within a specific factor are also listed in descending order of importance.

A) FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Past performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. The performance confidence assessment will be assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating all aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the mission capability sub-factors. Past performance will be evaluated by examining a maximum of four (4) references for the prime contractor and up to two (2) references for each subcontractor determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code (611512) for aircrew training. Recent is defined as contract performance during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint ventures, sub-contractors and/or teaming arrangements will be made. 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 sub-contractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion or relevancy. When the integrated assessment of all aspects of the evaluation is accomplished, past performance shall be as important as the Mission Capability factor. The Government’s final analysis of this factor will include a comparison to past performance of other offerors received. The past performance assessment rating shall be assessed at the overall factor level.

a) The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost, business relations, management, schedule, quality, and use of AF ISD Model, based on a demonstrated record of performance. Complexity of contracts submitted for past performance consideration will be viewed favorably. Complex contracts are those in excess of $1,000,000 that provide services for multiple option years and require formal documented performance assessments (i.e., Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPARS)).

b) Past performance evaluation should concentrate on those aspects of the acquisition most critical to overall success. Evaluation of offerors’ performance should focus on demonstrated performance in these specific areas. Evaluators should consider mitigating circumstances, such as process changes, that have resulted in improvements to previous performance problems. However, process change should only be considered when objectively measurable improvement in performance has been demonstrated as a result of the changes.

c) Past performance is judged based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records. For example, an offeror with 30 relevant and recent past performance evaluations is not automatically superior to an offeror with only 10. It is unlikely that a straight comparison of the number of submissions should be the driving factor of the rating assessed. It is important to remember that “past performance” and “experience” is not the same thing. Past performance evaluation is used to determine how well an offeror has performed previous efforts; experience is an indication of how often and the number of years (or months) an offeror has performed similar efforts, not necessarily how well the offeror performed.

d) The Government considers the recency and relevancy of the offeror’s past performance information in determining what contracts/programs should be evaluated. Early identification and use of past performance information to enable Government evaluators to focus on this measure of the performance confidence assessment is critical. Offerors will be provided the opportunity to address any negative or derogatory past performance information received during this evaluation through clarifications or communications.

(1) Recency for this solicitation is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Further, references for contracts with less than one year performance will not be considered.

(2) Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as courseware development and aircrew training as related to Factor 2, Mission Capability experiences and the SOW, especially those provided to Air Force installations and for multiple years of performance. Past/present performance of combined courseware development and aircrew training will be viewed more favorably. Experience with training contracts which utilize the Air Force’s model of Instructional Systems Development as outlined in AF Manual 36-2234 and AF Handbook 36-2235 will also be viewed favorably. The following relevancy definitions apply:

Somewhat

Relevant Past/present performance efforts involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

e) Past performance information concerning sub-contractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the sub-contractor's or teaming partner's consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need consent before disclosing sub-contractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges and debriefs. In an effort to assist the Government's Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence rating, we request that a consent form be completed by the sub-contractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of Volume I, Past Performance.

f) The evaluation will also take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement and teaming arrangements. The evaluation shall also include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for the affected concerns, monetary targets for small and small disadvantaged business participation and notifications submitted under FAR 19.1202-4(b).

g) The Government will assess past performance using the Performance Confidence Assessments rating scale contained at AFFARS 5315.3, MP5315.3 Source Selection, Table 3 (Revised April 2, 2010), as shown below, and the Air Force Past Performance Evaluation Guide, IG5315.305(a)(2) (January 2008). Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

h) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

i) The Government evaluation team, known as the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG), will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The PCAG will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources. Past performance information shall also be obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, from Defense Contract Management Agency, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Government Quality Assurance personnel, COTRS or from other sources known to the Government. Available information from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments shall be used if the information is recent and relevant. The Government also reserves the right to obtain more past performance data from any source it deems appropriate. This information may all be used in making the past performance confidence assessment.

j) When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. Should offerors wish to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and their corrective action in accordance with FAR 15.305(2)(ii), please submit such information with proposals.

k) Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be provided the opportunity to address any negative or derogatory past performance information received during this evaluation through clarifications or communications.

B) FACTOR 2 – MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL

1. The mission capability technical factor and associated sub-factors shall receive two separate but distinct ratings: 1) the Mission Capability Technical Rating that reflects the degree to which the mission capability factor or sub-factor exceeds, meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirement, and 2) the Mission Capability Risk Rating that assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the mission capability factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. These two ratings are presented together and are of equal impact for the rating of each mission capability sub-factor. The ratings shall be assessed at the sub-factor level and an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned.

a) The mission capability technical rating focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. The severity of the deficiency will determine if the offeror will be able to correct the deficiency through discussions.

b) Mission capability sub-factors are also listed in descending order of importance. Each sub-factor will be assigned a color rating IAW AFFARS 5315.3 and MP5315.3, as demonstrated in Table 1 below. The mission capability technical rating will not be rolled up to an overall factor level rating.

TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS

There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

2) The following Mission capability sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance:

SUB-FACTOR 1: MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor examines contractors’ proposed manning levels and personnel mix for all workload identified in the Statement of Work (SOW), and includes all aircrew instructors, courseware developers and any other required positions. All manning positions must be fully supported by the contractors’ workload analysis. Workload analysis will be evaluated on the methodology and level of detail of how manning levels were determined, to include all direct, non-direct and ancillary workload hours. This sub-factor will also be evaluated to ensure the offeror is employing personnel with qualifications commensurate with requirements of the SOW (to include the site manager).

SUB-FACTOR 2: TRAINING MANAGEMENT AND APPROACH

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor examines the soundness and flexibility of the proposed Training Workload Plan to include short and long range planning and scheduling procedures. The plan will be evaluated on management approaches, methods, innovations and policies for managing the training program proposed including methods for mitigating scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations. This sub-factor will also evaluate stated duties and responsibilities of the site manager including effective management of personnel. Communication with the USAF to include formal and informal lines of communication will also be evaluated. This evaluation will include descriptions of all prime and sub-contractor responsibilities including an organization chart with all responsibilities (if required). Lastly, the proposed Training Management and/or Learning Management Systems (LMS/TMS as outlined in the SOW) will be evaluated to include a detailed description of the use, benefits, application and transferability of the LMS/TMS.

SUB-FACTOR 3: COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISDMP) AND QUALITY PROGRAM PLAN DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor will evaluate the offerors’ understanding of and application of the principles and processes outlined in the Air Force’s current model of ISD throughout the life cycle of the training system (Ref AF Handbook 36-2235). This sub-factor evaluates the entire ISD Management Plan (to include a courseware development workload chart). Specific methods and procedures used in the application of the ISD process including tracking of courseware development milestones and methods of validating courseware effectiveness will be evaluated (Ref to SOW paragraph 1.6.1 and Section 2, Service Delivery Summary). Additionally, this sub-factor will evaluate the Contractors’ Quality Program Plan (QPP) as referenced in SOW paragraph 4.4.

SUB-FACTOR 4: ALL OTHER PLANS AND CONTRACTOR FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION: This sub-factor will evaluate the offerors’ Transition Plan which includes both Phase-In and Out Plan; Training and Certification Plan; Strike Mitigation Plan for dealing with labor disputes; and an overall Risk Mitigation Plan which provides an overall assessment for mitigating risks associated with workload requirements of the SOW. Also, offerors will be evaluated on security procedures for personnel and courseware development that will be used for levels of security classifications required by the SOW. Finally, offerors will be evaluated on a detailed list of all proposed contractor furnished equipment to include all desktop and courseware development computers, support equipment, and modernization/upgrade plans (if any).

C) FACTOR 3 – MISSION CAPABILITY RISK CRITERIA

1. Mission capability risk assessment focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. Assessment of risk is applied at the Mission Capability sub-factor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned. Assessment of proposal risk includes potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

a) An aspect of a proposal that has been identified as an uncertainty or deficiency under Mission Capability could result in a Moderate, High, or even Unacceptable risk rating. This rating appropriately documents the failure (or uncertainty) to meet a requirement and the resulting risk to schedule, cost and/or performance. Other times, the proposal may meet or exceed requirements, but the approach to meeting/exceeding the requirements involves risk to schedule, cost and/or performance and will also drive a Moderate, High or even Unacceptable risk rating. The following are examples for what would be the basis to have certain assigned risk ratings:

i) If an offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required services has not been attempted or demonstrated to be successful in either a commercial or non-commercial DoD environment, then a High or Unacceptable risk rating may be appropriate, particularly if the required services are considered mission-essential. Indicators may be a staffing plan that appears to have an inappropriate span of control or a plan that appears to rely on extensive cross-utilization of personnel. If an offeror proposes an approach to operation and maintenance of a mission system involving transition from a legacy system to an updated system, without a testing or overlapping transition period, this would be rated “high risk” or “unacceptable.”

ii) If an offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required services has been successfully demonstrated in a commercial environment but never used for a DoD requirement, then a Moderate risk rating may be appropriate. An indicator may be an implementation plan that does not allow adequate time to have equipment and properly cleared personnel in place to start performance.

iii) If an offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required services has been successfully demonstrated and proven to be effective in satisfying a DoD requirement, than a Low risk rating may be appropriate. Indicators would be proposed staffing with proven processes and implementation plans that reflect the offeror’s technical expertise concerning the requirement. Any identified risks would have sound mitigation plans in place.

2) Information obtained in the past performance evaluation often has a bearing upon the overall consideration of other factors. For example: Consider a contractor who proposed to deliver an emerging technology to fill a contract requirement. The proposed approach promises tremendous benefit for the Government, hence the mission capability technical rating for the specific sub-factor is BLUE; but because the technology is unproven, the mission capability risk rating for that same sub-factor is HIGH. A review of the offeror’s past performance, however, reveals that the offeror routinely matures emerging technology and takes it to market -- on schedule and under budget. In his or her integrated assessment the Source Selection Authority may consider this information and effectively lower the proposal risk from HIGH to MODERATE or LOW.

3) For any weakness identified, the evaluation must address the offeror’s proposal for mitigation and why that approach is or is not acceptable. Note, if a combination of significant weaknesses leads to unacceptably high proposal risk, this is a deficiency in the proposal. The Government will use the following rating scale described in AFFARS 5315.305, MP5315.3, Table 2, in its assessment of risk.

TABLE 2 - MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS