DRAFT_TO_Ordering_Guide_24_May_2018.pdf

THE COMBAT AIR FORCES (CAF)

CONTRACTED AIR SUPPORT (CAS) SERVICES

FA4890-17-R-0007

APPENDIX C – TASK ORDER PROCESS HANDBOOK

Task Order Process Handbook

For

The Combat Air Forces (CAF) Contracted Air Support (CAS)

{NOTICE: This handbook is provided as a guide to acquiring services under the CAF CAS program and is not intended to take precedence over any aspects of the awarded contracts. In the event of any conflict between the information in this handbook and the terms and conditions of the contracts, the contracts are the binding documents.}

Table of Contents

1.0 Task Order Process Overview……………………………………………………

2.0 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) ……………………….…………………

3.0 Task Order Proposal Submission…………………………………………………………... 6

4.0 Evaluation Techniques……………………………………………………………………..14

5.0 Task Orders Awards………………………………………………………………………..15

6.0 Small Business Set-Asides…………………………………………………………..……..16

1.0 Task Order Process Overview

1.1 The following parameters apply to Task orders (TOs) solicited and awarded under the CAF CAS Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contract. TOs will be issued in accordance with (IAW) with FAR 16.505. Ordering under this IDIQ contract will be done IAW the process described within this document.

1.2 Contract Clauses. All contract clauses in the IDIQ contract will apply at the TO level, as applicable. Any unique clauses that may apply to an individual TO may be included in the TO as determined by the Contracting office.

1.3 Contract Provisions. The following provision may apply at the TO level, as required:

52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort (Oct 2009).

1.4 Projected operating location (OL) TOs and requirements to be awarded under the CAF CAS IDIQ contract for ADAIR support to include, but not limited to, the following 12 sites:

Pricing and compensation for Category A, B, and C aircraft is based on sorties needed to fulfill training requirements as a single OL for each

ADAIR Operating Location Sorties On-/

Off-Base

Max Turn

Pattern

Typical Turn

Pattern

ASD

Nellis AFB, NV 7500 On-Base 20 T 18

(26 T 28)

16 T 14 1.5

Luke AFB, AZ 2520 Off-Base 4 T 4 T 4 4 T 4 1.5

Kingsley Field (ANG), OR 1828 On-Base 4 T 4 4 T 4 1.5

Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 2590 Off-Base 10 T 8 8 T 6 1.5

Holloman AFB, NM 2640 On-Base 8 T 6 6 T 4 1.2

Tucson (ANG), AZ 960 Off-Base 4 T 4 2 T 2 1.2

Tyndall AFB, FL 3086 On-Base 8 T 8 T 8 8 T 8 T 8 1.2

Kelly Field (ANG), TX and

TDY Support

580 On-Base 4 T 4 4 T 2 1.3

Langley AFB, VA 3840 On-Base 8 T 8 T 8 8 T 8 T 8 1.2

Eglin AFB, FL 2140 On-Base 8 T 6 6 T 4 1.2

Hickam AFB, HI 2930 On-Base 8 T 6 6 T 4 1.3

Hill AFB, UT 768 On-Base 10 T 8 8 T 6 1.5

Category; associated ASD is based on needed ASD presented by those using OLs if operating from that location. OLs may expand over time to support CAF ADAIR requirements and additional sites may be incorporated at a later date based on the program requirements. The Government may award additional OLs and services within the scope of the IDIQ up to the stated contract maximum value, throughout the period of this contract.

1.5 Projected operating location (OL) TOs and requirements to be awarded under the CAF CAS IDIQ contract for CCAS to include, but not limited to, the following 10 sites:

Pricing and compensation for Category D and E aircraft is based on “on-range” hours as the projected requirement as a single OL for each

Category, irrespective of actual ASD flown. The provided sortie numbers are based on a projected 1.5 range hours for Cat D and 1.0 for Cat E, per sortie, at the indicated turn patterns. Actual sorties flown may vary by contractor proposal. The on-range hours, and not the associated sorties and turns, are the driving requirement based on a 20 operational day work-month. Offerors may propose increased sorties and turns to cover the required on-range hours, but will remain consistent over a 2-go/3-go day and 20 operational day work-month. OLs may expand over time to support CCAS requirements and additional sites may be incorporated at a later date based on the program requirements. The Government may combine OLs or award additional OLs and services within the scope of the IDIQ up to the stated contract maximum value, throughout the period of this contract.

1.6 The TO type may vary based on the requirement and will be identified in the FOPR letter. The CLIN structure for each TO will remain consistent with the IDIQ and will include a variation of the following CLINs dependent on the requirement.

CCAS Operating Location On-/

Off -Base

Max Turn

Pattern

Typical Turn

Pattern

On-

Range

Hours

Fort Bliss Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 2 1080

Fort Riley Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 0 720

Fort Hood Off-Base 2 T 2 T 2 2 T 2 1440

Fort Carson Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 2 1080

Fort Campbell Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 2 1080

Fort Drum Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 2 1080

Fort Bragg Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 2 1440

Fort Stewart Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 0 720

Fort Polk Off-Base 2 T 0 2 T 0 360

Nellis AFB (Fort Irwin) Off-Base 2 T 2 2 T 2 1080

1.6.1 Fixed Price by Capability CLINS (X001-X005). Unit of Issue is Months with the Unit Price being the fully burdened Price per Sortie (CLINs

X001-X003) or Price per Hour (X004-X005) for each Capability by OL. If OL TO requires multiple Capabilities, there will be an individual CLIN for each. Aircraft capabilities being filled with multiple aircraft types will be billed and reimbursed by a single rate for that Capability.

1.6.2 Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs. Unit of Issue is Lot with a Not to Exceed amount for the price. Ferry Flights, Deployment, Travel/Shipping and Fuel will be on CR CLINs.

1.6.3 Phase-In CLIN. Unit of Issue is Month and will be invoiced monthly.

1.6.4 Award/Incentive Fee CLIN. The Government reserves the right to use an Award/Incentive Fee at the Task Order level. An Award/Incentive

Plan will be provided should the Government decide to utilize this option. Unit of Issue is Lot and will be invoiced after the modification that will incorporate the earned amount The total Award/Incentive Fee is determined by the Government and will be a Not To Exceed amount based on a sliding scale of total value for the Contract Year in which the performance period is being evaluated. The Award/Incentive Plan will detail how the contractor earns the fee.

1.6.5 The Government reserves the right to incorporate additional CLINs at the TO level, depending on the requirements of the TO.

2.0 Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

2.1 Government Notification to Contractors. The Government will provide advance notice to IDIQ Primes of upcoming TO requirements before issuing FOPR via a Heads Up Memorandum (HUM) to provide preliminary proposal information to the Primes for the upcoming TO requirements. The HUM should include at a minimum:

- OL to be included within the competition

- OL TO Performance Work Statement (PWS)

2.1.1 Requests for site visits must be submitted to the CO as specified in the HUM. Site visits will be scheduled at the CO’s discretion and solely at the Contractor’s expense.

2.2 The CO will initiate the FOPR process by sending a FOPR letter and attachments (hereafter referred to as the FOPR package) to IDIQ Prime contractors IAW FAR 16.505. TOs will be competed amongst IDIQ Prime contractors as Full and Open, which consists of all Large Business (LB) and Small Business (SB) Primes, unless there is a Set-Aside as described in Section 6.0.

2.2.1 The FOPR letter will include, at a minimum, the following information:

- TO Number

- TO Name

- Date of the FOPR package

- Description of Services

- Anticipated Period of Performance

- Place of Performance

- Source Selection Methodology

- Evaluation Factors/Criteria

- Basis of Award

- Contract/Cost Type

- Proposal Submission Requirements

- Proposal Due Date and Time

- Deadline for Any Inquiries or Concerns Regarding the FOPR

- No-Bid Statement Requirements

- Contact Information of the Contracting Representatives

2.2.2 The FOPR package will contain, at a minimum, the following:

- FOPR Letter

- PWS

- TO Pricing Template

- Existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) if applicable, when available to the Government

- Government Furnished Property (GFP) listing, if applicable, when available to the Government

- Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254), if applicable

2.3 The Government will typically notify the IDIQ Prime contractors of TO requirements via e-mail. Such notification does not obligate the

Government to issue TO or authorize contractors to perform any work.

3.0 Task Order Proposal Submission

3.1 All IDIQ Primes are highly encouraged to submit a proposal for every FOPR under this contract.

3.2 If not submitting a proposal, Primes must acknowledge receipt and submit a brief written Non-Bid statement formally stating that a proposal will not be submitted and identifying the reason(s).

3.3 If no proposal or only one proposal is received, the Government, at its discretion, may revalidate the FOPR requirement. The revalidation process may include exchanges of information with some or all the IDIQ Prime contractors to determine whether there are concerns about the

FOPR requirement. Should the requirement be validated, the CO may reissue the FOPR package. After the Government revalidates the FOPR requirement and if only one proposal is received, the CO may follow the procedures at DFARS 216.505-70.

3.4 Any questions pertaining to the FOPR package shall be submitted to the CO in writing within the timeframe stated in the FOPR letter. In the event issues pertaining to a FOPR package cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the CO, the CO reserves the right to withdraw or cancel the proposed FOPR package. In such event, Contractors will be notified of the CO's decision.

3.5 The Contractor’s TO proposal shall be submitted to the CO within the timeframe stated in the FOPR letter (see FAR 15.208, Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposal, for further information regarding late proposals). TO proposals shall be valid for 365 calendar days of proposal date. If a TO proposal does not reach the Government on time, the burden of proof lies with the Contractor to show that delays were out of its control (e.g. post office did not meet advertised delivery date/time, Government server issues affected receipt of TO proposal sent via e-mail, etc.). The CO will consider late TO proposals on a case-by-case basis.

3.6 Post FOPR Communication. Once a FOPR package is released, all communications with the Government shall only be made through the

CO who signed the FOPR letter, unless otherwise specified in writing by the CO. This restriction will remain in place until TO award is made.

3.7 Task Order Performance Start. Base Year Performance Start is defined as the commencement of aviation operations at the full contracted turn-pattern at the OL. Contractors may propose a Delayed Performance Start Date (DPSD) to begin operations anytime within the 12 calendar months following each TO award to accommodate any required importation or enhancement milestones needed to support each OL TO. Unless otherwise proposed, performance start commences 3 calendar months after TO award.

3.8 Task Order Proposal Requirements. TO proposals shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation.

Proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements; rather, they shall provide convincing rationale to address how the

Contractor intends to meet TO requirements. Offeror shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities, personnel and experience as the Government will base evaluation solely on information presented in the TO proposal. Therefore, proposals shall be orderly, sufficiently documented, and easy to understand, which will allow for a thorough, efficient, and fair evaluation. TO proposal shall include the following information, as well as any additional information requested in the FOPR package:

3.9 Basis For Task Order Award. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical (Combined Technical Capability &

Risk), (2) Price, and (3) Small Business Participation. Technical is most important and significantly more important than Price. The greater the equality of Technical proposals the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government. No tradeoff will be made for the Small Business Participation factor.

3.10 Volumes.

3.10.1 Technical Volume.

3.10.1.1 A single Technical Volume will be required for each TO and shall meet the criteria specified in the FOPR. The Technical Volume shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the TO PWS requirements.

The Technical Volume shall provide a clear and concise description of how the Offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of the FOPR, specifically identifying any innovations or efficiencies that would result in a benefit to the Government in relation to the TO PWS and the technical evaluation subfactors. The Technical Volume shall include sufficient detail that substantiates stated claims. Statements that an Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced AF publications, Technical Orders, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable AF publications, Technical Order, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or

“well known techniques will be used” or “work will continue as it has in the past” will be considered unacceptable. The proposal shall also cross-reference any offeror identified risk(s) to each subfactor and provide risk rating (high, moderate, low) for each risk area and justification for the rating. Describe the approach to minimize the impact of these risks on the overall success of the effort and how the risk(s) will be managed/mitigated. Specifically identify any performance standards and metrics you have established in each risk area and explain how performance standards will be used to manage risk. Offerors should note that data submitted prior to the TO proposal submission will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation; therefore, such data should not be relied upon or incorporated in the Technical Volume of the proposal by reference. The Technical Volume shall not contain any pricing data.

3.10.1.2 ADAIR OL Technical Subfactors and Aspects. A technical volume will be submitted and evaluated IAW the technical criteria specified in the FOPR. The Government anticipates using some or all of the technical subfactors and aspects listed below. Technical subfactors A and B are equal in importance. Subfactor A, Aspects I and II values vary by individual OL, as follows:

Nellis: Aspect II (Required Objective Performance and Capabilities) is more important than Aspect I (Timeliness of

Performance).

5th Generation Fighter Training Units (Tyndall and Eglin): Aspect I (Timeliness of Performance) and Aspect II (Required

Objective Performance and Capabilities) are of equal importance.

5th Generation Operational Units (Langley, Hill, and Hickam): Aspect II (Required Objective Performance and

Capabilities) is more important than Aspect I (Timeliness of Performance).

4th Generation Fighter Training Units (Kingsley, Holloman, Tucson, Kelly, Luke, and Seymour Johnson): Aspect I

(Timeliness of Performance) is significantly more important than Aspect II (Required Objective Performance and

Capabilities).

Subfactor A: Aircraft Availability. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

Demonstrates an approach that ensures sufficient aircraft availability with required Airworthiness Certification to support required turn-patterns (at initial performance and once fully operational) and details the aircraft capabilities to meet flying hour requirements in the PWS and Appendix I. Provides an explanation of how aircraft force mixtures best meets or exceed PWS requirements in Appendix I. Proposed approach permits performance start with existing airframes; or, permits performance start following a mobilization period not to exceed 12 months from FOPR award. Integrates with enhancement timelines of

Subfactor D to prevent or reduce any break in contract performance.

Aspect I: Timeliness of Performance. Demonstrates a comprehensive plan to meet performance start with an acceptable initial capability.

Aspect II: Required Objective Performance and Capability. Demonstrates a comprehensive plan to enhance aircraft to reach Required Objective Performance and Capabilities (or Desired Objective Performance and Capabilities).

Subfactor B: Aircraft Enhancements. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

Demonstrates an approach that provides planned aircraft avionics enhancements that best meets or exceeds PWS requirements in Appendix I for each targeted category to create intended effects per the Effects Matrix. Details an effective aircraft avionics enhancement plan, complete with a description of the aircraft avionics enhancements, to include specific capabilities with sufficient details applicable for each avionics such as but not limited to:

Active detection range against RCS;

Software types;

Passive detection against single-engine or multi-engine platforms & power settings;

Avionics integration;

Active and passive track capabilities;

Fields of regard;

Utilized waveforms;

Power outputs;

Modes of operations, such as track while scan, and dual target track;

Electronic countermeasures techniques such as digital radio frequency memory, range gate pull off, and noise barrage

ECM and avionics integration, and methods

Provides a proposed aircraft avionics enhancement timeline with details such as, but not limited to: logistics (supplies) deliveries, prime or third party (e.g. – subcontractor) installations; required testing; and aircraft avionics enhancement delivery to reach full operational capability that best meets targeted milestones indicated in Appendix I. Planned timelines are integrated with proposed performance start date (or mobilization period) presented under Subfactor C to prevent or reduce any break in contract performance. Enhancements are supported with engineering feasibility assessments.

3.10.1.3. CCAS OL Technical Subfactors. A technical volume will be submitted and evaluated IAW the technical criteria specified in the

FOPR. The Government anticipates using some or all of the technical subfactors and aspects listed below. Technical subfactors A and B are equal in importance:

Subfactor A: Aircraft Availability. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

Demonstrates an approach that ensures sufficient aircraft availability with required Airworthiness Certification to support required turn-patterns (at initial performance and once fully operational) and details the aircraft capabilities to meet flying hour requirements in the PWS and Appendix I. Provides an explanation of how aircraft force mixtures best meets or exceed PWS requirements in Appendix I. Proposed approach permits performance start with existing airframes; or, permits performance start following a mobilization period not to exceed 12 months from FOPR award. Integrates with enhancement timelines of

Subfactor D to prevent or reduce any break in contract performance.

Subfactor B: Aircraft Enhancements. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

Demonstrates an approach that provides planned aircraft avionics enhancements that best meets or exceeds PWS requirements in Appendix I for each targeted category to create intended effects per the Effects Matrix. Details an effective aircraft avionics enhancement plan, complete with a description of the aircraft avionics enhancements, to include specific capabilities with sufficient details applicable for each avionics such as but not limited to:

Targeting pod spectrum;

Modes and lasing/track capabilities;

Digital messaging type/capabilities;

Video downlink encryption type and interoperability;

Voice communication waveforms and jam resistance, etc;

Provides a proposed aircraft avionics enhancement timeline with details such as, but not limited to: logistics (supplies) deliveries, prime or third party (e.g. – subcontractor) installations; required testing; and aircraft avionics enhancement delivery to reach full operational capability that best meets targeted milestones indicated in Appendix I. Planned timelines are integrated with proposed performance start date (or mobilization period) presented under Subfactor C to prevent or reduce any break in contract performance. Enhancements are supported with engineering feasibility assessments.

3.10.1.4 The Government reserves the right to revise the technical subfactors and aspects to meet OL TO requirements.

3.10.1.5 Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Technical proposals will be measured against evaluation criteria at the subfactor and/or aspect level, as applicable level. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. In conducting the assessment, the Government will also consider information provided in the proposal as to how the Offeror will manage and mitigate risk. Each subfactor/aspect shall be assigned a color rating, shown below, as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The aspect color ratings will be rolled up into an overall subfactor color rating;

however, the subfactor color ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the entire Technical Factor. To be eligible for award, all subfactors must receive a minimum color rating of “Green/Acceptable.” IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures, the following Technical/Risk ratings and Risk descriptions will be utilized:

Technical Capability Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

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

Purple Good

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

Green Acceptable

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

Yellow Marginal

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

Red Unacceptable

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

Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.10.2 Cost/Price Volume.

3.10.2.1 TO Pricing. IAW 16.505(b)(3), prices will be established for each OL TO using the policies and methods in Subpart 15.4. Prices will be evaluated to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. Price evaluation will rely on competition and will be conducted IAW the instructions stated within the TO FOPR. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements. An offeror may be determined un-awardable if its proposed price is evaluated as incomplete, unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced.

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of Offerors’ TO Total Overall Evaluated Price as defined in the FOPR, and as updated via any amendments through award. It will also include an assessment of the fair and reasonableness of the supporting pricing data presented in applicable back-up data tabs, and the relationship between aircraft type pricing and Capability pricing. Offerors must sufficiently explain in the pricing narrative any difference between the average of all aircraft type back-up data and the proposed Capability CLIN(s). Other techniques and procedures described under FAR Subpart 15.404-1 may be used to assess price reasonableness.

3.10.2.2 Price Volume shall include pricing for each CLIN specified in the TO FOPR package. All applicable FFP CLINs identified in the TO

Pricing Template will be included in the TO TOEP.

3.10.2.2.1 Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs. FFP CLINs would be: PPS Capability A, PPS Capability B, PPS Category C, PPS Category D, PPS

Category E, Phase-In, and award/incentive fee as applicable. Offerors shall submit complete and accurate pricing for the TO in the TO Pricing

Template provided by the Government. Pricing shall be based on the proposed technical solution for the unique task order requirements and must be clearly identified in the proposed price. Pricing shall be broken out by the items delineated in the TO Pricing Template identified on each

CLINs Back-up Data Sheet (i.e. percentage of price for aircraft, maintenance, pilots, insurance, overhead, profit). Capability CLIN pricing that varies from those accepted at the IDIQ must be explained in the pricing narrative.

3.10.2.2.2 Cost Reimbursement (CR) CLINs. CR CLINs are: Ferry Flights, Deployment, Travel, Shipping and Fuel. The Government will specify the Not to Exceed (NTE) amount on Applicable CR CLINs for the TO. Offerors shall not adjust or remove this value in preparation of the proposal. Offerors shall submit complete and accurate costs for ferry flights and deployments by the unit of issue identified in the TO Pricing

Template. The Ferry Flight cost will be a fixed ferry rate by sortie. The Deployment cost will be a fixed cost per sortie based on a standard flying rate of 6 T 4 for a 2 week deployment, with the final Friday being a 6 T 0 (96 sorties). The travel costs will be submitted in accordance with the

Joint Travel Regulation. The awarded sortie cost for ferry flights and deployments will be the allowable cost per unit for the CR CLINs.

3.10.2.3 Supporting Price Backup Data and Price Narrative. Supporting data/other than certified cost and pricing data is required. This data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed prices for each location/aircraft attributes performance category, by identified

Capability CLIN Back-up Data tab. Examples of supporting data includes any information reasonably required to explain the offeror’s estimating process, including but not limited to the judgmental factors applied and the mathematical or other methods used to estimate and the nature and amount of any contingencies included in the proposed price. Offerors shall submit a detailed price narrative to enable the Government to determine that the proposed price is fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals. The Government may obtain certified cost or pricing data when required by FAR 15.403-4, as necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price. Offerors must sufficiently explain in the pricing narrative any difference between the average of all aircraft type in back-up data and the proposed Capability CLIN(s). Any differences in the price per sortie for home station (task order OL) versus deployment sorties should likewise be explained in the price narrative.

3.10.2.4 TO TOEP. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of each offeror’s TO TOEP. The TOEP will consist of the sum of all CLINs for the performance period. All prices shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. NTE amount per year will be incorporated into the

TO Pricing Template for the applicable CR CLINs. All offerors shall use this figure when completing the TO Pricing Template. Offerors shall not change the pre-established NTE amounts for the CLINs.

3.10.2.5 FAR 52.222-41 may apply at the TO level if there is a requirement for non-exempt CONUS labor that falls under a Wage Determination

(WD).

3.10.2.6 Adequate Accounting System. For cost type contracts, proposals shall provide evidence of an accounting system that can adequately track, segregate, accumulate and report incurred costs for each CLIN, as applicable, per FAR 16.301-3, Limitations. Failure to maintain an adequate accounting system for cost type TOs may be basis for removal from competing for cost type TOs. The Government will validate if a

Contractor already has an adequate accounting system.

3.10.2.7 Approved Purchasing System. An approved purchasing system may be required for TOs based on the complexity, dollar value and subcontracting involvement of the TO requirement. When this is the case, the FOPR will document the requirement, and proposals shall provide evidence of an approved purchasing system capable of supporting cost type contracts per FAR Part 44, Subcontracting Policies and Procedures.

3.10.3 Past Performance. The Government reserves the right to evaluate or not evaluate past performance as an evaluation factor. If past performance is not evaluated as a factor, the PCO, in consultation with the Decision Authority and PM will document this determination in the

SASS. At a minimum, Past Performance will be used as part of the Responsibility Determination and will be evaluated IAW FAR 9.1. Past performance information may be obtained through one or more of the following sources: 1) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4)

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels; 5) interviews with Program Managers, COs, and Award Fee Determining Officials;

and 6) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to obtain more past performance data from any source that it deems appropriate.

3.10.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Contractors proposing on a TO requirement shall address OCI as part of TO proposal submissions IAW Section E, Para 7.0 of the PWS. Unmitigated OCI issue(s) may result in ineligibility for award.

3.10.5 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all TO FOPR requirements, such as terms and conditions, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the TO FOPR may result in the Offeror being found unacceptable. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and technical requirements (of both the basic IDIQ contract and the TO), in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

3.10.6 Exceptions. If an offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in the TO FOPR (to include the PWS and attachments), offerors shall clearly identify each exception along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and the resulting benefit to the Government. The Government may consider any included assumptions as an Offeror taking exception to the Government’s requirements, which may result in the Government finding the proposal unacceptable.

3.7.7 Limitations on Subcontracting. Small Business Primes shall be in compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

4.0 Evaluation Techniques

4.1 Guidance. The Government will evaluate TO proposals as specified in each TO FOPR. Selection will be made IAW the specified methodology and criteria, the terms and conditions of the CAF CAS IDIQ Contract, and FAR Part 16.505, as supplemented. The procedures at

FAR 15.3 do not apply.

4.2 Tradeoff process. Fair Opportunity Selections for TOs under the CAF CAS IDIQ will be competitively conducted using Tradeoff process.

The Tradeoff Process is used when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest-priced proposal. This process utilizes subjective tradeoff evaluation factors to make a fair opportunity selection to offeror representing the best value to the Government.

4.3 Establishing the TO Evaluation Pool. The Government may reduce the pool of offerors eligible for evaluation at the TO level for purposes of efficiency. The methodology for doing so will be specified in the TO FOPR. Once an evaluation pool is established, evaluation will proceed based on the source selection methodology selected, identified and described in the TO FOPR.

4.4 The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal.

4.5 Interchanges. The Government reserves the right to award without interchanges and may award a TO on the basis of the initial proposals received without conducting Interchanges; however, interchanges may be conducted if the Government determines it is necessary. The

Government may conduct interchanges with some, none or all offerors at its discretion. Upon the conclusion of the initial evaluation, the

Government may determine one or a few offerors have the highest potential to provide the best value to the Government and may hold

Interchanges with only that one (or fewer than all Offerors) to address any remaining issues and settle the final terms of the TO. These issues may be technical, price or past performance related, or deal with contract documentation. If the Interchanges do not result in an awardable proposal, the

Government may continue Interchanges with the next most favorably positioned Offeror(s) for the same purpose, and continue until award is made. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

4.5.1 Interchange Notice (IN). If the Government elects to conduct interchanges, the Government may issue written notification(s), to offeror(s) in support of interchanges. Formal responses to INs will be considered in making the selection decision for award.

4.5.2 Changes Resulting From Interchanges. In the event any adjustment of price becomes necessary to reflect changes resulting from discussions, if interchanges are held, a complete traceable trail shall be provided to show how the changes took place. The Government may request change pages to the Offeror’s proposal as part of the interchange process.

5.0 Task Order Awards

5.1 TO Award Eligibility. In order to be eligible for OL TO award, Offerors are required to meet all of the requirements in the Fair Opportunity

Proposal Request solicitation and represent the best value to the Government.

5.1.1 TO award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the requirements specified in the FOPR and is judged, through an integrated assessment of the specific evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

5.2 The Government will notify the successful offeror (TO awardee) and all unsuccessful offerors of TO award.

5.3 All contractors shall start work IAW the timeframes established in the TO award. The Contractor is not authorized to commence TO performance prior to the issuance of the TO award documents or a written notice to proceed from the CO.

5.4 The Government will not send a final notification of or award a new TO requirement without a certified funding document. If the Government does not have adequate funding, the Government will notify the Contractor of the intended way forward, which may include TO cancellation.

5.5 When TO modification is required, the CO may issue a written notice, citing the funding line of accounting, when funds are available but modification cannot be completed in time for continuation of performance. This alternative will only be used in extraordinary circumstances, and not as a standard way of conducting business.

6.0 Small Business Set-Asides

6.1 Use of Small Business Set-Asides. TOs may be set-aside for competition among the SB Primes (under NAICS code 611512, Flight Training, $27.5M size standard), unless:

1. The IDIQ source selection results in less than two (2) SB Primes OR

2. The CO determines, based on SB capabilities, saturation of the SB Primes, scope and complexity of the requirement, or the current environment, that the SB Primes cannot adequately support the requirement or that adequate competition will not occur at the TO level.

Task Order Competition Process Using Tradeoff

Requirements Identification PWS IGE Eval

Criteria Socio-

Econ

Heads Up Memorandum

(HUM) Sent Questions

Received Questions

Answered

Y Q&A

Sent

Fair Opportunity Proposal

Request (FOPR) Sent

Evaluations

Award

N

Questions

Received Amendment

Issued Extension

Granted Q&A

Sent Fair Opportunity

Proposals Received

Y

N N

Y Y

N

Evaluate Proposals 2 or More Acceptable

Proposals Interchanges

N

Y

Selection

Award Notices Sent w/

Written Debrief Debrief Requested

Debrief

Given Task Order Kickoff Meeting

Y

N

Glossary of Terms

FAR 16 Term Definition

Selection Without Interchanges To award an order on the basis of the initial proposals received without conducting Interchanges.

Best Value Continuum Range of processes that may be used to obtain best value in a competitive environment through use of one or a combination of selection/tradeoff approaches.

Best Value Expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Interchanges

Fluid interaction between the Contracting Officer and the offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. May be conducted with all, some, or none of the offerors.

Evaluation Factors and

Subfactors

Discriminators upon which an offerors proposal will be evaluated, set forth in the Fair Opportunity

Proposal Request communicating how requirements will be evaluated, and be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the proposal request.

Interchange Notice (IN) The PCO's written notification to the offeror for the purposes of making clear certain aspects of their proposal, to resolve minor or clerical mistakes, or in support of Interchanges.

Evaluation Ratings/Description Self-explanatory

Initial Evaluation

The initial round of evaluations. Based upon review of the initial evaluation results, the Decision

Authority will decide to either (1) approve award without interchanges, or (2) enter into interchanges.

Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA)

Selection process where the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

Past Performance Offeror's or contractor's performance on a contract.

Past Performance

Evaluation/Results

Evaluation of an offeror's past performance assessing the offeror's ability to supply products/supplies to meet the Government's requirements.

Preproposal Conference -

Presubmission Conference

Tool for collecting information and feedback on the Government’s acquisition requirements and approach.

Proposal Response to a Fair Opportunity Proposal Request outlining the submitter's offer to meet the

Government’s requirements.

Quality

Assessed in a Fair Opportunity selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical, management capability, personnel qualifications or prior experience.

Recency

Pertains to past performance. Measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relative Importance of Factors Used in the tradeoff process under a Fair Opportunity Selection

Relevancy

Pertains to past performance. Measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Fair Opportunity Proposal

Request

Product provided to the multiple award contract holders requesting a proposal and including information on how to prepare the proposal, the evaluation criteria and any order specific terms and conditions.

Requirements Documents

All aspects of the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request that convey the needs for the Government to offerors, including the SOO/SOW/PWS, technical requirement documents and system requirement documents.

Requirements Owner

Entity (office, function, agency) that has the requirement for an acquisition and is responsible for providing requirements documents communicating the requirements in the Fair Opportunity

Proposal Request.

Risk Potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

Fair Opportunity Selection Process used to award a fair opportunity task/delivery order including events from requirement identification through order award

Decision Authority Person responsible for making the Fair Opportunity Decision

Fair Opportunity Decision

Document Written record documenting the Fair Opportunity Decision and award.

Source Selection Information

Information, as outlined in FAR 2.101, that is prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a proposal to enter into an agency procurement order, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly.

Fair Opportunity Selection Plan Formal plan encouraging dialogue between the Decision Authority (when not the PCO) and the acquisition team to ensure selection processes and expectations are understood.

Fair Opportunity Team All members of the team involved with making a Fair Opportunity selection and award.

Tradeoff Use of subjective tradeoff evaluation factors to make a fair opportunity selection to the offeror representing the best value to the Government.

Fair Opportunity Each MAC awardee must be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding

$3,500; see FAR 16.505(b(2) for exceptions

Technical Capability/Risk The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.