Sections LM ATA ATD (2 Jun).pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR – Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2017)

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.215-1(d) Offer expiration date. Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for 180 calendar days.

SPECIAL NOTICES TO OFFERORS

This solicitation is to provide non-personal services for the Aircrew Training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services at Luke AFB, AZ.

Notice to Offerors: The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date for receipt of proposals. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs incurred in the development of the proposal.

If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission.

A virtual pre-proposal conference will be held on 8 Jun 22 via Zoom from 1100-1300 EST. Interested offerors should email names and email addresses of attendees by COB 6 Jun 22. No more than two (2) attendees per prime contractor. Further instructions will be provided.

Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C.423) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as implemented in the FAR.

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 This section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the required proposal volumes. Each proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation.

The offeror shall comply with the solicitation requirements as stated and the Performance Work Statement (PWS). 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 PWS requirements as assessed by the RFP evaluation criteria. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes:

Part I – Technical, Part II – Past Performance, and Part III – Price.

1.2 Efforts shall be made to keep offers as concise as possible with the emphasis being on providing information essential for proper evaluation. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation team to fully ascertain an offeror’s capability to perform contract requirements, must meet the requirements of the RFP, and must address the evaluation factors for award.

1.3 All information contained in the proposal an offeror feels is “Proprietary Information” and therefore not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should be labeled “Proprietary Information, Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” Any unmarked information, which may include proprietary information, will be considered releasable under the restrictions of the Freedom of Information Act.

1.4 Offerors shall acknowledge awareness of all amendments to the solicitation by signing and dating Page 1 of each Standard Form (SF) 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, and including it in Volume III – Price.

1.5 The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition so offerors are cautioned to submit their best pricing and technical information up- front.

2.0 FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

Any formal communication shall be submitted in writing (via email) to the Point of Contact(s) (POCs) below. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of all formal communications.

ACC AMIC/PKB:

Contract Managers (CM):

Capt Anita Naylor, anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

Contracting Officers (CO):

Ms. Christin Lockhart, christin.lockhart@us.af.mil

Reference: Solicitation FA4890-22-R-0013

3.0 PRICE COMPETITION

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Therefore, 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 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 during this review process, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit “other than cost and pricing data” to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed price. If only one offer is received, the Contracting Officer may request additional cost or pricing data IAW DFARS 252.215- 7008, Only One Offer.

4.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

4.1 Prior to proposal submission, offerors should email the points of contact listed above requesting a DoD SAFE Drop off. Offerors will then receive a Drop-off URL and Claim Information in the drop-off notification email.

The original proposal and copies as specified in this document shall be sent to the issuing office listed in Block 9 of Standard Form (SF) 33; on or before the date and time specified in Block 9 of SF33 via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/).

After submitting (uploading) proposal documents via DoD SAFE, email the points of contact listed above proof of upload to confirm receipt by ACC AMIC/PKB. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of the electronic proposal prior to solicitation due date. No hard copy or hand delivered offers shall be accepted.

Please use Subject Line “Solicitation No. FA4890-22-R-0013 Request Confirmation of Electronic Proposal mailto:anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil mailto:christin.lockhart@us.af.mil https://safe.apps.mil/

Receipt”.

4.2 Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the proposal being considered non-compliant to the Government and eliminated from consideration for award. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with 52.215- 1(c)(3)(ii). The Government will retain the unopened proposal. However, the proposal will not be evaluated or considered for award.

4.3 Contact Information. Offeror shall provide:

• Names, titles, addresses, telephone, and email addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation.

• Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, even if that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office.

5.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 The following instructions prescribe the format for proposals, and describe the approach to be used for the development and presentation of the proposal data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the PWS will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will enable the Government to easily understand the proposal and perform a thorough and fair evaluation of it. The Government may incorporate into the contract by reference or full text portions of the successful offeror’s proposal as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision that is submitted in response to the solicitation.

5.2 Proposal Volumes. Proposals shall be prepared in in three (3) separate and distinct volumes:

Volume I – Technical Volume II – Past Performance Volume III – Price

5.3 Proposal Format. The proposal text shall be printed single-sided. Type size for text shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman, 12 point font, single column, normal proportional spacing, and one inch (1”) margins (top, bottom, left and right). The text for charts, tables, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, 8 point font. Text lines and table lines of text shall be single-spaced. Page color for each page of the proposal submission shall be white or ivory stock only. Information submitted shall not exceed the page limits stated below for each volume.

What Counts as a Page. A page shall be an 8 ½” x 11” sheet of paper. Fold-outs shall not exceed 11” x 17” and shall count as two (2) pages. Fold-outs shall be kept at a minimum, and shall be used only where a table or other graphic cannot be accommodated by a single 8-1/2” x 11” page. All material shall be contained within the page limit identified for each volume, and all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., are included in the page count, with exception of items stated in Paragraph 5.7. Page numbering shall be in a sequential order (i.e., 1 through 25). Do not number each section of the proposal volume separately.

Pages Not Included in Page Count. The DD254, Subcontracting Plan, organizational chart, glossary of abbreviations, acronyms and cross-reference matrix will not be included in the page count. Covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” and without any additional information will not be counted. Executive Summary will not be included in the proposal page limitation as stated in Paragraph 5.5, and, if applicable, exceptions will be documented in each volume’s executive summary and clearly marked as such.

5.4 Electronic Copies. Electronic copies of all proposal information for each volume shall be submitted via email and through DoD Safe using Microsoft Office 2010 or later and/or PDF using Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later. Offerors shall not submit any documents in PDF that cannot be electronically searched. Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots. Volume III – Price shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2010 or later. Offerors shall name using standard naming conventions for each volume (e.g., Offeror name-volume name.docx). Each volume shall be contained in its own single searchable file, with copy/paste capability, and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document.

5.5 Copies and Page Limits. Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified.

If the page limit is exceeded, all excess pages will not be evaluated. The Electronic File (E-File) of each volume shall be marked “Original”. The E-File shall include a signature on the SF33 in Volume III – Price. Requirements and page limitations are as follows:

VOLUME TITLE PAPER E-FILE PAGE LIMIT DUE DATE

I* TECHNICAL 1 25 Please See

Date on Solicitation

II PAST

PERFORMANCE 1 None

III PRICE 1 None *The Price volume is for price only – technical information shall not be included in this volume.

Page limitation is subject to exclusions stated in Paragraph 5.7 titled “Exceptions”. Further, the Government will not include the following in the page limitation: cover page(s), title pages or tables of contents, tab/section-divider pages, technical definition page(s), organizational chart, acronym list, cross reference matrix. Note: These pages will be counted if they contain any other information, (i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc.). Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will also not be counted.

5.6 Cross-Referencing. Offerors shall not cross reference between Volume I and III. Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to the other volume of the proposal. NOTE: Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

5.7 Exceptions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or aspects. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify the applicable volume and exceptions.

It is required that each exception have a complete explanation of why the exception was taken, what benefit accrues to the Government (if any), and its impact (if any) on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format below.

Table 1 – Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale & Impact

Contract Line Items section, PWS, Section L and Section M, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe the rationale and impact of the exception

5.7.1 If the offeror takes no exception to any of the stated requirements in the solicitation, a statement to this effect is required at the front of each proposal volume in the Executive Summary.

6.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (FACTOR 1):

To facilitate the evaluation, the Technical volume should be specific, detailed, succinct, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements to accomplishment the effort. This volume of the proposal shall consist of the offeror’s technical approach, addressing risk management or mitigation strategies, if applicable. The offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of the RFP, specifically identifying any innovations or efficiencies that would result in cost reductions, cost avoidance, or qualitative improvements resulting in a benefit to the Government in relation to the PWS and the technical capability. The Source Selection Authority (SSA), in consultation with the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and advisors, is the sole arbiter of whether or not qualitative improvements represent a benefit to the Government. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including Air Force (AF) publications, technical requirements, etc.);

statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable AF publications, technical data requirements, etc.); 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 submitted prior to the proposal submission including data submitted for current contracts and other solicitations will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation. From this, such data should not be relied upon nor incorporated in the Technical proposal by reference. Offerors shall address the requirements noted in this section by imperative verbs regardless of whether such requirements are preceded by “the offeror shall”. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the Technical Criteria set forth in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, of this solicitation. All information that the offeror deems appropriate to address for this factor must be included in the proposal in an orderly format. The Technical Capability volume shall address all the technical aspects of the requirement. This section shall not contain any pricing data.

6.1 Technical Contents

A. DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification. To ensure compliance with the RFP, each offeror shall provide proof that it possesses a Facility Clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to the solicitation.

B. IAW FAR 52.219-8, 52.219-9, 19.705-2(d) and 19.708 (b)(ii), a Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted with the offeror’s proposal IAW Technical Subfactor C below. The RFP requirement for subcontracting is 20% of the total dollars of the effort. This plan, once determined to be acceptable, will be incorporated into the contract at time of award.

C. Table of Contents. A table of contents shall be included in Volume I – Technical. Each subfactor, aspect, and section will be clearly marked for easy reference and pages shall be numbered in a consistent manner as stated under Proposal Preparation Instructions.

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

E. Executive Summary. Included in this volume is the offeror’s Executive Summary (limit is 2 pages).

It should include a concise summary of the offeror’s proposed approach to the Aircrew Training Device/Aircrew Training Aid services effort.

F. Technical Factor Cross Reference Matrix. Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal.

Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix (Appendix 1 of Section L) indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the RFP, PWS, and CLIN references found therein.

G. Technical Capability Section. The purpose of this section is to allow the offeror to set forth in the most comprehensive manner its understanding of the program requirements and to demonstrate its ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, Evaluation Criteria for Technical Capability. In this section the offeror shall present a clear and concise description of how it plans to meet contract requirements. The offeror shall describe the performance standards that have been established in each area and explain how performance standards will be met or exceeded. This section shall not contain any pricing data. The Technical Capability Section shall be completed as follows:

Subfactor A:

Manning Requirements and Workload Analysis

Aspect 1) Manning Requirements.

Item 1) Describe organization structure detailing line(s) of authority, to include subcontractors and teaming partners.

Item 2) Explain functional relationships and roles and responsibilities that will ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the Government.

Aspect 2) Workload Analysis.

Item 1) Explain key personnel positions (i.e., program management, office personnel, on-site management personnel, etc.).

Item 2) Outline a detailed manning workload analysis/methodology that depicts the proposed labor categories, skill level, and number of personnel for both full and part time positions.

Subfactor B:

Quality Control and Transition Plan

Aspect 1) Quality Control Plan.

Item 1) Describe an effective inspection system used to cover all services listed in the Service Summary (refer to PWS Section 2). Explain the specifics as to the areas to be inspected on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, frequency of inspections, and the title and organizational placement of the inspectors.

Item 2) Describe records documenting inspections, corrective or preventive measures taken and methods used for identifying and preventing defects for continuous improvement, methods to address negative trends. Outline how the records of inspections shall be kept and made available to the Government throughout the contract performance period.

Aspect 2) Transition Plan.

Item 1) Outline an effective and comprehensive plan on how the contractor shall meet Phase-

In/Phase-Out requirements. Include discussions of workload estimates, priority allocations of personnel and resources, scheduled completion dates of key events (i.e. milestone charts), and plans for mitigating any risk.

Subfactor C:

Small Business Participation

Aspect 1) Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Item 1) Submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-8 and -9.

Item 2) Describe in plan how the offeror intends to meet the requirement to subcontract 20% of the total dollars of the effort to Small Businesses.

7.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2)

7.1 The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member in accordance with the format contained in the “FACTS Sheet” (See Appendix II to Section L) and the following paragraphs. A total of three (3) FACTS sheets will be submitted for each offeror.

Do not submit more than three FACTS sheets with Volume II. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

7.2 Format. The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume labeled "Volume II - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and subcontractor, to include the nature of work and percentage of overall work. Each offeror/joint venture shall complete a separate FACTS Sheet for three (3) active or completed contract (with at least six (6) months duration of performance history) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, that the offeror/joint venture considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three (3), each offeror/joint venture shall address its three (3) most recent and relevant contracts. References for contracts with less than six (6) months will not be considered. The offeror's/joint venture’s present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed effort. The FACTS Sheet shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

7.3 For the purposes of evaluating Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to obtain date from any source that they deem appropriate such Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with Program Managers, COs, and Award Fee Determining Officials, and other sources known to the Government.

8.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME III -- PRICE PROPOSAL (FACTOR 3)

8.1 The offeror shall complete Section 3 of the solicitation (Schedule of Supplies and Services (CLINs)) by inserting the price elements (unit price and extended amount) for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Firm Fixed Price Level of Effort (FFP LOE) contract line item numbers (CLINs), including Phase-In, Base Year, Option Years, and Optional CLINs. For ease of administration, all TOTAL pricing should be rounded to whole dollar amounts. Offerors shall insert a Government provided “not to exceed” amount for reimbursable expenses on Cost Reimbursable CLINs for Travel/Overtime ($150,000.00) and Commodities/Services ($200,000.00). Each offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated by adding the reimbursable expenses not to exceed amount, FFP and FFP LOE CLINs, and optional CLINS, plus 50% of Option 4 pricing. That total will be used in the total overall evaluated price.

8.2 Complete in its entirety the “Offeror” portion of the Standard Form 33. An official having authority to legally bind the company contractually must sign and date the Standard Form 33. One copy of the Standard Form 33 must bear an original signature and, if applicable, all amendments.

Failure to acknowledge any amendment(s) to the solicitation can result in an offeror being deemed non-compliant. Note: Be sure to sign and date where required on the SF 33.

9.0 Representations and Certifications. Complete the required Representations and Certifications or indicate if information is contained in the System for Award Management (SAM) located at https://www.sam.gov.

9.1 Supporting Price Backup Data for Prime and Subcontractors. Certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, supporting data is requested. Supporting data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed CLIN prices. Supporting data shall be provided in a table format, to include, at a minimum, a breakdown (by CLIN) of labor (labor category, number of positions and productive hours as indicated in the PWS and rates used), breakout of Other Direct Costs (ODC), Direct and Indirect Rates, and Subcontract costs. Supporting data may be submitted in a format selected by the offeror, but must address the information requested in this paragraph. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.

http://www.sam.gov/

10.0 DEBRIEFING OF OFFERORS

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

10.2 Successful or unsuccessful offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505 for pre-award debriefings and FAR 15.506 for post-award debriefings.

11.0 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

11.1 For the purposes of making a determination of contractor responsibility, the Government reserves the right to obtain data from any source that they deem appropriate such Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Defense Contract Management Agency, interviews with Program Managers, COs, and Award Fee Determining Officials, and other sources known to the Government.

(Appendix 1 to Section L)

Technical Factor Cross-Reference Matrix

As part of Offerors’ proposals, a separate cross-reference matrix shall be completed and submitted with Volume I – Technical Capability. The cross-reference matrix below is to assist in the proposal preparation process. Offerors shall complete the last column of this attachment with paragraph number references, including all subsequent subparagraphs (for example, 5.0 includes 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, etc.) from their Technical Capability volume. Offerors may provide additional references to the other columns as deemed necessary. Offerors are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their proposal fully addresses all areas and that all requested information is completed in accordance with this solicitation. Subfactor C is excluded from this matrix.

TECHNICAL FACTOR CROSS REFERENCE

MATRIX

Subfactor Reference Technical Proposal Para

Page

Subfactor A, Aspect 1: Manning Requirements Item 1 PWS Para 1.3 and 1.4 Item 2 PWS Para 1.5 and 1.6

Subfactor A, Aspect 2: Workload Analysis Item 1 PWS Para 4.1 and 4.2 Item 2 PWS App 1, Para A1.1

– A1.1.5

Subfactor B, Aspect 1: Quality Control Plan Item 1 PWS Para 4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.4, 4.7.1.5 and Sec 2 of Service Summary

Item 2 PWS Para 4.7.1.2,

4.7.1.3 and 4.7.1.6

Subfactor B, Aspect 2: Transition Plan Item 1 PWS Para 4.10

(Appendix 2 to Section L)

FACTS Sheet (Past Performance Information)

The offeror/joint venture member is requested to complete a separate FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract, up to three (3). See Paragraph 7.0 of this RFP for detailed instructions and limits on number and recency of contracts. Offeror/joint venture member is requested to provide frank, concise comments regarding present/past performance on the program identified in B below.

Note, that the information provided in the FACTS Sheet shall reflect the role that the offeror/joint venture member performed in the effort, i.e., an offeror who performed as a subcontractor shall identify the contract type, dollar value, description, etc. of its subcontract with the prime contractor.

A. OFFEROR:

(1) Name (Company/Division)

(2) Address

(3) CAGE Code

B. PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE and CONTRACT NUMBER:

C. ROLE OF THE OFFEROR IN EFFORT: Prime Contractor or Subcontractor

D. NAME OF CONTRACTING ACTIVITY OR CUSTOMER:

E. CONTRACT TYPE(S) – CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

a. Firm Fixed Price

b. Time and Materials

c. Cost

d. Other (Explain)

F. TOTAL CONTRACT DOLLAR VALUE: (If you performed work as a subcontractor, identify your total contract dollar value and the prime contractor’s total contract dollar value, if known.

Describe any changes in dollar value that may have occurred from time of contract award to the conclusion of the effort or the present, whichever is applicable.) If submitting an ordering type contract, list the original and current total contract dollar values for each order or order within the series of orders. If your series of orders consists of more than five (5) individual orders include the information in a separate attachment.

a. Original Total Contract Dollar Value:

b. Current Total Contact Dollar Value:

c. Explain the differences in Total Contract Value (a and b above), if applicable: Enter an explanation of the difference between the Original Total Contract Dollar Value and the Current Total Contract Dollar Value as of the time of proposal submission.

d. If Award Fee Contract, what percentages of the fee have been awarded in each of last three (3) years?

G. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: (includes start and end dates, i.e. Jan 2004 – Dec 2007)

a. Start Date: Input start date of contract/order/series of orders.

b. Original End Date: Input original end date of contract/order/series of orders based on award.

c. Current End Date (if changed): Input end date, as the contract/order/series of orders stands at time of proposal submission.

J. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT:

a. As a part of this narrative description, highlight portions considered most relevant to the current acquisition; addressing how and to what extent the proposed effort relates to the program identified in B. above. To supplement the data provided in response to this paragraph, complete the following regarding relevancy of the effort identified in paragraph B to the proposed effort. This is limited to two pages beyond the page limitation of the FACTS sheet information.

b. This paragraph shall also include details to support the offeror’s record for on-time delivery, technical quantity and cost control for this effort identified in paragraph B.

above.

G. RELEVANCY TABLE: (Complete with each effort submitted for evaluation)

a. This table will assist the CO in evaluating the relevancy of the proposed effort to the instant requirement fill in instant requirement. Offeror/joint venture member shall only complete column three. Offeror’s/joint venture member’s answers are applicable only to the effort identified in paragraph B above, not the offeror’s/joint venture member’s proposed solutions to the effort being solicited for. If additional space is needed, please attach a separate sheet to your response (limited to two pages). Please be as specific as possible with the fill-in information provided.

Category (DO NOT

CHANGE)

Fill in for the Effort Identified in Paragraph B Above (Offeror/Joint Venture completes)

The effort in Paragraph B required:

1. Nature of Business Area(s) Involved

See PWS

2. Required Levels of Technology

3. Materials and Production Processes

4. Performance Location Luke AFB

5. Contract Type(s) FFP-LOE

6. Program Similarity

See RFP

7. Program Complexity

8. Program Phase

9. Extent of Subcontractor Involvement See PWS

10. Other

H. SUBCONTRACTING PLAN COMPLIANCE:

a. If you are small business, or, if you are a large business and a Small Business Subcontracting

Plan per FAR 52.219-9 was NOT required by this effort, indicate your compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, by completing the following table. That is, when subcontracting possibilities existed on this effort, did you award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance? If FAR 52.219-8 was NOT included in this effort, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of this effort, address whether or not it was your policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

Utilization of Small Business Concerns Small Business Large Business

No subcontracting possibilities In compliance Not in compliance (address why)

b. If you are a large business, identify whether a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, was required by this effort. If one was required, complete the following regarding subcontracting goals and status-to-date. If goals were not met, please explain. This is applicable to large businesses only.

Required Not Required

Category Goals Achieved-to-Date

Small Business Small Disadvantaged Business Women-Owned Small Business HUBZone Small Business Veteran-Owned Small Business Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

HBCU/MI

PLEASE NOTE: The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided or obtained.

SECTION M of the Solicitation – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Tradeoff source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 as revised 3 Oct 2019. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible (IAW FAR Part 9) offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s technical acceptability or deficiencies, weaknesses, past performance, and price analysis findings. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

For evaluation purposes, the Option Years CLINs and Optional CLINs will be priced as part of initial competition. Options will be evaluated for award purposes as part of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.217-5. The Government will evaluate offers by adding the total proposed price (FFP, FFP LOE and NTE Travel/Overtime and Commodities/Services CLINs) for phase-in, base year, option years, optional CLINs and fifty percent (50%) of the last option year price to cover the option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8 as part of the Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP). Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal for this clause.

As set forth in Section L, the Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1 (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussion will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each offeror’s technical and price proposals.

If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the submitted FPR will not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, 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 FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions.

Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

2.0 SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

The SSEB will adhere to FAR 15.3, as supplemented, and the evaluation process and criteria stated in Section M during evaluation of proposals.

This acquisition will be best value using the Past Performance Price Trade Off source selection procedures. Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) factors which are: Factor (1) Technical, Factor (2) Past Performance, and Factor (3) Price. Technical is either Acceptable or Unacceptable and Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. The greater the equality of Past Performance among proposals, the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Technical will not be part of the tradeoff decision. Price is not 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.

The government reserves the right to award without discussions or to establish the competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c). If a competitive range is established, discussions will be conducted and Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be issued to those offerors in the competitive range allowing them the opportunity to revise their proposals. Also, once discussions have concluded and an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any technical subfactor, the proposal will be unawardable.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Factor I – Technical

There are three (3) subfactors: (A) Manning Requirements and Workload Analysis, (B) Quality Control and Transition Plans, and (C) Small Business Participation. The requirements will be assessed as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Should any aspects or items under these subfactors be considered Unacceptable, then the entire factor will be deemed Unacceptable and the proposal unawardable unless discussions are opened.

The technical subfactors shall receive a rating at the Subfactor level, in conjunction with the weaknesses, and deficiencies if present in the offeror’s proposal. Technical ratings will be assessed at the subfactor level and overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all aspects of the technical subfactors and receive a minimum “Acceptable” Technical Rating.

The technical capability rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. 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 an 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. Technical Capability ratings will be assessed at the subfactor level; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. The definitions for technical capability ratings used for Subfactors (A), (B) and (C) are IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures as defined below:

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Method Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Subfactor A:

Manning Requirements and Workload Analysis – Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 1) Manning Requirements. Under this aspect, the Government will evaluate two (2) items:

Item 1) Proposal provided and explained the offeror’s proposed organization structure detailing line(s) of authority, to include subcontractors and teaming partners, if required to effectively execute the PWS requirements meet PWS paragraphs 1.3. and 1.4.

Item 2) Proposal provided an explanation of the functional relationships and roles and responsibilities that will ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the Government to effectively execute the PWS para 1.5. and 1.6. requirements.

Aspect 2) Workload Analysis. Under this aspect, the Government will evaluate two (2) items:

Item 1) Proposal provided an explanation of key personnel positions (i.e., program management, office personnel, on-site management personnel, etc.) and an explanation of how the contractor will meet PWS paragraphs 4.1. and 4.2.

Item 2) Proposal provided a detailed manning workload analysis/methodology that depicts the proposed labor categories, skill level, and number of personnel for both full and part time positions.

(IAW PWS Appendix 1, para A1.1. through A1.1.5.).

Subfactor B:

Quality Control and Transition Plan – Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 1) Quality Control Plan. Under this aspect, the Government will evaluate two (2) items:

Item 1) Provides an effective inspection system used to cover all services listed in the Service

Summary (refer to PWS Section 2). Clearly explains the specifics as to the areas to be inspected on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, frequency of inspections, and the title and organizational placement of the inspectors. IAW PWS para 4.7.1.1., 4.7.1.4., 4.7.1.5. and Section 2 of the Service Summary.

Item 2) Clearly explains the records documenting inspections, corrective or preventive measures taken and methods used for identifying and preventing defects. Clearly details processes for continuous improvement, methods to address negative trends, and how the records of inspections shall be kept and made available to the Government throughout the contract performance period IAW PWS para 4.7.1.2., 4.7.1.3., and 4.7.1.6.

Aspect 2) Transition Plan. Under this aspect, the Government will evaluate one (1) item:

Item 1) Provides an effective and comprehensive plan to detail how the contractor shall meet

Phase-In/Phase-Out requirements including discussions of workload estimates, priority allocations of personnel and resources, scheduled completion dates of key events (i.e. milestone charts), and plans for mitigating risk factors IAW PWS para 4.10.

Subfactor C:

Small Business Participation – Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate one (1) aspect:

Aspect 1) Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Under this aspect, the Government will evaluate two (2) items:

Item 1) Provides a plan that’s compliant with FAR 52.219-8 and -9.

Item 2) Provides a plan that meets the requirement to subcontract 20% of the total dollars of the effort.

3.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. There are three (3) aspects to the Past Performance evaluation. The first two factors are to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired. The third aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts or the quality of product or service provided. Past Performance shall be evaluated and assessed based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records submitted. Past Performance will be evaluated by examining references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS Code.

The Government will use the following definitions in assessing each Past Performance Reference either submitted as part of the proposal or obtained by other means.

Recency. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6) months duration) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than six (6) months of performance will not be considered. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

Relevancy. In evaluating relevancy, the Government will use the four levels of relevancy in assigning a rating for each past performance contract reference. Relevancy is defined as a 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 as outlined in the PWS to include performance efforts involving Warfighter Training Support functions. The Government will use the following ratings of relevancy when assessing relevant contracts:

Table A-2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/Past Performance efforts for any DoD component that provide essentially the same program management of a large multi-platform and technically complex Aircrew training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services (ATA/ATD) service and development contract, both CONUS and OCONUS. Additionally, present/past performance efforts must provide essentially the same support and coordination of inputs from multiple organizations and/or agencies as described within the PWS and the scope of work.

Relevant Present/Past Performance efforts for any Federal, State or local agency that provide similar program management of multi-platform and Aircrew training Device/Aircrew Training Aid Services (ATA/ATD) service and development contract.