ICBM_CRM_Combined_Synopsis-Solicitation.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

For

Minuteman III Crew Resource Management (CRM) Courseware Development and Training

(i) This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in USubpart 12.6U, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.

This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. Simplified procedures as outlined in 31TUFAR Part 13.5U31T will be used for the acquisition of this commercial item.

(ii) This solicitation is issued as a request for proposal (RFP). Submit written propsals (oral quotes will not be accepted) on RFP reference number FA6800-14-Q-S020.

(iii) This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-75.

(iv) This solicitation is a 100% Small Business set-aside. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 611512 - Flight Training with a Small Business Size Standard of $27.5M.

(v) The purpose of this combined synopsis and solicitation is for Minuteman III Crew Resource Management (CRM) courseware development and training. The contractor shall provide all personnel, courseware development facilities, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and services necessary to perform this CRM courseware development and training as defined in this Performance Work Statement (PWS). The bid schedule and the contract CLIN schedule are:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

CLIN 0001 ICBM CRM Training and Courseware

Development

FFP

BASE YEAR: ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Period of Performance is 29 Sep 14 – 28 Sep

12 Months http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/12.htm%23P292_49018 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/13.htm%23P427_61446

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

CLIN 1001 ICBM CRM Training and Courseware

Development

FFP

OPTION YEAR 1: ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Period of Performance is 29 Sep 15 – 28 Sep 16

12 Months

CLIN 2001 ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development

FFP

OPTION YEAR 2: ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Period of Performance is 29 Sep 16 – 28 Sep 17

12 Months

CLIN 3001 ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development

FFP

OPTION YEAR 3: ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Period of Performance is 29 Sep 17 – 28 Sep 18

12 Months

CLIN 4001 ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development

FFP

OPTION YEAR 4: ICBM CRM Training and Courseware Development in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Period of Performance is 29 Sep 18 – 28 Sep 19

12 Months

(vi) Refer to the attached PWS for a detailed description of requirements for the service being acquired.

(vii) Period of Performance is as follows:

CLINS 0001 29 Sep 2014 – 28 Sep 2015 CLINS 1001 29 Sep 2015 – 28 Sep 2016 CLINS 2001 29 Sep 2016 – 28 Sep 2017 CLINS 3001 29 Sep 2017 – 28 Sep 2018 CLINS 4001 29 Sep 2018 – 28 Sep 2019

(viii) U52.212-1U, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial, applies to this acquisition. With the following addendum:

52.212-1 Addendum

The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts: Part I – Past Performance Information, Part II – Technical Proposal, and Part III – Price Proposal.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and, if in the contracting officer’s opinion adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under 31TUFAR 15.406-2U31T will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

C. Specific Instructions:

Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the solicitation (Item Numbers) and Performance Work Statement (PWS), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award.

1. PART I – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION - Only references for same or similar type contracts are desired. Submit one (1) copy.

(a) Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three Years: Provide information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.)

which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type contract. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

(b) Past Performance References: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm%23P1403_190669 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P587_118401 government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide a list of no more than four (4) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three years. Relevant contracts include courseware development and crew resource management training as related to Factor 2-Technical Volume experiences and the PWS, especially those provided to Air Force installations and for multiple years of performance.

Past/present performance of UcombinedU courseware and crew resource management training will be viewed more favorably. Experience with training contracts which utilize the Air Force’s model of Instructional Systems Development as outlined in 31TUAF Manual 36-2234U31T and 31TUAF Handbook 36-2235U31T will also be viewed favorably.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Furnish the following information for each contract referenced:

(i) Company/Division name

(ii) Product/Service

(iii) Contracting Agency/Customer

(iv) Contract Number

(v) Contract Dollar Value

(vi) Period of Performance

(vii) Verified, up-to-date name, address, FAX and telephone number of the contracting officer

(viii) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(ix) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

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

(c) Past Performance Questionnaires: Offerors shall send out Attachment 3 Past Performance Questionnaires to the references stated above for completion. The responsibility to send out the form rests solely with the offeror. The information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and not releasable outside of the Government. Completed questionnaires shall be sent directly from the reference to this office via email to Capt John Sidor (31TUjohn.sidor@us.af.milU31T) or via fax to 318-456-7861 to the attention of Capt Sidor. Please call 318-456-8983 prior to faxing questionnaires. Offerors must ensure that completed questionnaires are submitted to this office no later than the proposal receipt date established in the solicitation.

(d) Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afman36-2234/afman36-2234.pdf http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afh36-2235v10/afh36-2235v10.pdf http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afh36-2235v10/afh36-2235v10.pdf mailto:john.sidor@us.af.mil

2. PART II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – Submit one (1) copy.

(a) General: The offeror’s technical proposal, Volume II, shall at a minimum be prepared in a form consistent with the technical criteria set forth in 52.212-2 (Addendum), Evaluation Factors for Award, of this solicitation. All information the offeror deems appropriate to address within this factor and its sub-factors must be included in the proposal in an orderly format. If an offeror proposes the use of subcontractor or any form of teaming or partnering arrangement, the Technical Volume must clearly specify which tasks of the PWS each party will perform in the execution of the awarded contract. Proposal risk shall be assessed at the technical sub-factor level and will result in a combined technical/technical risk rating as outlined in para 3.1.2.1 of the DOD Source Selection Procedures. A separate volume for Proposal Risk is not requested.

The Technical Volume shall include the following:

(i) USub-Factor 1: Manning Requirements and AnalysisU

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

(ii) USub-Factor 2: Training Management and Approach

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

(iii) USub-Factor 3: Courseware Development Approach and Instructional Systems Development Management Plan (ISDMP) and Quality Program Plan

UDescriptionU: This sub-factor will evaluate the offerors’ understanding of and application of the principles and processes outlined in the Air Force’s current model of ISD throughout the life cycle of the training system (Ref 31TUAF Handbook 36-2235U31T). This sub-factor evaluates the entire ISD Management Plan (to include a courseware development workload chart). Specific methods and procedures used in the application of the ISD process including tracking of courseware development milestones and methods of validating courseware effectiveness will be evaluated (Ref to PWS paragraph 1.6.1 and Section 2, Service Delivery Summary). Additionally, this sub-factor will evaluate the Contractors’ Quality Program Plan (QPP) as referenced in PWS paragraph 4.4.

(b) To facilitate the evaluation, Volume II should be specific and detailed, clearly demonstrating the offeror has a thorough understanding of the actions required to accomplish this effort.

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

*** Note. Numbers and position information presented in the tables below are for clarification purposes only. These tables are not a representative manning profile or workload effort for this solicitation.

**SAMPLE MANNING CHART**

Total Manning Requirement

Site Manager I/SME ID ET GA/ILL CBT Scheduler As

Needed Total Man-

Years Training 0.3 0.5 0.8

CWD 0.1 0.4 0.5

Other 0.33 0.1 0.43 Total Man-Year 0.73 1 1.73 Planned On-Site 1 1 2 Planned Off-Site 0 Proposed Manning 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

**SAMPLE COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT CHARTS**

CRM Training/CWD Manning Position Specialty Phase-In Base Year Out Years 1P st P

Month 2P nd P

Month (10

Months) (12

Months) Site Manager (CWD) 1 1 1 1 Training Manager I/SME (Missileer) 1 2 2 2

I/SME

ID/CWD Manager

ET

GA/ILL

CBT Prog Scheduler Administration Total Manning 2 3 3 3

Courseware Development Effort per Hour/Unit

Product SME ID ET GA/ILL CBT As Needed

Total Hours per Unit

ICW (Hrs) 3 5 4 8 10 30 Non ICW 100 50 500 19 1 670 Instructor Handbook Test Total Hours 103 55 504 27 11 0

3. PART III – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit one (1) copy.

(a) Complete the Solicitation Bid Schedule in paragraph “(v)” above and the Bid Schedule Worksheet (Attachment 4). The completed Bid Schedule and Bid Schedule Worksheet must be returned with the solicitation as part of the Price Proposal. Any offer received without the completed schedule and worksheet will be determined nonresponsive and will not be considered for award.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Bid Schedule. Unit prices must be Uwhole dollar Uvalues (e.g. $10.00). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units. The proposal(s) must be submitted for a base year plus four

(4) Option Years.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in provisions. The provisions U52.212-3U shall be returned along with the proposal.

(End of Addendum) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm%23P1479_204463

(ix) 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition as follows:

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1) Past Performance

2) Technical/Technical Risk

3) Price

Past performance and technical/technical risk, when combined, are significantly more important price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)

52.212-2 Addendum

A. Basis For Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with 31TUFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3U31T, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance, Technical/Technical Risk, and Cost/Price. A Contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section 52.212-2-Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Discussions

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

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

C. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

1) Factor 1 – Past Performance

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

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

(CPARS)).

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

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

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

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

2) Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as courseware development and crew resource management training as related to Factor 2-Technical Volume experiences and the PWS, especially those provided to Air Force installations and for multiple years of performance. Past/present performance of UcombinedU courseware and crew resource management training will be viewed more favorably. Experience with training contracts which utilize the Air Force’s model of Instructional Systems Development as outlined in 31TUAF Manual 36-2234U31T and 31TUAF Handbook 36-2235U31T will also be viewed favorably. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the following table:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

e) Past performance information concerning sub-contractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the sub-contractor's or teaming partner's consent.

Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need consent before disclosing sub-contractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime during exchanges and debriefs. In an effort to assist the Government's Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence rating, we request that a consent form be completed by the sub-contractors/teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of Volume I, Past Performance.

f) The evaluation will also take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement and teaming arrangements.

The evaluation shall also include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for the affected concerns, monetary targets for small and small disadvantaged business participation and notifications submitted under FAR 19.1202- 4(b).

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afman36-2234/afman36-2234.pdf

g) The Government will assess past performance using the Performance Confidence Assessments rating scale below. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

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

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

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

obtain more past performance data from any source it deems appropriate. This information may all be used in making the past performance confidence assessment.

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

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

2) Factor 2 – Technical/Technical Risk Assessment

a) The technical capability sub-factors shall each receive a combined Technical/Technical Risk rating that reflects the degree to which each technical sub-factor exceeds, meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirement; and also assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The ratings shall be assessed at the sub-factor level and an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned.

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

2) Technical sub-factors are also listed in descending order of importance. Each sub-factor will be assigned a color rating as demonstrated in the table below. Each subfactor’s Technical/Technical Risk rating will not be rolled up to an overall factor level rating.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

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

1) USub-Factor 1: Manning Requirements and AnalysisU

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

2) USub-Factor 2: Training Management and Approach

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

3) USub-Factor 3: Courseware Development Approach and Instructional Systems Development Management Plan (ISDMP) and Quality Program Plan

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

3) Factor 3 – Price Evaluation Criteria

a) All source selections are conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition. The objective of the price analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable.

The complexity and circumstances of each acquisition determines the level of detail of the analysis required. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price such as: 1) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; 2) Comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar items/services, if both the validity of the comparison and the reasonableness of the previous price(s) can be established; 3) Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate; 4) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items/services; and 5) Analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

b) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the basic requirement (evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options). The Government will also evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 31TU52.217-8U31T by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period prices to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period and all option periods including the potential six-month extension of services period.

Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm%23P1090_189861

c) Normally adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. The price factor will not be rated or scored. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

1) UReasonablenessU: Proposed prices will be evaluated to determine if prices are unreasonably high or low in relation to the Government’s independent cost estimate, the offeror’s technical approach (proposed prices support the proposed technical approach), other offerors’ proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, and any other method such as those listed above. All evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price

2) UUnbalanced PricingU: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items on the Bid Schedule Worksheets in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Addendum)

(x) Include a completed copy of the provision at U52.212-3U, Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items, with your offer.

(xi) Clause at U52.212-4U, Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition.

(xii) Clause at U52.212-5U, Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes Or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition with the following clauses cited within the clause applicable to this acquisition:

52.203-6, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government (Sept 2006), with Alternate I (Oct 1995) (41 U.S.C. 253g and 10 U.S.C. 2402)

52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (Jul 2013) (Pub. L. 109-282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note)

52.209-6, Protecting the Government’s Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment. (Aug 2013) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note)

52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (Nov 2011) (15 U.S.C. 644)

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (May 2014) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm%23P1479_204463 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm%23P1760_244281 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm%23P1959_284871

52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Nov 2011) (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(14))

52.219-28, Post Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (Jul 2013) (15 U.S.C.

632(a)(2))

52.222-3, Convict Labor (June 2003) (E.O. 11755)

52.222-19, Child Labor – cooperation with Authorities and Remedies (Jan 2014) (E.O.

13126)

52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Feb 1999)

52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Mar 2007) (E.O. 11246)

52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (Jul 2014)(38 U.S.C. 4212)

52.222-36, Affirmative Action for Workers with Disabilities (Jul 2014) (29 U.S.C. 793)

52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (Jul 2014) (38 U.S.C. 4212)

52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (Dec 2010) (E.O. 13496)

52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (Aug 2013). (Executive Order 12989).

52.223-18, Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving (Aug 2011) (E.O. 13513)

52.225-13, Restriction on Certain Foreign Purchases (Jun 2008) (E.O.’s, proclamations, and statutes administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury).

52.232-33, Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer— System for Award Management (Jul 2013) (31 U.S.C. 3332)

52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (May 2014) (41 U.S.C. chapter 67.)

52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act—Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) (May 2014) (29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.)

(xiii) The following additional clauses and provisions apply to this solicitation and are included by reference. Clauses with an asterisk indicate they will be incorporated by full text in the actual contract award (contact the CO with any questions you may have pertaining to the fill-in data if you feel it may have an effect on your proposal):

52.203-3 Gratuities (Apr 1984)

52.203-12, Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions (Oct 2010)

52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest (Dec 2011)

* 52.217-8 -- Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999)

* 52.217-9 -- Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. (Mar 2000)

* 52.222-42 -- Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires. (May 2014)

52.222-50 Combating Trafficking in Persons (Feb 2009)

52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (May 2014)

* 52.252-5 Authorized Deviations in Provisions (Apr 1984)

* 52.252-6 Authorized Deviations in Clauses (Apr 1984)

52.232-23 Assignment of Claims (May 2014)

52.232-8, Discounts for Prompt Payment (Feb 2002)

52.232-34 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer (Jul 2013)

52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Dec 2013)

52.237-2, Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation (Apr 1984)

52.233-1 Disputes (May 2014)

52.233-3 Protest After Award (Aug 1996)

52.246-4, Inspection of Services (Aug 1996)

252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights (Sep 2013)

252.204-7003, Control of Government Personnel Work Product (Feb 2014)

252.209-7004 Subcontracting with Firms That Are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Terrorist Country (Mar 2014)

252.226-7001, Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns (Sep 2004)

252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests (Jun 2012)

* 252.232-7006 Wide Area Workflow Payment Instructions (May 2013)

252.232-7010 Levies on Contract Payments (Dec 2006)

252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (Oct 2010)

252.243-7002, Request for Equitable Adjustment (Dec 2012)

* 5352.201-9101 Ombudsman (Apr 2014)

* 5352.223-9000 Elimination of Use of Class I Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) (Nov 2012) (No substances identified)

* 5352.223-9001 Health and Safety on Government Installations (Nov 2012)

* 5352.242-9000 Contractor Access To Air Force Installations (Nov 2012)

The following additional clauses and provisions apply to this solicitation and are included by full text:

52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated By Reference (Feb 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

31TUhttp://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htmU31T 31TUhttp://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htmU31T 31TUhttp://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htmU31T

(End of Clause)

(xiv) Reserved

(xv) Proposals are due 15 Sep 2014, at 1400 Central Time. Proposals are requested to be sent electronically via email to the contracting officer, Capt John Sidor, at: 31TUjohn.sidor@us.af.milU31T.

Proposals may also be delivered as a “hard-copy” to the following address: AFICA-KGQ, 66 Kenney Ave, Barksdale AFB, LA 71110. Any proposal that arrives to the contracting office after 1400 on 15 Sep 2014 will not be considered for award.

(xvi) Please contact Capt John Sidor at 318-456-8983 or 31TUjohn.sidor@us.af.milU31T with any questions.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm mailto:john.sidor@us.af.mil mailto:john.sidor@us.af.mil