Attachment 6 - Secions LM V1.docx

52.212-1. INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.1. General Instructions

1.1.1. 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.

1.1.2. ONLY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR PROPER EVALUATIONS IS REQUESTED. EFFORTS SHOULD 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 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 board to fully ascertain offerors capability to perform contract requirements, must meet the requirements of the RFP, and must address the evaluation factors for award.

1.1.3. 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 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 certified cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness. Offerors are cautioned to submit their best pricing and technical information up-front.

1.1.4. All information contained in the proposal that an offeror feels is “Proprietary Information”, and therefore, not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should be labeled “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

1.1.5. Offerors shall acknowledge, in writing, awareness of all amendments to the solicitation.

1.1.6. Specific Instructions.

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

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

- Evaluation Factors for Award.

1.2. Formal Communications

1.2.1. Any formal communication shall be submitted in writing (via email/DoD Safe as needed) to the POCs below. Notification of intended use of DoD Safe must be received NLT 3 business days prior to Solicitation and Advanced Question due dates. It is the offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt of all formal communications.

767th ESF Capt Thien Duong Phone: 318-456-6063 Email: thien.duong.3@us.af.mi.

DoD Safe: https://safe.apps.mil/ Reference: Solicitation FA680020R0007

1.3. Advanced Questions

1.3.1. Advanced questions concerning this solicitation may be submitted in writing (via email or DoD Safe) to the POC listed above, clearly marked as “Advanced Questions” to include solicitation number, name of person submitting the question(s), company name, and phone number. Each question should reference the specific document within the solicitation in the following format: document title and/or attachment number; page number; and section and/or paragraph number (as applicable).

1.3.2. Advanced questions must be received by 767th ESF POC NLT 29 June 2020 in order for an appropriate response to be given.

1.4. Submission of Proposals

1.4.1. The original proposal and copies as specified in this document shall be sent to the issuing office via email/DoD Safe on or before the date and time specified in this solicitation. Please mark all packages as follows:

Via Email:

Subject: Company Name, Solicitation No. FA680020R0007, Volume # and Title

Via DoD Safe File Description: Company Name, Solicitation No. FA680020R0007, Volume # and Title

1.4.2. 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 not awardable by the Government and eliminated from consideration for award. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) “Late submission, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers”. If received late, the Government reserves the right to not evaluate or consider proposal for award based on the above reference.

1.5. Proposal Preparation Instructions

1.5.1. The following instructions prescribe the format for proposals, and describes 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 specified instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in a determination that the proposal is not awardable. 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. The Government may incorporate into the contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal as revised and supplemented through all Proposal Revisions submitted in response to the solicitation.

1.5.2. Proposal Volumes: Proposals shall be prepared by the Contractor in three (3) separate and distinct volumes:

1.5.3. Electronic Copies: Electronic copies shall be submitted via email, and/or on DoD Safe using Microsoft Office 97 through Microsoft Office 2019, or Adobe PDF Version X or earlier, with the exception of Volume II, Price (Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost section of the Solicitation). The Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost section shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel (See Attachment 5). Offerors may use JPEG for charts or “screen shots”. Offerors shall name files using standard naming conventions (i.e. filename.docx for MS Word, filename.xlsx for MS Excel, filename.pdf for Portable Document Format, etc.). DO NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as “images” or Windows Photo Gallery, etc. PDF files shall enable textual search and copy functions. Each volume shall be in a single searchable, editable file and stored in a folder that corresponds to the proposal volume it represents. The files shall be names in an unambiguous manner using plain language text which facilitates the evaluator’s ease of accessing the files for evaluation. Offerors shall insert the file name in the header of each document. Electronic copies of all proposal information are required for each volume.

1.5.4. Copies and Page Limit: Evaluators will only read up to the maximum number of pages specified. The Government will not include the following in the page limitations: Cover page(s), title pages, table of contents, tab/section divider pages, technical definition page(s), acronym list, or 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. Page limitations is subject to exclusions stated in the paragraph titled “Exceptions” below. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

Table 1 – Copies and Page Limits

* Executive Summary shall be included in Volume I – TECHNICAL Mission Capability, limited to 2 pages, and does not count against the 100 page limit for that volume. Résumés for the CME proposed should be tailored to address the respective evaluation criteria and shall not be more than three (3) pages each and will be counted against the 100 page limit. Offerors are required to only submit one (1) résumé for each CME proposed.

** Past Performance Information (PPI) contract references – see instructions for Volume II – Past Performance, Clause 52.212-1 Section 1.9.

1.5.5. “Original” Copy: One copy of each volume (Mission Capability, Price, and Past Performance) shall be marked “Original”. A redacted copy omitting the offeror’s name and logo in volume I Mission Capability shall also be submitted and marked “Redacted.”

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

1.6. Exceptions

1.6.1. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror must clearly indicate such exception(s) in the appropriate volume along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and what benefit it accrues to the Government. All substantive exceptions to the solicitation requirements and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of the subject volume. An overview section is only required if the offeror takes exception to any requirements in the solicitation (the overview section will not be included in the proposal page limitation described above). While offerors may propose exceptions to the solicitation requirements, the Government is not obligated to accept or consider such exceptions. Further, exceptions could result in an unacceptable offer. Any change to the requirement as a result of accepting an exception shall be reflected within the resultant contract.

1.6.2. In the event the offeror takes no exception to the stated requirements, a statement to this effect is required at the front of each subject volume.

1.7. Instruction for Volume I – Mission Capability (Technical)

1.7.1. To facilitate the evaluation, the Mission Capability volume should be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements for the accomplishment of the effort. Statements that the offeror understand, can, or will comply with the PWS (including Air Force (AF) publications, technical requirements, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed”, “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. Therefore, such data should not be relied upon nor incorporated in the technical proposal by reference. Offerors shall address the requirements noted in this section 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 Clause 52.212-2., Evaluation of Commercial Items, of this solicitation. All information that the offeror deems appropriate to address for this factor and its subfactors must be included in the proposal in an orderly format. The technical volume shall address all the technical subfactors.

Factor I Mission Capability (Technical):

1. Subfactor A: Manning Requirements and Analysis – Submit a manning level and personnel mix plan for all workload identified in the PWS to include all instructors, courseware and developers and any other required positions.

2. Subfactor B: Training Management and Approach – Submit a Training Workload Plan IAW the PWS

3. Subfactor C: Courseware Development Approach and Instructional Systems Development Management Plan and Quality Program Plan – Submit an ISD Management Plan IAW the PWS.

4. Subfactor D: Instructor Training and Certification Plan IAW the PWS

5. Subfactor E: Phase-In Plan IAW the PWS

1.7.3. Offerors are reminded to only submit one (1) candidate per CME (1 total) and to tailor the résumé to address the evaluation criteria (maximum of 3 pages per résumé). Although a signed “Letter of Intent” or similar document for the proposed CME is not required, the proposed CME must be actively seeking employment and must have been in contact with your company in the past expressing a desire to be employed by your company (job fairs, interviews for previous positions, etc). If using a “candidate pool” of résumés that your HR department may have on file, at a minimum, offerors are required to verify the proposed candidates are still seeking employment and will consider filling a position on this contract should your company be the successful offeror. Offerors are prohibited from submitting candidates with whom they have not had any interaction with in the past (i.e. simply pulling résumés from LinkedIn, Monster.com, etc.).

1.7.4. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in a determination that the proposal is not awardable. Award CANNOT be made to an offeror without an awardable proposal.

1.8. Instructions for Volume II – Price

1.8.1. The offeror shall complete Attachment 5 and the Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost(CLINs) above by inserting the price elements (unit price and extended amount) for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINs) for the Base Year and all Option Years. The completed schedule must be returned with the solicitation as part of the Price Proposal. Any offer received without the completed schedule will be determined nonresponsive and will not be considered for award. For each CLIN, all Unit prices must be in whole dollar values (e.g. $10.00). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units (ensure you adjust for any rounding of figures done by MS Excel, etc.)

1.8.2. Supporting Price Backup Data: Certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, the Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals if the Government determines it is necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price. 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 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 certified cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

1.9. Past Performance

1.9.1. The Past Performance volume and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (Attachment 2) are due no later than 29 June 2019, 14:00 CST. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure the contracting office receives the past performance information prior to required submission date/time. The past performance information shall be provided in a format that facilitates assessment according to the past performance evaluation criteria in 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items, paragraph 1.1 Basis of Award, of this solicitation. Specific guidelines and requirements about volume content and format are provided in this section.

1.9.2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References: Offerors may provide information for a maximum of three (3) different contracts and/or task/delivery orders for which they have served as the prime contractor, a subcontractor, a partner, or a joint venture partner that are recent and relevant as defined in this solicitation. In addition, the offeror may provide PPI for a maximum of three (3) different contracts and/or task/delivery orders for each proposed subcontractor, proposed partner, and/or proposed Joint Venture partner that are recent and relevant as defined in this solicitation. To clarify, if an offeror has two subcontractors or partners, the offeror may submit three (3) PPI references as the prime contractor and three (3) PPI references for each subcontractor for a total of up to nine (9) PPI references.

1.9.3. Past Performance Recency: Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6) months) 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.

1.9.4. Past Performance Relevancy: Offerors shall submit past performance information on contracts they consider relevant to this effort. This information should include rationale supporting their assertion of relevance. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. When applicable, offerors shall categorize and cross reference the relevance of the information into the specific relevancy criteria as defined in Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items, of this solicitation.

1.9.5. PPI Contents: The Past Performance volume shall contain the following sections (at a minimum):

A. Table of Contents - A table of contents shall be included in Volume III. Each PPI reference and section shall be clearly marked and tabbed for easy reference. The pages shall be numbered sequentially in a consistent manner as stated under Proposal Preparation Instructions.

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

C. Table of Past Performance Information Contract References – To facilitate the evaluation process, offerors shall provide a table of the contract references of government agencies and commercial concerns. References for which there are formal performance documents such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) are preferred. Please include the following information in the table:

1. For references where the offeror performed as the Prime contractor:

a. Prime Contract Number in Reference

b. Prime Contract Dollar Value

c. Prime Contract Period of Performance

d. Company/Organization Name

e. Company/Organization Full Address

f. Company/Organization Phone Number and/or Email Address

g. Prime Contractor’s CAGE Code

h. Prime Contractor’s DUNS Number

i. Current Point of Contact (POC) (i.e. Contracting Officer, Program Manager, etc.)

j. Current POC Phone Number(s) and/or Email Address

2. For references where the offeror performed as a Subcontractor:

a. Prime Contract Number in Reference

b. Prime Contract Dollar Value

c. Prime Contract Period of Performance

d. Prime Contractor’s Name

e. Prime Contractor’s Full Address

f. Prime Contractor’s Phone Number

g. Prime Contractor’s CAGE Code

h. Prime Contractor’s DUNS Number

i. Current POC

j. Current POC Phone Number(s) and/or Email Address

k. Subcontract/Order Number in Reference

l. Subcontract Dollar Value

m. Subcontract Period of Performance

n. Subcontractor’s Name

o. Subcontractor’s Full Address

p. Subcontractor’s Phone Number and/or Email Address

q. Subcontractor’s CAGE Code

r. Subcontractor’s DUNS Number

s. Current POC

t. Current POC Phone Number(s) and/or Email Address

1.9.6. Offeror and Subcontractor, Partner, and/or Joint Venture Partner (if applicable) Past and Present Performance Contract References: If a teaming arrangement, partner arrangement, or joint venture is contemplated, offerors must provide complete information as to the arrangement; including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with the same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present recent and relevant references. The offeror and any Subcontractors, Partners, and/or Joint Venture Partners shall submit the following under this section:

1. Submit one (1) sheet for each contract reference to include an overview of the work performed, what capacity they served under the reference (i.e. prime contractor, subcontractor, partner, etc.), the offeror’s assessment of how the contract reference is relevant to the relevancy criteria, and any additional significant details.

2. Submit completed CPARs or similar reports used to record past performance data. If a CPAR or another evaluation form has been completed for a contractor’s work, but the contracting office for that requirement will not release the information to the offeror, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (CO) for this solicitation. The offeror should provide the contract number for the CPAR, and a name and telephone number of the POC from which the past performance information should be obtained. If the offeror does not have Government past/present performance references, the offeror shall provide references from commercial/private industry sources. If the offeror is providing information for a contract with a non-Governmental organization, the information provided should be the same as that required on the CPAR form. The offeror shall not alter in any way the information provided by any other party (including extracting or paraphrasing portions of past performance). Past performance form and reports shall be provided unaltered in their entirety.

3. Offerors Rebuttal of Adverse Past Performance Information (if applicable): The offeror is allowed to provide a rebuttal to unfavorable past performance information if it did not do so on the original report or form. The offeror shall limit this rebuttal to addressing the specific negative comments. The offeror shall clearly distinguish between any rebuttal already provided on a form or report and those rebuttals provided specifically for the purpose of this proposal.

4. Subcontractor Consent (if applicable): Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent (See attachment 3: Subcontractor-partner Consent Letter). Since past performance information is proprietary source selection information, the prime contractor must submit, with their proposal, the subcontractor’s/teaming partner’s consent for the Government to disclose its past performance information to the prime during interchanges and debriefs.

1.9.7. Organization Structure Change History: Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past performance efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, offerors should include, in this proposal volume, a chart or schedule describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, offerors should show how these changes impact the relevancy of any efforts identified for past performance evaluation/performance assessment.

1.9.8. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs): When completed CPARS or similar reports are submitted to reflect past performance data, a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is not required. Offerors without formal documented Government Contract Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) shall send a PPQ to each performance reference cited. 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 PPQs (Attachment 2) shall be sent directly from the reference to this office via email or DoD Safe to Capt Thien Duong (thien.duong.3@us.af.mil). Notification of intended use of DoD Safe must be received NLT 3 business days prior to due dates.Offerors must ensure that completed PPQs are submitted to this office no later than the proposal receipt date established in this solicitation.

1.9.9. Past Performance Information from Other Sources: Past performance information for contracts not listed by the offeror and/or past performance information for contracts of planned subcontractor(s) may also be evaluated. References other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government and the information obtained may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s past performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating relevancy and providing current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

1.9.10. Additional Data: The Government may ask questions of, conduct interviews with, and/or request additional performance information from any of the past performance references submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal. Past performance information may be obtained from sources such as the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS), questionnaires tailored for the subject requirement, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with PMs, COs, and Award Fee Determining Officials, and other sources known to the Government. Available information from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments may be used if the information is recent and relevant as described in section 1.6.5 and 1.6.6 of Clause 52.212-2. The recency and relevancy of the past performance information are important in determining the contracts, programs, and efforts that will be reviewed. The Government reserves the right to obtain more past performance data from any source that it deems appropriate.

1.10. Disposition of Unsuccessful Proposals

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

52.212-2. EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS

1.1. Basis of Award

1.1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using a Price – Past Performance Tradeoff (PPT) source selection process. These fair opportunity procedures are tailored to the requirements and particulars of the Performance Work Statement and modeled after best value source selection procedures and principles in FAR Part 15.3 but are not governed by them as stated in 16.505(b)(1)(ii). One award will be made as a result of this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements with an “Acceptable” rating in all technical subfactors. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror. The PPT source selection process only permits tradeoffs between price and past performance factors.

1.1.2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and reserves the right to conduct interchanges, or to award a contract without interchanges, with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges if the Contracting Officer later determined them to be necessary.

1.1.3. The Government reserves the right to incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation and as revised and supplemented. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the terms and conditions of this contract take precedence over any ambiguity in the contractor’s proposal. In those areas where the contractor’s proposal exceeds the stated PWS requirements, the contractor’s proposal is binding and prevails. The contractor is expected and required to adhere to their proposed approach in meeting the contract requirements.

1.1.4. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer emailed 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.

1.2. Proposal Revisions

1.2.1. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges, or to award without interchanges, based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, interchanges may be held and result in proposal revisions. All revisions and changes to the proposal will be evaluated. The Government cautions offerors not to change material aspects of their proposal, unless as a result of a deficiency identified as part of conducting interchanges, as this could render the offeror’s proposal technically unacceptable; and therefore, not awardable. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (i.e. prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.). Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result in new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the proposal revision that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during interchanges. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the proposal revision, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. The Government intends to award after conducting interchanges (if necessary) and after receipt of proposal revisions without obtaining any further revisions or conducting any further interchanges. If the Government chooses to conduct interchanges, interchange notices (IN) will be sent via email to address an offeror’s deficiencies. It is requested that when answering INs, if requested, the offeror provide change pages that can be easily inserted into the original proposal as a final conformed copy of the proposal for ease of final evaluation.

1.3. Evaluation Methodology

1.3.1. 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:

Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Price Past Performance

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, evaluation factors and subfactors, and must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

1.3.2. The government will evaluate all offeror’s technical acceptability first, on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All acceptable offerors will then be ranked by price. Beginning with the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror, the government will evaluate each offeror’s past performance and proceed through all technically acceptable offerors until an offeror who is determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” rating is identified. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, the offeror is determined to be responsible, and that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

1.3.3. The Government reserves the right to selection without interchanges, conduct interchanges. If interchanges are utilized, Interchange Notices (INs) allowing them the opportunity to revise their proposals. Once the evaluation team determines that all INs have been satisfactorily answered, interchanges will be closed. Once interchanges have concluded, if an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, this proposal will be unawardable. Proposals shall meet the PWS requirements and the evaluation criteria requirements in order to be considered for award.

1.4. Factor 1 – Mission Capability (Technical)

1.4.1. Initially, the Government Technical Evaluation Team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis assigning one of the ratings described below at the Subfactor level; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. The focus is on the ability of the offeror’s proposal to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. Technical proposals will be assessed a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” at the subfactor level IAW Table 2 below. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each Technical Subfactor. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. In assessing the acceptability of each Subfactor, any “Significant Weaknesses” or “Deficiencies”, as defined in Table 3 below, will be noted. Proposals that receive “Significant Weaknesses” in a Subfactor may receive an “Unacceptable” Subfactor rating depending on the nature of the “Significant Weakness”. Proposals that receive a “Deficiency” in a Subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” Subfactor rating.

Table 2: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Method

Table 3: Deficiency & Weakness Definitions

Description

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet the Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.4.2. Offerors are again reminded to only submit one candidate per CME and to tailor the résumé to address the evaluation criteria (maximum of 3 pages per résumé). Although a signed “Letter of Intent” or similar document for the CME is not required, the proposed CME must be actively seeking employment and must have been in contact with your company in the past expressing a desire to be employed by your company (job fairs, interviews for previous positions, etc.). If using a “candidate pool” of résumés that your HR department may have on file, at a minimum, offerors are required to verify the proposed candidate is still seeking employment and will consider filling a position on this contract should your company be the successful offeror. Offerors are prohibited from submitting candidates with whom they have not had any interaction within the past (i.e. simply pulling résumés from LinkedIn, Monster.com, etc.).

1.4.3. Factor I - Mission Capability (Technical)

1.4.3.1. Subfactor A – Manning Requirement and Analysis

The offeror will receive an acceptable rating for this subfactor if the offeror’s proposal manning levels and personnel mix with qualifications that commensurate with requirements of the PWS.

1.4.3.4. Subfactor B – Training Management and Approach

The offeror will receive an acceptable rating for this subfactor if the offeror’s proposed Training Workload Plan that include short and long range planning and scheduling procedures. The plan will also be evaluated on management approaches, method, innovations, and policies for managing the training program proposed including methods for mitigating scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations. This subfactor 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. Lastly, the proposed Learning Management and/or Training 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.

1.4.3.5. Subfactor C – Courseware Development and Instructional Systems Development Management Plan (ISDMP) and Quality Program Plan

The offeror will receive an acceptable technical rating for this subfactor if the offeror demonstrates adequate 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 sytem (Ref AF Handbook 36-2235). This subfactor also 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 milestone 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 evaluated the Contractor's Quality Program (QPP) as referenced in PWS paragraph 4.4.

1.4.3.6. Subfactor D – Instructor Training and Certification Plan The offeror will receive an acceptable technical rating for this subfactor if the offeror’s Instructor Training and Certification Plan is IAW section 1.8 of the PWS.

1.4.3.7 Subfactor E – Phase-In Plan

The offeror will receive an acceptable technical rating for this subfactor if the offeror’s Phase-In plan is IAW with section 1.5.3 of the PWS.

1.5. Factor II – Price

1.5.1. Next, the Government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price, including all option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services, under FAR Clause 52.217-8, 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 to price the Base and Option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

Note: Evaluation of the Option Periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

1.5.2. Price will be evaluated to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

1.5.3. In addition to the price analysis, price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated by the application of price analysis techniques. The balanced pricing evaluation can also be applied when looking at prices from the base period across to the follow-on option periods. If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed CLIN prices, the Technical Evaluation Team will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror interchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

1.5.4. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

1.5.5. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than certified cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors.

1.6. Factor III – Past Performance

1.6.1. The Government evaluators, known as the Past Performance Evaluation Team, will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained through other Government sources, to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort.

1.6.2. There are four aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent. The second is to determine if the performance information is relevant to the effort to be acquired (this acquisition). The third aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts and the quality of the product or service provided. The fourth is for the Past Performance Team to make an integrated Confidence Assessment. 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 611512.

1.6.3. Each offeror will receive an integrated assessment. This assessment may include the recent and relevant present/past performance information relative to the amount and type of work to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. The Government will base the relevancy determination on the portion of the effort accomplished.

1.6.3.1. Past performance data will be obtained through sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, through Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments should be used if the data is recent and relevant. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review the past performance information and determine the quality or recent and relevant past performance from the sources mentioned above. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

1.6.4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment: The purpose of this past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply eTools Services that meet user’s needs, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence” as defined in the table below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history, or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no Confidence Assessment ratings can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”; meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating. Performance confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the following table:

Table 4 - Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

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.

1.6.5. Recency: The past performance team will seek references and determine Recency is defined in accordance with the following table:

Table 5 - Past Performance Recency

1.6.6. Relevancy: Relevant present/past performance is defined as effort involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the following table:

Table 6 - Past Performance Relevancy

1.6.7. Past Performance Quality: The Government will evaluate the quality of work performed for each PPI contract reference the past performance team finds per 1.6.3.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule. Performance assessed as shown in table 6 below shall be considered “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Any offeror with an “Unacceptable” rating shall be considered unawardable.

Table 7 - Past Performance Quality

1.6.8. Adverse Past Performance Information: 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.

9.0 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

10.0 DUE DATES

10.1. Advanced Questions

10.1.1. Any advanced questions pertaining to this requirement (i.e. PWS clarifications, etc.) must be submitted NLT 29 June 2020.

10.1.2 The Past Performance volume and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (Attachment 4) are due no later than 29 June 2020, 14:00 CST.

10.2. Proposal Due Date

10.2.1. Proposals, to include Volume I – Technical Mission Capability, Volume II – Price, and Volume III Past Performance are due NLT 1400 CST 15 July 2020. Proposals are requested to be sent IAW section 6.4., Submission of Proposals, via email or DoD Safe as needed or desired.