Attachment 6-Sections L and M 29 August 2023.pdf

Rapid Airfield Damage Assessment System (RADAS) Software Sustainment

L – Instructions to Offerors

Proposal Format

A. General: This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals and will provide specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete proposal may be considered ineligible for award. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in this RFP and its attachments. Non-conformance with the instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and sufficient in details for effective evaluation and substantiation of the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

All proposals submitted shall include the following:

a. Company Name, Mailing Address, City, State, Zip Code

b. Cage, and UEI

c. Identify as a Large Business or Small Business. If registered as a Small Business with the

SBA: Confirmation that your company is registered as a Small Business under NAICS Code 541511, Custom Computer Programming Services (i.e., size standard $34M)

d. Full name of person authorized to certify information in your proposal and legally bind the company (title of person, phone number, and email address)

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract for the subject project. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date for receipt of proposals. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse a contractor for any costs. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO later determines them to be in the Government’s best interest.

B. Volume Organization

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 1 below. The titles and contents of the parts shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limitation as specified. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this section will not be read or evaluated.

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums as indicated in Table 1 above. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read nor considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Any submission in excess of the limits will not be considered.

TABLE 1 – Proposal Format

Section Reference Title Page Limit

Volume I Factor 1 Technical 15

Subfactor 1.1 Sustainment Task: ADR Client

Subfactor 1.2 Sustainment Task: C2 Simulator/Virtual Sand Table

(VST)

Subfactor 1.3 Sustainment Task: GeoExPT ADR Synchronization

(GAS)

Subfactor 1.4 Sustainment Task: GeoExPT Mobile (ATAK)

Subfactor 1.5 Sustainment Task: GeoExPT Expeditionary Planning

Tool

Subfactor 1.6 Sustainment Task: Installation Recovery After Attack

(IRAA)

Subfactor 1.7 Sustainment Task: IRAA Mobile

Subfactor 1.8 Sustainment Task: Aircraft Control Software

Subfactor 1.9 Key Personnel (Resumes)

Volume II Factor 2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – (Pricing Sheet Attachment

2)

Volume III Factor 3 Past Performance (PP) 10

(B)(1): Volume I, Factor 1 – Technical

The technical proposal, including its sub-factors, shall not make any reference to cost or pricing information.

The offeror’s proposal must adequately show that the proposed services meet the Government’s technical requirements and must describe how the offeror intends on meeting the requirements detailed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Using the instructions included below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the PWS requirements as well as meeting the Subfactors below. All the requirements specified in the RFP are mandatory. By submitting a proposal, the Offeror is representing that it will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Offeror to state this fact in the proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the RFP.

Additionally, the technical proposal shall address the following sub-factors in detail:

Subfactor 1.1 - ADR Client: The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the ADR Client task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 1, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.2 - C2 Simulator/Virtual Sand Table (VST): The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the C2 Simulator/Virtual Sand Table (VST) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 2, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.3 - GeoExPT ADR Synchronization (GAS): The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the GeoExPT ADR Synchronization (GAS) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 3, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.4 - GeoExPT Mobile (ATAK): The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the GeoExPT Mobile (ATAK) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 4, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.5 - GeoExPT Expeditionary Planning Tool: The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the GeoExPT Expeditionary Planning Tool task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 5, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.6 - Installation Recovery After Attack (IRAA): The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the Installation Recovery After Attack (IRAA) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 6, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.7 - IRAA Mobile: The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying the IRAA Mobile task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 7, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.8 - Aircraft Control Software: The offeror shall describe the methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying Aircraft Control Software task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 8, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.9 – Key Personnel (Resumes): Offeror shall provide the proposed key personnel’s resumes. For reach proposed key personnel member the resume must detail education, applicable expertise, and experience as outlined in the PWS, Paragraph 3.3;

key personnel are Principal Software Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Program Manager, Project Manager, and Test Engineer.

(B)(2): Volume II, Attachment 2 – RADAS Software Sustainment Pricing Sheet- will be used to establish the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors shall complete all cells in Attachment 2. For purposes of this evaluation, the TEP will consist of the contractor’s proposed total cost estimate for the base year, all option periods, and the total six month extension under FAR 52.217-8. Price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1 will be used to evaluate offerors' TEP reasonableness, balance, and completeness.

Unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest penny. Ensure that all monetary inputs are rounded to the second decimal place and no further to eliminate rounding errors.

Any tampering of the worksheet outside of what is instructed may result in the Offeror’s proposal being disqualified from further consideration.

Failure to comply with these instructions will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award in the absence of discussions. Since the Government intends to award without discussions, contractors are encouraged to offer their most advantageous pricing in their response. All pricing shall be on a firm-fixed price basis to include travel.

(B)(3): Volume III, Factor 3– Past Performance (PP)

Only Past Performance with NAICS 541511 will be evaluated. Past performance shall be evaluated based on an assessment of recent and relevant past performance. Relevant is defined as any work or services performed that includes geospatial, database, and gaming elements in the technical scope regardless of dollar value. Recent is defined as any work or services executed in the last five (5) years from the date of this solicitation. Assessment of performance is defined as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating. Each offeror shall provide recent and relevant past performance regarding Software Sustainment by submitting past performance information on a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) Software Sustainment Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) from the past five (5) years of the date of this solicitation.

All instances of past performance shall be submitted on Attachment 7 – PPQ Submission Form.

Any submission in excess of the limits will not be considered and only the first five (5) PPQs listed in Factor 3 will be evaluated.

Questions shall be submitted by the offeror and received by 772 ESS/PKD no later than 25 August 2023 at 12:00PM Central Daylight Time (CDT). If questions are received after the date and time identified in this RFP, the Government may or may not provide answers. Questions shall be sent to Chase Lehocky, chase.lehocky.3@us.af.mil and Alexandra Counts, Alexandra.Counts@us.af.mil.

Electronic proposals must be received by 6 September 2023 at 12:00PM Central Daylight Time (CDT), Submit to: Chase Lehocky, chase.lehocky.3@us.af.mil and Alexandra Counts, Alexandra.Counts@us.af.mil.

If an offeror encounters a problem submitting their proposal, contact Chase Lehocky, chase.lehocky.3@us.af.mil and Alexandra Counts, Alexandra.Counts@us.af.mil before the due date and time specified.

Section M: Evaluation Factors

I. Basis for Contract Award:

The lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) selection process will be utilized. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price determined to be reasonable, balanced, and complete. Technical acceptability is achieved through a viable technical proposal illustrating a contractor’s ability to successfully accomplish the requirements of each technical sub-factor as defined by the Performance Work Statement.

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel based on the following factors:

(i) Factor I Technical: This factor is comprised of the 9 subfactors identified below:

Subfactor 1.1 - ADR Client: The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the ADR Client task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 1, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.2 - C2 Simulator/Virtual Sand Table (VST): The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the C2 Simulator/Virtual Sand Table (VST) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 2, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.3 - GeoExPT ADR Synchronization (GAS): The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the GeoExPT ADR Synchronization (GAS) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 3, of the

PWS.

Subfactor 1.4 - GeoExPT Mobile (ATAK): The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the GeoExPT Mobile (ATAK) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 4, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.5 - GeoExPT Expeditionary Planning Tool: The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the GeoExPT Expeditionary Planning Tool task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 5, of the

PWS.

Subfactor 1.6 - Installation Recovery After Attack (IRAA): The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the Installation Recovery After Attack (IRAA) task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 6, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.7 - IRAA Mobile: The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish the IRAA Mobile task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 7, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.8 - Aircraft Control Software: The standard is met when the offeror describes methodology to adequately accomplish Aircraft Control Software task as listed in Appendix A, paragraph 8, of the PWS.

Subfactor 1.9 – Key Personnel (Resumes): Offeror shall provide the proposed key personnel’s resumes. For reach proposed key personnel member the resume must detail education, applicable expertise, and experience as outlined in the PWS, Paragraph 3.3; key personnel are Principal Software Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, Program Manager, Project Manager, and Test Engineer.

Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable" rating in every subfactor.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(ii) Factor II Price: TEP will be calculated by the summation of CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001.

Evaluation of option prices will not obligate the Government to exercise options.

Pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness as follows:

Reasonableness. The Offeror's price proposal will further be evaluated to determine whether the pricing the Government expects to pay is fair and reasonable pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Balance. The Offeror's price proposal will be evaluated for balanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

In the event of only one proposal, the Government may require the offeror to submit other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7008.

(iii) Factor III Past Performance

Only Past Performance with NAICS 541511 will be evaluated. Past performance shall be evaluated based on an assessment of recent and relevant past performance for work performed under the NAICS 541511. Relevant is defined as any work or services performed that includes geospatial, database, and gaming elements in the technical scope regardless of dollar value. Recent is defined as any work or services executed in the last five (5) years from the date of this solicitation. Assessment of performance is defined as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) rating. Each offeror shall provide recent and relevant past performance regarding Software Sustainment by submitting past performance information on a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) Software Sustainment Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) from the past five (5) years of the date of this solicitation.

All instances of past performance shall be submitted on Attachment 7 – PPQ Submission Form. Any submission in excess of the limits will not be considered and only the first five (5) PPQs listed in Factor 3 will be evaluated.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

(See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”