Attachment 4. KC-135 CCR Section L - Instructions to Offerors02.pdf

United States Air Force AFLCMC/WLT Tinker AFB OK

KC-135 Center Console Refresh (CCR)

Attachment 4 Section L

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

10 August 2026

Contents

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

1.1 Budget/Funding Information

1.2 Facility Clearance Information

1.2.1 COMSEC

1.3 Contractor Technical Proposal

2.0 General Instructions

3.0 General Information

3.1 Point of Contact

3.2 Debriefings

3.3 Discrepancies

3.4 Electronic Reference Documents

3.5 Amendments to Solicitation

3.6 Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals

3.7 Exchanges

3.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

3.8.1 Title Pages

3.8.2 Team List

3.8.3 Names

3.8.4 Page Limitations

3.8.5 Pricing Information

3.8.6 Cross Referencing

3.8.7 Indexing

3.8.8 Tables and Figures

3.8.9 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

3.9 Page Size and Format

3.10 Labeling

3.11 Electronic Offers

3.12 Distribution

4.0 Factor 1 – Technical

4.1 General

4.2 Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical

4.2.2 Volume Organization

4.2.3 Subfactor One: Technical Solution

4.2.4 Subfactor Two: Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

4.2.5 Subfactor Three: Data Rights

4.2.6 Subfactor Four: Schedule

5.0 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

5.1 General

6.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance

6.1 General

6.1.1 Attachment 1.4 Consent Letter

6.1.2 Attachment 1.5 Client Authorization Letter

6.1.3 Attachment 1.6 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter

6.2 Early Proposal Information

6.3 Relevant Contracts

6.3.1 PPI Relevant Contract Narrative

6.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History

7.0 Factor 4 – Cost/Price

7.1 Cost/Price General Instructions

7.1.1 Reasonableness

7.1.2 Balanced Pricing

7.1.3 Price Realism

7.1.4 Cost Realism

7.1.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

7.1.6 Cost or Pricing Data Requirements/Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

7.2 Cost/Price General Instructions

7.2.1 Rounding

7.2.2 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision

7.2.3 Business Systems

7.2.4 Proposed Subcontractor Pricing and/or IWO/IWT Pricing

7.2.5 Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Prices

7.2.6 Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material (GFP/GFE/GFM)

7.2.7 Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material (CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

7.2.8 Government Field Support Agencies

7.2.9 Other Documentation

7.3 Pricing Support Information

7.3.1 Format and Specific Content Required

7.3.2 CBOM

7.3.3 FPRA/FPRR Information

7.3.4 Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) – Additional Information

8.0 Contract Documentation

8.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications

8.3 Supplies or Services and Prices (Section B)

8.4 Contract Clauses (Section I)

8.5 Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors (Section K)

8.6 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

9.0 Other Information Required

9.1 Ombudsman

9.2 Authorized Offeror Personnel

9.3 Government Offices

9.4 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

9.5 Attachments to the Model Contract

Table 1: KC-135 CCR LRUs Table 2: Proposal Organization Table Table 3: Cross-Reference Matrix Table 4: Solicitation Exceptions

Figure 1: Security Alert Pop-up Figure 2: Setup Pop-Up Figure 3: Application Setup Screen Figure 4: Continue the Application Setup Figure 5: Contractor’s Menu Figure 6: Business Relationships Figure 7: Enter New Business Relationship Figure 8: Past Performance Figure 9: Enter Past Performance Information Figure 10: Select Report to Print Figure 11: Submission Instructions Figure 12: Change Name and RFP Number - Application Setup

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

The government plans to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the KC-135 Center Console Refresh (CCR) program to address obsolescence and enhance long-term sustainability, the USAF is seeking an integrated flight deck solution that replaces the Fuel System (FS), Flight Display System (FDS), and Integrated Processing Cabinet (IPC). The new solution must improve supportability, maintainability, and offer growth potential. The program scope also includes the addition of autothrottle systems. As configured today, the line-replaceable units (LRUs) that make up each of these systems are outlined in Table 1 below. Descriptions of these systems can be found in the KC-135 Center Console Refresh System Requirements Document (SRD), Attachment 2.

Table 1: KC-135 CCR LRUs Flight Display System

(FDS)

Fuel System

(FS)

Integrated Processing Cabinet

(IPC)

Autothrottle

• Multi-Function Displays

(MFD)

• Integrated Fuel Management Panel

(IFMP)

• Common Computing Module (CCM)

• Proposed solution dependent

• Control Display Units (CDU)

• Fuel Management Advisory Computer (FMAC)

• Input/Output Concentrator (IOC)

• Tank Interface Unit

(TIU)

• Power Environmental Module (PEM)

• Digital Switching Module (DSM)

The government desires a modernized solution for the KC-135 that retains or improves the functions and capabilities of the aging parts and components that are replaced.

1.1 Budget/Funding Information

Funding will be obligated on individual orders, as required, for the Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) established in the basic contract, as well as the Cost Reimbursable (CR) for Travel.

1.2 Facility Clearance Information

The Offeror, and subcontractors working classified requirements with access to classified information, must possess a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD Form 254) prior to Source Selection Authority Decision Briefing. The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify final facility clearances. Offerors who do not possess a final facility clearance will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an Offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) Part 9.

1.2.1 COMSEC

Proscribed Classified COMSEC Information Notice to Offerors and any and all subcontractors: Proscribed classified COMSEC information may be involved in this effort. Therefore, US companies operating under

Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) as defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) with a Special Security Agreement as the mitigation instrument are on notice that a National Interest Determination (NID) will be required. The NID decision will be made by the Government and documented prior to award of the contract. The Government is not obligated to delay contract award in order to complete the NID process. If the NID is denied, the contractor will be determined non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an Offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with RFO Part 9.

1.3 Contractor Technical Proposal

All or parts of the Contractor’s Technical Proposal may be added to the contract at the government’s discretion.

Should there be any discrepancies between the Technical Proposal and the Statement of Work (SOW), the SOW will take precedence unless otherwise approved by the Procuring Activity.

2.0 General Instructions

This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered non-responsive to the solicitation and therefore ineligible for award. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the SOW and appendices.

Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall 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 shall base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Elaborate brochures, documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid until this date.

In accordance with RFO Subpart 4.309, the government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

All, or parts of the Offeror’s technical proposal will be added to the contract at the government’s discretion.

Should there be any discrepancies between the technical proposal and the SOW or Systems Requirement Document (SRD), the SOW and SRD will take precedence unless otherwise approved by the requiring activity.

3.0 General Information

3.1 Point of Contact

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the PCO at the address located in Section A of the model contract/solicitation.

3.2 Debriefings

The PCO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.206-2. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The PCO will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with RFO 15.207-2. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of RFO 15.206-2 or RFO 15.301, as applicable.

3.3 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the PCO to consider as related to the mission or error.

3.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the System for Award Management (SAM) website at https://www.sam.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

3.5 Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment and provide confirmation upon submission of the Offeror’s proposal. Any unacknowledged amendments in the Offeror’s proposal will render the proposal ineligible for award.

3.6 Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals

Proposal packages shall be transmitted to the Solicitation PCO via DoDSAFE. No other submission method, such as mail, hand carried, or other electronic system are authorized by the solicitation unless specifically authorized by the PCO pursuant to paragraph 3.11 below. Detailed submittal instructions are located in ITO paragraph 3.11 and 3.12.

3.7 Exchanges

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the PCO. E-mail (encrypted when possible or with password protected attachments) may be used to transmit such information to offerors and shall include “Source Selection Information – See RFO 2.101 & 3.104 – CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION” in the subject line.

3.8 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

3.8.1 Title Pages

Except as stated for Volume IV – Contract Document, the title page of each volume shall contain the solicitation number, name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror and electronic e-mail address if available.

http://www.sam.gov/

3.8.2 Team List

A team list of the Offeror’s primary point of contacts shall be submitted in each volume using the format shown in Attachment 2 of the ITO. The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of electronic copies as specified in Table 2. Each Volume identified in Table 2 below shall be submitted as a distinct electronic file and uploaded to DoDSAFE as described in paragraph 3.6. and 3.11. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table 2: Proposal Organization Table

Volume

ITO

Paragraph Number

Volume Title Electronic Copies

Page Limit

I 4.0 Technical 1 75

3.8.1 Title Page (Not included in 75-page limit) 1

3.8.2 Team List (see ITO Attachment 2.0) (Not included in

75-page limit)

3.8.8 4.2.2

Table of Contents (Not included in 75-page limit) Volume Organization

Unlimited

3.8.8 List of Tables, Drawings, and Figures (Not included

in 75-page limit)

Unlimited

3.8.9 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Not

included in 75-page limit)

Unlimited

3.8.6 Cross Reference Matrix (See Table 3) (Not included

in the 75-page limit

Unlimited

4.2.3 4.2.4

4.2.5 4.2.6

Subfactor 1 Technical Solution Subfactor 2 Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths* Subfactor 3 Data Rights* Subfactor 4 Schedule*

Included as part of the 75-page limit

*Substantiating documentation (such as proof of environmental testing, Microsoft Project file, letters of attestation, ACAs, and proof of data rights) is not included as part of the 75-page limit

5.0

Technical Risk

Included as part of the 75-page limit

II 6.0 Past Performance 1 Unlimited

3.8.1 Title Page 1

3.8.2 Team List (See ITO Attachment 2.0) 5

3.8.7.

Table of Contents Unlimited

6.3.1 Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF) (See ITO

Attachment 1.1)

N/A

6.1.1 Consent Letter (See ITO Attachment 1.4) Unlimited

6.1.2 Client Authorization Letters (See ITO Attachment

1.5) Unlimited

6.1.3 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter (See ITO

Attachment 1.6)

Unlimited

6.2

Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See ITO Attachment 1.2)

Not included in the Offeror’s Proposal

6.3.1

Relevant Contract Narrative

Request Max 5 pages per contract

6.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History 2

III 7.0 Cost/Price 1 Unlimited

7.1 General Information Unlimited

3.8.2 Team List (See ITO Attachment 2.0) See Volume

Organization for location in proposal volume Unlimited

7.3.1b Volume Organization Unlimited IV 8.0 Contract Documentation 1 Unlimited

3.8.1 Title Page (SF33) 1

3.8.2 Team List (see ITO Attachment 2.0) 5

3.8.7.

Table of Contents Unlimited

3.8.8 List of Tables, Figures, and Drawings Unlimited

3.8.9 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

3.5 Amendment Acknowledgement/Confirmation Unlimited

8.1

Model Contract (Sections A-J) N/A

8.5 Representations and Certifications (Section K) N/A

9.2-9.4 Contact Information Unlimited

9.5 Attachments to the Model Contract Unlimited

3.8.3 Names

Offerors shall submit volumes with the following file names: Volume I – Technical.doc or .docx with IMS.mpp, Volume II – Past Performance.doc or .docx, Volume III – Price.doc or .docx with PricingMatrix.xlsx, and Volume IV – Contract.doc or docx. Files provided in .pdf format are also acceptable if conversion is made from a Word document or equivalent Word processing software while maintaining searchable text.

3.8.4 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may also be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, tabs, indexes, glossaries, and those noted in the Proposed Organization Chart as unlimited.

3.8.5 Pricing Information

All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation volumes (Volumes III and IV). Price Trade-Off information, work-hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and Trade-Off decisions.

3.8.6 Cross Referencing

The technical 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 the technical proposal evaluation, which is not found in the technical volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal, and will not be considered in the technical evaluation.

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The past performance and price evaluation will utilize information from each’s respective volume for the evaluation but may also utilize information from other volumes as well. The Offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided in Table 3 that will indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph or location which addresses the referenced item, and this shall be included in the Technical Volume submission. Table 3 is not included as part of the Technical Volume page limit.

Table 3: Cross-Reference Matrix Cross Reference SOW

Para (not all inclusive)

RFP

Attachment 4 –

Section L

RFP

Attachment 5 –

Section M

Proposal (Volume &

Para)

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL 4.0. 2.2

Subfactor 1 – Technical Solution 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 5.13, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.6, 6.9.1, 7.0, 9.0, 9.4, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 17.0

4.2.3 2.2.1

Subfactor 2 – Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

2.3.2, 6.2, 6.5.2, 6.9.1 4.2.4 2.2.2

Subfactor 3 – Data Rights 5.1, 5.13, 5.15, Appendix A 4.2.5 2.2.3

Subfactor 4 - Schedule 5.4, 5.5, 7.0, 9.4 4.2.6

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL RISK SOW 5.1, 5.12, 5.13, 9.8, 13.2,

13.2.1, and SOW references included in Subfactors 1-4

5.1 2.3

FACTOR 3: PAST

PERFORMANCE

N/A 6.0 2.4

FACTOR 4: COST/PRICE N/A 7.0 2.5

3.8.7 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.

Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

3.8.8 Tables and Figures

Include an indexed list of tables, figures, and drawings.

3.8.9 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each.

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

3.9 Page Size and Format

A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts.

Page line spacing shall be 1.5 lines. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than Arial 12 point. Offerors are prohibited from using other Arial fonts such as Arial Black, Arial Narrow or Arial Rounded MT Bold. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top, bottom, and side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notice (ENs).

Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems, layouts, implementation schedules, plans, and related information. These displays shall be uncomplicated and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches. If foldout pages are printed, they shall fold entirely within the volume and shall count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics; they shall not be used for pages of text. The following text-size limitation shall apply only to the technical and technical risk volumes: Text intended for evaluation within all figures, charts, tables, and graphs, including embedded images, shall be no less than Arial 10 point. These limitations shall apply to electronic proposals, and noncompliant text will not be considered in the evaluation.

3.10 Labeling

A cover sheet shall be included in each proposal volume, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror’s name. For each proposal volume, the Offeror shall apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW RFO 52.215- 1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and RFO 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

3.11 Electronic Offers

All electronic documents and files submitted shall contain the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any. The Offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 365 Word, MS Office 365 Excel, MS Office 365 Power Point, MS Project or compatible version (as applicable), and Adobe PDF Note: files must be searchable and able to copy and paste. For amendment purposes to the proposal, the "original" proposal shall be clearly identified.

3.12 Distribution

Once the Offeror has uploaded the Offeror’s proposal via DoDSAFE, the Offeror shall take a screen shot (Print Screen function) of the Offeror’s screen showing all the uploaded files included in the proposal submission. The Offeror shall notify the PCO, Ms. Brandi Shelden (brandi.shelden@us.af.mil) and Contract Specialist (CS), Ms.

Catina Baker (catina.baker@us.af.mil) by email that the files have been uploaded and provide a copy of the screen shot.

4.0 Factor 1 – Technical

4.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete, ensuring legibility, clarity, and coherence. Responses will be evaluated against the technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award.

Therefore, using the instructions provided below, offerors should specifically detail the methodology they would employ for accomplishing and/or satisfying these subfactors. Offerors should assume the government has no prior knowledge of their experience or facilities; the evaluation will be based solely on the information presented in the proposal. All requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory; submission of the proposal represents the offeror's commitment to fulfilling these requirements. It is neither necessary nor desirable to simply reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements stated in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical

The Offeror shall address its proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor in the Offeror’s technical volume.

4.2.2 Volume Organization

The technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

• Team List ITO Attachment 2.0

• Table of Contents

• List of Tables, Figures, and Drawings

• Glossary

• Cross Reference Matrix

• Subfactor One – Technical Solution

• Subfactor Two – Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

• Subfactor Three – Data Rights

• Subfactor Four- Schedule mailto:catina.baker@us.af.mil

• Technical Risk

4.2.3 Subfactor One: Technical Solution

The offeror shall provide an approach that demonstrates their understanding and ability to meet the threshold requirements, in the CCR Systems Requirements Document (SRD) through the EMD & Production phases. As a minimum, the approach shall address the following elements:

a) The Offeror shall provide an approach to teaming arrangements and Associated Contract Agreements (ACA) and describe how the members will support EMD and Productions phases. The proposed approach shall include identification of all significant subcontractors, teaming partners, and or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in this solicitation in accordance with (IAW) SOW paragraph 5.13 and provide ACAs IAW SOW 17.0. If signed ACA are unavailable, provide a Letter of Intent and a statement with rationale describing the steps the Offeror will take to satisfy the requirement of signed ACAs by contract award. If the Offeror does not have any teaming partners or Subcontractor, then provide a statement of “no subcontractors” in your proposal.

b) An approach to the Engineering Manufacturing and Design (EMD) Phase IAW SOW 1.2.1 that includes the identification of Title 10 §4401 compliance; Technical Readiness Level (TRL) of each system at proposal submission; model-based systems engineering, model-based design, and Technical Data Package digital files; SIL stand-up, integration, and testing; autothrottle solution; Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS), integration, and testing; and the need, if any, to reverse engineer interfaces with KC-135 legacy systems.

i. For Title 10 §4401 compliance, as a minimum, Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation and diagram of their Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) that will be designed into the CCR system. This design must comply with 10 U.S.C. § 4401 (c)(1)(B)(i) or (c)(1)(B)(ii) and prioritize maximum adaptability to potential future mission requirement changes. (SOW 6.2.)

ii. A description of how Digital Material Management principles and tools will be applied throughout the integration, test, and certification process. As a minimum, the approach should include specific examples of how Digital Material Management will improve efficiency, reduce risk, and enhance collaboration. (SOW 6.1, 6.3)

iii. Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation and diagram of their approach to standing up a SIL and utilizing the SIL for integration and testing. (SOW 7.0, 9.4)

iv. Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation of their approach to integrating and testing autothrottle. (SOW 2.2, 9.0)

v. Offeror shall identify the need to reverse engineer any interfaces with the KC-135 systems based on the technical data provided in the Bidder’s Library. Offeror shall identify any technical gaps in the Bidder’s Library and describe the complexity of the reverse engineering effort. (SOW 6.6)

vi. Offeror shall provide a detailed approach to supporting the Government's Airworthiness Certification process. (SOW 6.9.1)

c) An approach to the Production Phase that describes how the Offeror will meet kit and installation requirements IAW SOW 1.2.2.

i. Offeror shall provide a comprehensive approach for the production, packaging, transportation, storage, and tracking of A- and B-Kits. As a minimum, the approach must address that complete installation kits are available at the designated location(s) at least 30 calendar days prior to the scheduled installation. (SOW 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 13.1)

ii. Offeror shall describe the process for installing the new CCR system on the aircraft. As a minimum, the approach should include detailed key milestones, dependencies, procedures, diagrams, and any applicable special instructions (SOW 12.6, 12.7)

d) An approach for Small Business Participation. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

a. A narrative description demonstrating the offeror’s commitment to small business utilization during the performance of the contract

b. Submit a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) as an attachment. (See ITO Attachment 3.0 for SBPCD Template).

i. The offeror shall include the small business minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 15%. Second tier subcontracting or lower will not be considered in the evaluation of the percentage.

ii. The offeror shall describe their small business participation based on total evaluated price (TEP) for this contract effort.

Other than small businesses may achieve their proposed level of small business participation through subcontracting to small businesses and small business socioeconomic categories. Small businesses may achieve their proposed level of small business participation through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses; small businesses are not required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve their proposed level of small business participation.

NOTE: The SBPCD differs from the subcontracting plan* requirements IAW RFO 19.109. Also, work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation. Small business prime offerors shall include their information in the provided SBPCD template as required.

*The subcontracting plan will only be required within the Contract Volume per Section L paragraph 9.5.a (SOW 5.13)

4.2.4 Subfactor Two: Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit by identifying and explaining how and why different aspects of their solution exceed requirements and/or demonstrate system strengths as outlined in the CCR SRD and/or SOW. As a minimum, the Offeror shall provide the following:

a) Exceeding Threshold Requirements:

i. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit for a proposed solution which utilizes a glass cockpit that incorporates the majority of objective requirements in SRD Paragraph 3.16 Trade Space Adaptability Components.

ii. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit for the proposed solution that includes meeting Objective requirements for Fuel System improvements (SRD 3.14.3, 3.14.6, 3.14.7, 3.14.13, 3.14.5, 3.14.8, 3.14.14, 3.14.16).

iii. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit for a proposed solution that improves navigation as defined in SRD Paragraph 3.6.4.2.

iv. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit for a proposed solution that meets system MTBF objective requirements as defined in SRD Paragraph 3.27.3.2.

v. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit for a proposed solution which replaces the current Electronic Engine Instrument Display (EEID) as defined in SRD Paragraph 3.16.14.

vi. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit for a proposed solution that meets objective requirements for Annunciator Lights/Warning, Cautions, and Advisories in SRD Paragraph 3.4.

b) Demonstrating System Strengths:

i. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit by providing documentation and assessments of environmental testing results, environmental standard adherence, and environmental certifications that have already been accomplished on LRUs that are proposed as part of your CCR solution. (SOW 6.5.2)

ii. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit by providing a plan for how the Government can incorporate new technologies and incorporate upgrades over the system's lifecycle. This plan should include a roadmap for technology insertion, a description of the processes for evaluating and integrating new technologies, and identify areas that would be dependent on the OEM for integration of new capability. The Offeror should consider the following topics in the submitted plan: hardware and software additions for new requirements;

autonomous refueling capabilities; new or upgraded communication capabilities that include displaying federated systems onto CCR displays; and future addition of TEMPEST requirements. (SOW 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 6.2)

iii. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit by providing Technical Standard Order (TSO) authorization for the offeror’s solution. (SOW 6.9.1)

iv. The Offeror is afforded an opportunity to receive a best value credit by identifying and describing how their approach provides additional capabilities or exceedances of threshold requirements that provides a relevant and significant benefit to the Government. (SOW 2.3.1 and 2.3.2)

4.2.5 Subfactor Three: Data Rights

The Offeror shall provide a completed Data Rights Assertion Matrix (DRAM) (RFP Attachment 6) indicating proposed data rights asserted with complete rationale. An explanation is required for anything less than what the Government requested on the DRAM (RFP Attachment 6) and meets the Government intent of removing vendor lock.

If licensing is necessary to fulfill data rights requirements, the offeror shall identify the number of enterprise-wide, site, or seat licenses to technical data and computer software pertaining to commercial products or commercial services it will grant the Government to any part of any CDRL listed in the DRAM (RFP Attachment 6).

If a subcontractor owns and is providing any data rights required to perform this contract, the Offeror shall submit a letter of attestation from the subcontractor, affiliate, and/or vendor at all tiers to establish that all of the technical data and computer software the Offeror is required to deliver will be delivered to the Government, regardless of who owns the IP. The letters will clearly show which data rights the subcontractor, affiliate, or vendor will deliver to the Offeror and/or Government.

4.2.6 Subfactor Four: Schedule

The Offeror shall provide two (2) separate and distinct artifacts for the Schedule volume: 1) a Schedule Approach Narrative in a written document, and 2) a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS):

a) The Offeror shall provide a written Schedule Approach Narrative that furnishes a summary explanation of the methodology and rationale behind their proposed schedule. This document explains the "how" and "why" of the Offeror's plan. At a minimum, the narrative must address the following elements:

(i) Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Schedule Execution: The Offeror shall provide a rationale for how the IMS and IMP will be executed. This shall include a discussion of the approach to managing significant events, key milestones, combined events, and schedule slack. The narrative should describe the processes for monitoring and controlling the schedule throughout the period of performance. (SOW 5.4, 5.5, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6 and 12.7)

(ii) Long-Lead Time Material Management: The Offeror shall identify all materials, components, or parts identified as long-lead time items. The narrative must detail the procurement and supply chain strategy that ensures these items will be available to meet the master schedule requirements without causing delays. (SOW 5.4, 5.5, 12.5)

(iii)System Integration Laboratory (SIL) Stand-Up, Verification, Validation (V&V), and Utilization: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of their approach to standing up, verifying, validating, and utilizing the SIL for all planned integration and testing activities.

This section should explain how the SIL activities are logically integrated into the overall master schedule. (SOW 7.0, 9.4)

(iv) Contractor Fly-In Facility Option: The Offeror shall identify and explain the lead time requirements and major dependencies associated with standing up and exercising the Contractor Fly-In Facility option, should the Government choose to exercise it. (SOW 12.7)

b) The Offeror shall provide an initial Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) delivered in a native Microsoft Project (.mpp) format. If a different scheduling tool is used, the Offeror must provide the file in its native format and as a Microsoft Project-compatible version.

(i) The IMS must be detailed and comprehensive, clearly showing a thorough understanding of the project requirements and include all items detailed in the Schedule Approach Narrative.

It must, at a minimum, include: all significant events, key milestones, combined events;

logical dependencies (i.e., predecessors and successors) for all tasks; durations, start dates, and finish dates for all tasks; a clearly identifiable critical path; and calculated total float (slack) for all activities. (SOW 5.4, 5.5, 7.0, 9.4, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6 and 12.7)

5.0 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

5.1 General

The Offeror shall address technical risk associated with the approach provided in the following:

Subfactor One, Technical Solution to include reverse engineering without ICDs or data rights

Subfactor Two, Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths to include how COTS items being certified to military airworthiness requirements and environmental testing

Subfactor Three, Data Rights

Subfactor Four, Schedule to include long-lead and supply chain strategy encompassing single-source supplier and foreign-produced components

The Offeror shall address all technical risks that the Offeror considers having potential to disrupt schedule, increased cost, degradation of product performance, increase need for Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each identified risk, the Offeror shall provide the rationale for the risk and quantitative estimates for both potential consequence (to cost, schedule, and/or performance) and the probability of the risk to occur. The Offeror shall also outline a mitigation approach describing how each risk is eliminated or reduced to a Low or Moderate overall (combined potential and consequence) level.

As part of the technical risk assessment, the Offeror shall address the maturity of the proposed solution. The Offeror shall clearly state the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of hardware and software of the proposed solution. To demonstrate the claimed TRL the Offeror must provide objective evidence that includes but is not limited to test data, analysis reports, and/or integration documentation. A higher demonstrated TRL may be considered indicative of lower technical risk.

6.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance

6.1 General

Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in ITO Attachment 1.1.

The Offeror shall provide a team list, which includes the prime contractor, all significant subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. The Offeror shall describe the portion of effort each team member is proposed to perform in relation to the Factor 1 Technical subfactors (Technical Solution, Data Rights and Schedule); Factor 4 Cost/Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity. The Government’s Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) evaluates each member of the Offeror’s team for relevancy and performance quality, based on their proposed portion of effort.

Therefore, it is important for the Offeror to provide a detailed portion of effort description, in order for the PPET to conduct an accurate assessment. Offerors shall also provide approximate percentages for portion of effort for each team member. For the past performance evaluation, the government will use data provided by the Offeror in the past performance volume, as well as data obtained from other sources.

6.1.1 Attachment 1.4 Consent Letter

This letter shall be executed and signed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner.

The letter authorizes the release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information.

6.1.2 Attachment 1.5 Client Authorization Letter

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall submit a client authorization letter (ITO Attachment 1.5) authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance.

6.1.3 Attachment 1.6 Commitment to Perform as Proposed Letter

This letter shall be executed and signed by the Prime Contractor and each Subcontractor. The letter states that, in the event a contract is awarded to the Prime Contractor, the Prime Contractor and Subcontractor (to include teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) commit to joint contract performance as described in the proposal. A separate letter shall be completed for each subcontractor separately. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, the subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered. In the event the signed letter is not submitted with the initial proposal, but is later submitted during the evaluation, the subcontractor references will be considered at that point, if practicable for the government.

6.2 Early Proposal Information

Each Offeror is requested to submit the Past Performance volume fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the solicitation’s closing date. The Past Performance volume early proposal information is a request and not a requirement. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in Offeror disqualification, nor will offerors be penalized.

As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (ITO Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Sample Questionnaire Cover Letter (ITO Attachment 1.3) to all points of contacts (POCs) the Offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Form (ITO Attachment 1.1). The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them directly to the PCO. Email address for questionnaires is brandi.sheldon@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The PPET will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary.

6.3 Relevant Contracts

The Offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts (or efforts). The PPI shall be completed in accordance with ITO Attachment 1.1, Past Performance Information Form (PPIF).

The Offeror shall submit PPIFs for contracts which include all or some performance within the past five (5) years, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.1, Recency Assessment. The government requests that each Offeror submit up to three (3) PPIFs for the prime contractor, and up to 3 PPIFs for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. Significant subcontractor is defined as a contractor who is proposed to perform over 5% of the total effort, or a contractor who is proposed to perform less than 5% of the total effort but is determined to be performing a critical function. NOTE: The requested number of PPIFs for the prime and subcontractors are preferences and not requirements. Offerors may submit more than the preferred number if the Offeror believes the extra contracts are needed to fully describe their relevancy. Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPIFs are not automatically assigned a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable, if the government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Request each PPIF not exceed a target of 5 pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the KC-135 CCR program.

6.3.1 PPI Relevant Contract Narrative

For each PPIF, the Offeror shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contract is deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. Specifically, the narrative should focus on similarities to the Factor 1 Technical Subfactors (Technical Solution, Data Rights and Schedule);

Factor 4 Cost/Price; and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2, and should be tailored to the proposed portion of effort. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical subfactors and overall cost/price of previous efforts used to evaluate the proposal. The narrative may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a Limited or No Confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered with corrective actions. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

This may allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required. The Offeror is requested to limit the narrative to a maximum of 5 pages. However, the Offeror may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy. Affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc., will be considered, provided that sufficient documentation is included in the proposal. The Prime contractor must demonstrate that the affiliate will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Proposal documentation should include a copy of the signed arrangement such as documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement, etc. If the required information is not included in the proposal, the proposed affiliate companies, sister companies, joint venture companies, etc. will not be evaluated or considered.

6.3.2 Organizational 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 past efforts or between the 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 shall include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of the Offeror’s company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), the "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified, yet general enough to apply to efforts on which the government receives information from other sources.

7.0 Factor 4 – Cost/Price

7.1 Cost/Price General Instructions

In the Cost/Price Volume, the Offeror shall provide information in their proposal narrative as described in Section 7.0 in addition to the Cost Model/Pricing Matrix referred to herein as the Excel Pricing Workbook (EPW) in RFP Attachment 3A, EPW - PRIME (and RFP Attachment 3B, EPW – SUB, if applicable). (Throughout the Cost/Price Volume, the term “Offeror” is defined as the prime Offeror which may be a joint venture.) The instructions provided serve to assist Offerors in submitting information required to evaluate the reasonableness, balance, and realism of your proposed costs/prices. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. The Government will evaluate each proposal in accordance with (IAW) the Cost/Price Factor in Section M. For CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 only, the Government will perform a price analysis with cost realism analysis based on the Offeror’s technical and estimating approach. For all firm fixed price (FFP) priced CLINs, a price analysis will be performed. Detailed information regarding the cost/price evaluation will be provided in Section M.

The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror. Proper presentation and adequate supporting documentation are necessary to ensure the cost/price proposal is efficiently evaluated and all assumptions are understood. If the Offeror does not, in the Government’s judgment, substantiate its cost/price proposal in part or as a whole, the Government may consider other data and the judgment of the members of the source selection evaluation team in determining the probable cost.

7.1.1 Reasonableness

The Government will evaluate proposals for reasonableness. Normally, reasonableness is established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through other price analysis techniques. Offerors shall provide sufficient rationale describing how costs/prices were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.). It shall be noted that completeness is one aspect of reasonableness. For completeness, the Offeror shall provide all required inputs in RFP Attachment 3A, EPW – PRIME, to include FFP unit prices for CLINs X007 – X009, X011 – X016, and X020 - X021 (all specified performance periods) in addition to sufficient data other than cost or pricing data for the Basic Period target costs (which are based on required inputs in the cost model worksheets by task) and target fees for Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs 0001 – 0003 (to include major subcontractor costs in RFP Attachment 3B, EPW – SUB, if applicable).