Section_L_-_Instructions_to_Offerors.docx

Section L – Instructions to Offerors

Program Structure and Objectives The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the National and Nuclear Communications Support (N2CS). The contractor will perform Sustainment Services as referenced in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Award will be made on the basis of “best value” utilizing Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures. Award will be made to the contractor that provides the “best value” to the Government over the entire period of performance. The government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary.

Funding will be obligated for the Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Phase-In (X201) Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the 60 day base period. This will satisfy the minimum contract guarantee.

2.0 General Instructions

2.0.1 The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this Section L - Instructions to Offeror (ITO) and must be submitted in accordance with (IAW) these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the PWS, appendices, attachments, exhibits and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.0.2 The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide a description addressing how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements and convincing evidence of the effectiveness and the Offeror’s ability to execute their proposed methodology. The proposal must demonstrate a sound, well developed approach with explicit evidence of capability and experience to perform activities to meet PWS requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. Text of proposals shall be submitted in English. Proposals received in languages other than English shall be rejected.

2.0.3 Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

2.0.4 The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Volume IV of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid until the date specified in Section A of the solicitation.

2.0.5 In accordance with (IAW) FAR Subpart 4.8, Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 Point of Contact

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns, via e-mail only, to the PCO listed in Section A of the solicitation. When appropriate, responses will be published on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website.

2.2 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 IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-Award Debriefing of Offerors, or may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing IAW FAR 15.506. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing. The PCO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.503, Notification to Unsuccessful Offerors. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.3 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes 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 omission or error. Government responses will be published on the FedBizOpps website for access by all Offerors. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.4 Electronic Reference Documents

The referenced documents for this solicitation are available on FedBizOpps website at http://www.fbo.gov. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. The aircraft technical manuals for this solicitation will be available for viewing at the E-4B Systems Program Office (SPO). In accordance with PWS – Appendix A, vendors shall be required to submit an approved DD Form 2345 to the Government Contracting Officer in order to gain viewing access to the E-4B aircraft technical manuals. To arrange for viewing of pertinent technical manuals in order to develop a proposal, contact the PCO via e-mail at benjamin.farber.1@us.af.mil.

2.5 Exchanges with Offerors

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the PCO. Email (encrypted when possible or with password protected attachments) may be used to transmit such information to Offerors and shall include “Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. Additionally, source selection information may be transmitted via facsimile (encrypted when possible), U.S. Postal (or like service) delivery, and/or oral with telephonic or face-to-face meetings.

2.6 Oral Presentation

Oral presentations will not be utilized.

2.7 Amendments to Solicitation

If this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. 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 are subject to FAR 15.208.

2.8 Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals

2.8.1 Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in both paper and electronic media to the address located in paragraph 3.11 of this document, and show the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the Offeror. Late proposals will only be considered IAW FAR 15.208, Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals.

2.8.2 Acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the Government installation includes the time/date stamp of that installation on the proposal wrapper, other documentary evidence of receipt maintained by the installation, or oral testimony or statements of Government personnel.

2.8.3 Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received at any time before award. Proposals may be withdrawn in person by an Offeror or an authorized representative, if the identity of the person requesting the withdrawal is established and the person signs a receipt for the proposal before award.

2.9 Alternate Proposals

Proposals that do not address requirements within this ITO or meet program objectives will be considered alternate proposals and will not be considered.

3.0 Proposal Structure

3.1 Organization/Number of Copies

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 3.1 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 copies as specified in Table 3.1. The volumes identified in this table shall be separately bound in three rings, loose leaf binders, as necessary. Page limitations will still apply to each respective volume as shown in Table 3.1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraphs/attachments as noted in the table below. The Title Page of each volume must show solicitation number, name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror and electronic e-mail address if available. A Team List of the Offeror’s primary Point of Contacts (POCs) shall be submitted in each volume using the format shown in Attachment 2.0 of the ITO.

Table 3.1 - Proposal Organization Table

Number

COPIES

HARD

COPIES

PAGE LIMIT

(not to exceed)

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

(Volume II), Para 3.7 Table of Contents

Unlimited

Unlimited

5 (Preferred)

Unlimited

Unlimited

5 pages per contract (requested max.)

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

3.2 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and (for paper copies) will be shredded. If Evaluation Notices (ENs) are issued, page limitations may be placed on responses to those as well. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarded with the ENs to the Offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: blank pages, title pages, tables of contents, lists of tables and drawings, cross-reference matrices, tabs, indexes, glossaries, and all reproduced sections of the solicitation. Page limits apply to both hard and electronic copies.

3.3 Page Size and Format

3.3.1 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. Pages shall be double spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be Times New Roman font and no less than 12 point. 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 and bottom, ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall also apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (EN). These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

3.3.2 Organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, and etc. shall be depicted in tables, charts, graphs, or figures wherever practical. These items shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics, not for pages of text. The following limitation only applies to the Technical Volume. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be Times New Roman font and no smaller than 10 point and searchable for text in MS Word and/or PDF formats. Ensure all tables, charts, graphics and figures in the electronic version of the proposal are pasted into the proposal in a format that allows a word search by the host program (do not paste as pictures). Any text within tables, charts, graphs, and figures which do not meet this requirement will not be considered in the evaluation. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

3.4 Cost/Pricing Related Data

All cost data requested in 6.0 of this section should be in .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2010 or earlier) compatible format. All electronic cost/pricing data submission should be IAW Section 3.10.

All cost or pricing data shall be addressed only in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Price tradeoff 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 tradeoff decisions.

3.5 Classified Information

Classified information is not to be submitted as part of the proposal. A DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, Department of Defense, is required for the performance of this contract. The Offeror must possess, or acquire prior to contract award, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification DD Form 254 attached to this solicitation.

3.6 Cross-Referencing

3.6.1 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.

3.6.2 Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity, but must be hyperlinked IAW Section 3.10.2.

3.6.3 The Offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix indicating by ITO, PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item, using the Government provided template (Table 2.2). The cross-reference matrix does not count towards the volume page limit.

Table 2.2 Cross Reference Matrix

Cross Reference

PWS Para

RFP

Attachment 3 Section L Instructions to Offerors RFP Attachment 4 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

CDRL

Proposal (Volume & Para)

SF1 Software Sustainment Services

SF1

2.2.2a

2.2.2b

SF 2 Modification Services

SF2

2.2.3a

2.2.3b

SF 3 Program Management

SF3

2.2.4a

2.2.4b

2.3 and all subparagraphs

2.4 and all subparagraphs

3.7 Table of Contents

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. Also include an indexed list of tables, charts, graphs and figures.

3.8 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.

3.9 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. The outside of each binder shall include a cover sheet, clearly marked, identifying volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

3.10 Electronic Offers

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. In the event there is a discrepancy between the hard copy and the electronic copy, the hard copy will take precedence and will be used for evaluation. The Offeror shall submit Volumes I through IV in electronic format, using virus-free CD-R. In no cases shall the Offeror use CD-RW. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, annexes, and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be on a separate CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007-2013, MS Office Excel 2007-2013, MS Office Project 2007-2013 , and MS Office Power Point 2007-2013, as applicable, and not in PDF format.

3.10.1 Electronic File Names

For electronic submissions, the file naming convention for the proposal volumes is as follows:

NOTE: You may expand on these file names as appropriate; just provide a list of the content of each electronically, in the master Table of Contents in Volume I. xxxx = appropriate default file extension for document type (e.g., .doc/docx for MS Word, .xls/xlsx for MS Excel, etc.)

3.10.2 Hyperlink

The Table of Contents of all proposal volumes shall be hyperlinked to the corresponding material within each proposal volume such that clicking the mouse on an item in the Table of Contents will take the reader to the corresponding section within the body of the proposal volume. Any heading or sub-heading appearing in the Table of Contents shall be hyperlinked as described above. The Table of Contents shall include the file names, as well as page numbers where content is cross-referenced between subfactors. Also, any reference within the body of the proposal volume that refers the reader to another location within the referring document shall be hyperlinked in the manner described above. Hyperlinking references between different filenames are not necessary.

3.11 Distribution

The original proposal shall be identified “Original”. The proposal shall be addressed to the PCO and mailed or hand-carried to:

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AFLCMC/WLVK

Attn: Capt Benjamin Farber 3001 Staff Dr, STE 1AE1 104A Tinker AFB, OK 73145-3020 benjamin.farber.1@us.af.mil

Delivery of proposals shall be coordinated at least 24 hours in advance of the due date/time with the PCO. Proposals received after the due date and time specified in the solicitation shall be treated IAW FAR 15.208, Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals.

4.0 Volume I – Technical (Factor 1)

4.01 Technical: Information should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The Offeror’s responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions below, provide as specifically as possible the actual approaches (processes/methodologies) and capabilities you would use to accomplish/satisfy the technical subfactors listed in paragraph 4.2, “Technical Subfactors.” All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.1 Format and Specific Content

4.1.1 Technical

In the Technical Volume, address the proposed approach, capabilities, and evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each Technical subfactor.

4.1.2 Volume Organization

The Technical Volume shall be organized according with Table 3.1, Proposal Organization Table.

4.2 Technical Subfactors

The Technical subfactors for the N2CS contract are:

Subfactor 1: Software Sustainment Services Subfactor 2: Modification Services Subfactor 3: Program Management

4.2.1 Subfactor 1: Software Sustainment Services

The Offeror shall describe their approach for Software Support requirements of the PWS. The proposed approach must clearly demonstrate the capability their team possesses for performing software support activities to meet PWS requirements. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

a. A description of how the Offeror plans to administer software sustainment: As a minimum it should entail: details on executing emergency software change to the Message Processing System, detailed software development process ensuring the E-4B maintains its Information Assurance (IA) accreditation, a software development process that meets the intent of CMMI-DEV Level 3 and DO-178C certification to include details of your software development plan (PWS 1.6.7, 1.6.7.3).

b. A description detailing how the Offeror plans to administer software configuration management. As a minimum it should entail: practices and procedures for ensuring configuration management of software from the initial requirement to software fielding, a detailed plan to monitor and implement service literature, software revisions and software patches (PWS 1.6.7, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.4).

c. A plan detailing the Offerors software documentation methodology. As a minimum it should entail: processes and procedures for complying with software quality assurance mandates (PWS 1.6.7, 1.6.7.5).

4.2.2 Subfactor 2: Modification Services

The Offeror shall describe their approach for Weapon System Modification requirements of the PWS. The proposed approach must clearly demonstrate the capability their team possesses for performing software support activities to meet PWS requirements. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

a. The Offeror’s approach to system engineering. As a minimum it should entail: practices and procedures utilized to ensure systems engineering discipline, FAA certification and approval processes, processes that detail stress, structural, cooling, power and weight and balance analysis and integration (PWS 1.6.5, 1.6.5.1, 1.6.5.4, 1.6.5.5).

b. A description of processes to be employed to conduct modification management. As a minimum the processes shall include practices and procedures highlighting modification efforts you would follow for a successful modification effort to include from requirements definition through fielding and sustainment, a description of the documents, products and services you would deliver and how you would meet key milestones of the verification processes to the Government for a modification effort (PWS 1.6.5.3, 1.6.5.6, 1.6.5.8, 1.6.5.9, 1.6.6).

c. The Offeror’s approach to the following scenario #1 (PWS 1.6.5.7):

Description: The E-4B aircraft has several applications of the Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) throughout the aircraft. These UPSs for this scenario are located in the Message Processing System (MPS), Audio Infrastructure Upgrade (AIU), Display Management System (DMS and the Nuclear Planning and Execution System (NPES).

The Offerors shall provide the Government their plan for an engineering approach for the consolidation of multiple UPS currently used for mission systems. This shall include Size, Weight and Power (SWaP), analysis for both the removal of current UPSs, and the installation of consolidated UPSs. The engineering study shall include both Group A and Group B equipment. It shall include cooling requirements, stress and structural, and logistics/supportability analysis.

The study shall include specific SWaP improvements resulting from utilizing a common UPSs and specific locations for equipment.

Assumptions:

· Assume all aircraft are in common configuration

· Control shall be located at the 8.10 console

· All UPSs shall have an Emergency Power Off (EPO) function

d. The Offeror’s approach to the following scenario #2 (PWS 1.6.5 and all applicable subparagraphs):

Description: The Message Processing System (MPS) is a computer based system. It provides enhanced communications capabilities by automatic message reception and storage, simplified message generation, editing and transmission. It also provides control and status of associated communication systems. Connection of various workstations, printers, modems and encryption devices are provided by Internet Protocol (IP) networking.

The MPS consists of Line Replaceable Units (LRU)s located in Console (7.20/7.22), Console (7.30/7.37), and Equipment Rack (11.55). The LRUs contained in each console or equipment rack are listed in the following paragraphs.

· Console (7.20/7.22) contains the MPS Power Control, Secure Workstation Processors (SWP)s, Non-Secure Workstation Processors (NSWP)s, No. 1, 2, 4, Operator Workstations No. 1, 2, 4, MPS Secure Server (MSS) No. 1, Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) Read/Write (R/W) No. 1, DVD R/W No. 4, Printer No. 1, 12-Port Fiber Optic (FO) Junction Box No. 3, 24-Port Fiber Optic Junction Boxes No. 1 and 2, MPS Alarm Panel No. 1, and a Non-Secure 24-Port Fiber Optic Switch.

· Console (7.30/7.37) contains SWP No. 3, NSWP No. 3, Operator Workstation No. 3, MSS No. 2, DVD R/W No. 2, DVD R/W No. 3, Printer No. 2, MPS Alarm Panel No. 2, and 12-Port Fiber Optic Junction Box No. 3.

· Equipment Rack (11.55) consists of 14 Input/Output (I/O) Processors (IOP)s, two 12-Port Fiber Optic Junction Boxes, two Universal Serial Bus to 1553 Adapters, two 1553 Couplers and two Secure 24-Port Fiber Optic Switches.

There are 14 IOPs located in the 11.55 Equipment Rack. The IOPs interface the external communications systems. The IOPs convert IP data from the MPS network to serial data for the communication systems. The IOPs format data into the proper formats required by the communication system. The Multi-Channel Communication Interface (MCCI) board is a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) plug-in board with eight serial ports, and a selectable in- or out-bound MIL-188-114 parallel port. The serial ports can interoperate with Electronic Industries Association (EIA)-232, EIA-422, EIA-423 and EIA-530 interfaces.

Problem Statement: The 11.55 rack, where the IOPs are housed, has issues with humidity/condensation under certain flight conditions that causes water pooling in IOP which results in IOP failure.

The Offerors shall provide a modification plan for the IOPs that may consist of IOP redesign, IOP location change, rack modification, Environmental Control System (ECS) or any other Offeror proposed solution. The solution shall include design, engineering (software and hardware), manufacture, procurement, installation, testing, documentation, program management, logistics recommendation, and training for one prototype aircraft and three production aircraft installs, consisting of both Group A and Group B.

The Offerors shall recommend a list of all necessary deliverables.

The Offeror’s proposed modification will adhere to all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness regulations, and the DO-160G environmental requirements.

Offerors shall explain how they meet or intend to meet the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level III processes.

The Offeror’s proposed modification shall not degrade the current MPS capability.

Assumptions:

· All aircraft are in the same configuration

· Prototype and production installations will occur during aircraft depots at Boeing San Antonio, TX or installed during a four week Isochronal Inspection window at Offutt AFB, NE

· Government will have Government purpose rights to data produced, unless annotated by Offeror

4.2.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management

The Offeror shall describe their approach for the Program Management Support and Field Services Representative requirements of the PWS. The proposed approach must clearly demonstrate the capability and experience their team possesses for performing program management activities to meet PWS requirements. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential elements:

a. An approach that describes the Offeror’s program management plan. As a minimum this approach will address: processes for performing planning, accurate status reporting, monitoring, and adapting to changing workloads, assuring quality of analysis, a risk management process that includes cost, schedule, performance, technical and logistics planning. This approach should also address how the Offeror will meet the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 and AS9100 Quality System Standards (PWS 1.6.1, 4.1.8).

b. A transition approach to manage and accomplish contract transition and phase in. As a minimum, the approach must include hiring key technical positions (to include Field Service Representatives) with personnel who possess sufficient relevant education and experience, procedures for attaining and maintaining required security clearances for personnel and facilities, completing all workforce requirements, establishment of sub-contracts, establishment of OEM support agreements, establishment of transition milestones, transition milestone entrance/exit criteria, and strategy to meet contractual requirements at the beginning of full performance (PWS 1.6.1.4, 1.6.2, 1.6.4, 4.1.8.6, 4.1.8.7, 4.1.8.8).

c. A plan for Small Business Requirements for the E-4B N2CS program. As a minimum, the plan shall describe how the Offeror will establish and maintain subcontract arrangements and relationships for the basic and each option period addressing the Government Small Business requirement of 20% of the total contract value as outlined in “Appendix F- Small Business Requirements” which is in addition to the Small Business subcontracting plan (52.219-9).

5.0 Volume II - Past Performance (Factor 2)

5.1 General

Each Offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO. The Past Performance volume shall include 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, and scope, magnitude and complexity. The Government Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) evaluates each member of the Offeror’s team for relevancy and performance, 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. 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.

5.2 Early Proposal Information

5.2.1 Each Offeror is requested to submit the Past Performance Volume 14 calendar days prior to the proposal due date. However, past performance information will be accepted up to the due date. Failure to submit early past performance information will not result in Offeror disqualification.

5.2.2 Offerors are required to comply with the Past Performance Information (PPI) tool IAW ITO Attachment 1.1. Offerors must use the latest version from FBO.gov in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume IAW the solicitation. Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (see ITO Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter (see ITO Attachment 1.3) to all POCs the Offeror has listed in the PPI tool. The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by email directly to Capt Benjamin Farber at benjamin.farber.1@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 Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary.

5.3 Consent and Client Authorization Letters

The Offeror shall submit a consent letter (see ITO Attachment 1.4, Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form for the Release of Past and Present Performance Information to the Prime Contractor), signed and executed by the subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall submit a client authorization letter signed by the commercial client (see ITO Attachment 1.5, Sample Client Authorization Letter), authorizing release to the Government of information on the Offeror's performance.

5.4 Recent/Relevant Contracts

The Offeror shall provide Past Performance Information (PPI) on current or previous contracts. The PPI forms shall be completed in accordance with Section L, Attachment 1.1, and Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors. The Offeror shall submit contracts which include all or some performance within the past five (5) years, as defined in Section M, para 2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment. Request each Offeror submit up to three (3) PPI forms for the prime contractor, and up to two (2) PPI forms for all subcontractors/teaming partners and/or joint venture partners who the Offeror considers essential to overall successful performance.

NOTE: The requested number of PPI forms 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 PPI forms are not automatically assigned an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable, if the Government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Request each PPI form not exceed a target of 5 pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary. Please only submit information on subcontractors and teaming partners performing key or major portions of the N2CS effort.

5.4.1 PPI Relevant Contract Narrative

For each PPI form, 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, Factor 3 Price, and scope, magnitude, and complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2, and should be tailored to the proposed portion of effort. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical subfactors and price assessment 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. 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.

5.4.2 Organizational Structure Change History (Roadmap)

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 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, Offeror shall include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of the Offerors 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), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources. This historical roadmap will not count against the page limits of Volume III Past Performance.

6.0 Volume III – Price (Factor 3)

In the price volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information to include the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 1) of the solicitation. These instructions are to assist you in submitting information required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed price. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal.

6.1 General Instructions

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal. FAR Part 15 applies; this is not a commercial effort.

6.1.1 Pricing Data Requirements

FAR Part 15 applies. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of cost or pricing data. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, data other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate. If the PCO determines proposed prices to appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement; the Offeror may be required to support price reasonableness via data other than certified cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, you shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

NOTE: The To be Negotiated (TBN) CLINs will require cost or pricing data at the time of negotiation after award as outlined in the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) X401 description.

6.1.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing will be evaluated using the Attachment 1 Pricing Matrix (electronic cost model). The TEP is calculated as the sum of the Base Period (2 month transition), five (5) one-year Option Periods, two (2) one-year Incentive Option Periods, and six (6) month Extension Period. The Offeror shall propose unit pricing per CLIN as requested in the solicitation model contract and Attachment 1 Pricing Matrix (electronic cost model).

6.2 Price Reasonableness, Balanced Pricing, and Price Realism Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance and realism. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror. Additionally, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

6.2.1 Price Reasonableness

Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. Unreasonable proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Price reasonableness is based on total evaluated proposed price and must represent a price to the government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through proposal analysis techniques. To assist in the price reasonableness assessment, you are required to provide supporting explanation/rationale as outlined in the Price Volume. Your offer shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate price reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed pricing rests with the Offeror. It shall be noted that completeness is one aspect of price reasonableness – all required pricing shall be provided as complete pricing.

6.2.2 Balanced Pricing

The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that exhibits unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonable prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques such that there is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest TEP. Also, an offer could be so grossly unbalanced that an acceptance of the offer would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment. Balanced pricing is determined with respect to separately priced CLINs or significant unexplained variance within one CLIN’s pricing from year to year. If what appears to be unbalanced pricing is due to sound rationale associated with, for example, the proposal’s technical approach, Offeror’s shall provide an explanation to account for any pricing that appears unbalanced.

6.2.3 Price Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. Proposed pricing must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and does not pose a risk to performance. To assist in the price realism assessment, Offerors are required to provide supporting explanation/rationale as outlined in this ITO.

6.3 Pricing Support Information

6.3.1 Estimating System

Provide a summary description of the Offeror’s standard estimating system or methods. Also, identify any deviations from the Offeror’s standard estimating procedures in preparing this proposal volume. If no deviations are applicable than state accordingly in the Price volume. Indicate whether the Offeror has Government Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) approval of the Offeror’s system and if so, provide evidence of such approval.

6.3.2 Purchasing System

Provide a summary description of the Offeror’s purchasing system or methods (e.g., how material requirements are determined, how sources are selected, when firm quotes are obtained, what provision is made to ensure quantity and other discounts). Also, identify any deviations from the Offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal. If no deviations are applicable than state accordingly in the Price volume. Indicate whether the Offeror has Government (DCMA) approval of the Offeror’s system and if so, provide evidence of such approval.

6.3.3 Accounting System.

Provide a summary of the Offeror’s current accounting system. Offerors shall consider FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), FAR 9.104-1(e), DFARS 209.104-1(e) when providing an accounting system summary. Indicate whether you have Government determination of adequacy of your accounting or cost estimating system and if so, provide evidence of such adequacy determination. If Offerors do not currently have an adequate accounting system they shall complete and submit a “Pre-award Accounting System Adequacy Checklist” found on the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) website at http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_system_adequacy_checklist.html. Also, identify any deviations from your standard procedures in preparing this proposal. If no deviations are applicable than state accordingly in the Price volume. If your accounting system has been disapproved in whole or in part, provide the status of action taken to correct noted deficiencies. In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), the Offeror must have an adequate accounting system to be awardable.

6.3.4 Time & Material (T&M) Rate Support

CLIN X302 includes T&M rates for labor. The proposed labor rates for each of the Government specified labor categories should be fully burdened and include all applicable direct costs, indirect costs, and profit. T&M rates should be proposed as composite ceiling rates. Ceiling rates are those rates proposed for all performance periods and are considered fixed at the proposed amount. Offerors are to indicate their understanding of proposed ceiling rates, acknowledging that such rates will apply to contract out-years in the future despite what current actuals are running at the time. Offerors shall populate the pricing cells in the “CLIN X302 T&M” spreadsheet within the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 1), as appropriate, according to the instructions on the worksheet. The Government will use this worksheet to price all future contractual T&M awards.

6.3.5 Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods Explain the methodology used to estimate prices in the development of your proposed pricing. A variety of estimating techniques and methods are acceptable as a basis of estimate in proposed pricing. When responding to the Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and associated subcontractors may use any generally accepted estimating techniques consistent with the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement as appropriate. The government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) as considered necessary.

6.3.6 Past Experience Basis of Estimates

Where price estimates are based on past experience, identify the past experience, explain how the past experience relates to the current effort including similarities and differences and how price data available from the past experiences was adapted to the current effort pricing.

6.3.7 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision If proposed prices to perform the required effort have been decreased due to a management decision, provide a summary of the reduction by major cost element (e.g., material, labor, overhead, profit, etc.). Also, provide complete rationale for the reduction. Provide the estimated dollar and percentage of the reduction, explaining how such reductions are ensured not to increase performance risk to the Government. If there is no proposed price reduction, then state accordingly in the Price Volume.

6.3.8 Subcontractor and Vendor Pricing

Submit a list of the proposed probable subcontractors/vendors and inter-divisional transfers showing (a) the supplier, (b) description of effort, and (c) type of contract. As prime contractor, documentation is required to demonstrate subcontractor/vendor quotes are considered fair and reasonable. Include a detailed description of your process for evaluating subcontractor/vendor pricing and how you determined fair and reasonable pricing of subcontractors/vendors.

6.3.9 Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to two (2) decimal places to the right of the decimal point. Proposed material handling rates and travel G&A shall be rounded to four (4) decimal places to the right of the decimal point. The electronic cost model (Attachment 1) format provides for decimal places that must be in accordance with this required decimal format. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

6.3.10 Annual Price Changes

Proposed price increases greater than 5% per year shall be verified and addressed for reasonableness and balanced pricing in this section. Unexplained unit price variances between sequential performance period years could suggest unbalanced pricing. It is in the Offeror’s best interest to provide an explanation of any significant annual CLIN price variances.

6.3.11 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing Information to support reasonableness of proposed pricing is required including supporting data and estimating methodology to support price reasonableness.