SCAI_Pre-Solicitation_Tele-Conference_-_17_Mar_14_FINAL.pdf

Headquarters U. S. Air Force I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

B-1 Self-Contained Attitude Indicator (SCAI) Pre-Solicitation Tele-Conference for

Request for Proposal (RFP) # FA8107-14-R-0001 17 March 2014

WELCOME

Sign-in

Open Communication is Encouraged

WELCOME

Agenda

Welcome & Introductions Statement of Work (Appendix A) & Systems Requirements Document

(Appendix B)

NAICS

Overview Instructions to Offerors (Appendix D) Overview Evaluation Criteria (Appendix E) Vol I Technical Requirements Vol II Past Performance Requirements Vol III Cost/Price Vol IV Contract Typical Shortfalls Government Source Selection Process

INTRODUCTIONS

Col. Michael Senseney, B-1 System Program Manager Ms. Georgette Strub, Deputy Contracting Division Chief Maisie Raju, Contracting Officer Damien Cooper, Program Manager Greg Van Swearingen, Engineer Van Garmon, Source Selection Advisor

Disclaimer

The formal solicitation is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements.

These slides are for general information and will not take precedence over the formal solicitation

Any presentation points in the following briefing or any ensuing discussions DO NOT constitute direction to the contractor. Only the Contracting Officer can communicate direction to the Contractor to initiate, change, or suspend work performance.

Following details is preliminary information only All information provided is subject to change Government is not currently soliciting proposals Time for Questions will be provided

Official written responses will be posted on FedBizOpps website with non-attribution

Verbal questions and answers are not binding

Overview

This briefing/training is to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions.

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary.

Rules of Engagement

Questions may be addressed to anyone on the team today only

All other communication & questions must be addressed to the PCO after the conference is over

Be professional

Formal responses to all questions will be provided via

FBO

Statement of Work & System

Requirements Document

Background

Provide for the B-1B Fleet a single Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) that provides the same functionality as the current Standby Altimeter, Standby Airspeed/Mach Indicator, and the Standby Attitude Indicator. This Self-Contained Attitude Indicator (SCAI) shall meet all requirements as stated in the SCAI System Requirements Documents (SRD). Also for the B- 1B Fleet, aircraft installation kits will be provided.

A production SCAI shall be demonstrated via a prototype aircraft installation and test effort. Data needed to install, operate, and maintain the SCAI shall be provided.

STANDBY INSTRUMENT

CONFIGURATION CURRENT

SCAI INSTALLATION

LEGACY SCHEMATIC

SCAI INSTALLATION

IBS SCHEMATIC

SOW

1.1 Scope/General

Single instrument replaces multiply instruments Task also requires integration into aircraft

1.3 Associate Contractor Agreement

Boeing is the Prime Integrator and has engineering data that will be necessary to execute the integration

1.4 Government Furnished Property

There is no GFP envisioned by the government at this time.

1.5 Inspections and Acceptance

Will be accomplished at source by DCMA; this is true for both kits (A and B)

1.6 Security

Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with all requirement in the DD Form 254

1.7 Data Rights

All data that is generated under this task and delivered to the government shall be annotated with “unlimited rights”

1.8 Airworthiness Certification

Contractor shall be responsible for providing the data elements cited in this paragraph to support government airworthiness certification for this modification

1.9 Safety

Contractor shall be responsible for generation and delivery of Safety Assessment Report (SAR).

2.1 Referenced Documentation

Listed in the SOW

2.2 Attachments to SOW

LP032-0024-0001 shall be provided to all vendors System Requirements Document (SRD)

3.1 Engineering Requirements

3.1.1 Single Unit replacing multiple units

3.1.2 The modification shall comply with all B-1 SCAI

SRD requirements

3.1.3 LRU shall have unit technology readiness level

defined as:

“…System that has completed development and has been “flight qualified” through test and demo in a flight environment similar to that of the B-1B.”

3.1.4 Modification shall interface with existing B-1

Standby Instrument Architecture No structural alteration of instrument panel shall be required Modification shall ensure all openings in the instrument panel are sufficiently covered Modification shall have no known DMS issues

3.1.5 Engineering Installation Data

Top Kit Drawing Sub-Kit Drawings Installation Instructions

3.1.6 Test Data

Contractor shall be responsible for providing the following documentation for both Ground Test and Flight Test:

– test plan

– test procedure

– test report

3.1.7 Environmental Qualification Test

The contractor shall deliver a single qualification report that identifies where, when and how all dynamic and environmental qualifications identified in the SRD have been complied with.

In the event the contractor wishes to show compliance by substituting a commercial standard for the military standard, the contractor must demonstrate equivalency between the two standards.

3.1.8 Temporary Modification Package

The contractor shall provide a temporary modification package for the purpose of initial installation on a B-1B aircraft.

– The temporary modification package shall contain all drawings, special instructions, procedures, tools and materials necessary to successfully install the modification.

– The temporary modification package shall also include wire verification test procedures and modification checkout procedures.

– The temporary modification package shall also include a de-modification procedures section.

3.1.9 Certification and Verification of Manuals

The contractor shall provide support to the Air Force for the purpose of verification of manuals once manuals have been certified by contractor.

3.1.10 Installation Kit Design

Kit must be installable by Air Force personnel within a 24 man-hour period.

3.1.11 Time Compliant Technical Order ITCTO) and

Technical Order (TO) Source Data General series tech orders/job guides/wire diagrams/flight manuals

3.1.12 Production

3.1.12.1: Contractor shall deliver enough kits to modify fleet 3.1.12.2: Contractor shall provide repair support for the duration of the install (ICS line) 3.1.12.3: Contractor shall provide technical support via telephone during the first two years of installation.

3.1.13 Training

The contractor shall be responsible for providing Type 1 training at both main operating bases.

3.2 Technical Reviews

Provide EMD schedule to meets reviews listed Specify agenda items & provide briefing material Schedule an in-process review & pre-publication review

3.3 Item Unique Identification

Required for all unit acquisition cost of $5,000.00 or more.

3.4 Packaging, Handling, Shipping and Transportation

Use industry standards Contractor will ship kits to locations directed by the PM or CO

3.5 Warranty

The contractor shall clearly identify all terms and conditions associated with any applicable warranty.

3.6 Hazardous Waste Disposal

Contractor shall be responsible for proper disposal of any hazardous waste generated by this modification.

3.8 Change Request

Contractor must follow procedures as outlined in the SOW.

3.9 Change Evaluation

The PCO will be the only approval authority for any changes requested by the contractor.

3.10 Program Management

Provide monthly program status reports electronically Include progress of each assigned task, etc.

3.11 Program Cost

Report cost during EMD phase Use WAWF

3.12 Quality

The contractor shall be responsible for generating and complying with a quality program plan for this tasking.

4.0 Travel

Authorized travel expenses IAW JTR, FAR 31, and NTE amounts in the contract

Travel requests shall be submitted to PCO NLT 5 business days prior to traveling

Significant Changes to SOW

Updated SOW Paragraph 3.1.6 Test data

Added: Ground Test, Wire Termination Test, Power Input Test, EMC Test and Disturbed Systems Test

Paragraph 3.1.8 Temporary Modification Package Added: Provision for demodification package

SRD

1. Scope/Introduction Questions?

Table 1 – Applicable Documents Questions?

3.1 Functional Requirements

All functional requirements must be met directly or with a mitigation plan in order for the proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

Questions?

3.2 Environmental Requirements

All environmental requirements must be met directly or with a mitigation plan in order for the proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

All environmental requirements identified in paragraph

3.2 can be demonstrated thru lab test procedures and results. No flight testing is required.

3.3 Dynamic Environment Requirements

All environmental requirements must be met directly or with a mitigation plan in order for the proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

All environmental requirements identified in paragraph

3.3 can be demonstrated thru lab test procedures and results. No flight testing is required.

3.4 Human Factor Requirements

All environmental requirements must be met directly or with a mitigation plan in order for the proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

Contractor shall be responsible for providing test data that verifies requirements in this paragraph have been met.

3.5 Restrictions

Questions?

3.6 General Requirements

All general requirements must be met directly or with a mitigation plan in order for the proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

Contractor shall be responsible for providing test data that verifies requirements in this paragraph have been met.

3.7 Failure Reporting Requirements

All failure reporting requirements must be met directly or with a mitigation plan in order for the proposal to be considered technically acceptable.

Questions?

4 Verification Methods

5 Requirements Traceability Questions?

Appendix A Questions?

Appendix B Questions?

Update SCAI Dimensional Requirements

Appendix C Provide RBM to contractors

Appendix D

Significant Changes to SRD

Appendix B Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes KPP - SCAI Dimensional Requirements

Changed dimensions requirement to more restrictive

NAICS Codes

334511 - Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

336411- Aircraft Manufacturing http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/

Can all companies register under either NAICS listed above?

http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/

Overview Appendix D-

Section L Instructions to

Offerors

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

First, read the ITO (Appendix D) Second, send out your questionnaires, authorization letters, and consent letters Read the Evaluation Factors for Award (Appendix E) Prepare your proposal exactly according to the instructions Submit your proposal before the closing date and time

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Section L (Appendix D) The government intends to award without discussions Provide all the required information in your proposal This is your guide for preparing your proposal Specific instructions on format and content Non-conformance with the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation Clear, concise, include sufficient detail Substantiate the validity of your claims Do not repeat the SOW or SRD in your proposal Do not use up space explaining your awards and kudos

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Proposals need to be valid for 180 days Provide the correct number of copies of your proposal Government will retain one copy

Address all questions and concerns to the PCO Address is located in section 3.13 or email

Maisie.Raju@us.af.mil If requested, debriefings will be held with those excluded from the competitive range or determined unsuccessful (Section 3.2)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Discrepancies Notify the PCO immediately with the error and remedy

Electronic Documents http://www.fbo.gov

Oral presentations will not be utilized

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Amendments to Solicitation All terms and conditions not amended remain unchanged and in full force and effect You must acknowledge receipt of any amendments by signing and returning the amendments with your proposal

– This is also your acknowledgement of understanding

Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposal Must be in sealed envelope or package Paper media and electronic format Addressed to PCO Address in Section A of RFP Fill in all information in Section A of RFP

– Name, address, CAGE code of offeror and signature

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

In each volume Title Page

Solicitation number Name Address Telephone Facsimile Email address

Team List Use the proposal organization table (Table 1)

This table is not inclusive of all information that must be submitted

You must submit a complete proposal package General outline of each volume

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Page Limitations These are maximums Excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation See Table 1 for maximum pages

Cost or pricing information Address only in the Cost/Price Proposal (Volume III)

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Cross Referencing Each volume should stand-alone Do not use cross referencing between volumes Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

Indexing Use a Table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume Tab indexing is important to identify sections In the technical volume, identify each evaluation factor with a tab Include an indexed list of Tables and Figures

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Glossary Abbreviations and Acronyms Include an explanation for each

Requirements Correlation Matrix

Insert Proposal Volume & Paragraph numbers – Not yet provided

Page size and format

8.5 x 11 inches - Spacing is 1.5 lines Each side counts as one page Text size no less than Arial 12 1-inch margins for top and bottom ¾-inch margins for each side Pages numbered sequentially by volume Use the same format for electronic and hard copy proposals Use tables, charts, graphs, and figures wherever practical

A picture is sometimes easier to understand

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Do not exceed 11 x 17 for tables, charts, graphs, etc.

Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as a single page Fold out pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text Technical volume

Text within all figures, charts, tables and graphs to include imbedded images shall be no less than Arial 8-pt.

Applies to both electronic and hard copy We must be able to read the text in order to evaluate it

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Binding and labeling Use a 3-ring, loose leaf binder Must lay flat when opened Do not use staples Use a cover sheet on each volume

Cover sheet and spine must have identifying data Volume number Title Copy number Solicitation number Offeror’s name

Do not use red or other applicable security designation colors Apply your applicable markings

FAR 52.215-1(e) Restrictions FAR 3.104-4 Disclosure, Protection, and Marking

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Electronic Offers Must be identical to hard copies Written hard copies take precedence Identify each CD with the following

Offer name Volume number and title Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions such as subfactors, plans, exhibits, appendices and attachments Volumes I through V must be submitted in electronic format If compressed provide the decompression program Only acceptable formats

– MS Word 2007 or 2010

– MS Excel 2007 or 2010

– MS Project 2007 or 2010

– MS Power Point 2007 or 2010

– MS Office XP

Requirements Correlation Matrix

Reference SOW SRD Sections L&M CLIN CDRL Proposal Vol & Para

Technical

Technical Risk

Past Performance

Price

Requirements Correlation Matrix, Appendix D-Section L

Government Fill-In

Volume I

Volume I – Technical Proposal Be specific and complete Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important Explain your actual methodology for accomplishing the subfactors All requirements are mandatory and must be included with your initial proposal Address your proposed approach Provide the documents requested Meet the minimum performance or capability requirements Address each subfactor in detail Address all requirements in Section 4 of the ITO

Volume I – Technical Proposal See Table 1

Title page Team List Index Tabs Table of Contents List of tables and figures Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Address each subfactor in detail All other requirements in Section 4

Technical Factor 1 Subfactor 1: Instrument Panel Subfactor 2: System Requirement Document (SRD)

Requirements Subfactor 3: Installation Design Subfactor 4: Program Schedule Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation

Technical Risk Factor 2

Volume II

Volume II – Past Performance Use format in Attachment 1.1 All significant subcontractors partners and/or joint venture partners Significant subcontractor/teaming partner

Any vendor performing more than 10% of the total requirements

The government will use this data and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance Submit a consent letter (Attachment 1.4) executed by each subcontractor, etc. authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

Submit Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 1.5) All past performance information is due 15 days before the solicitation closing date Start submitting Attachment 1.2 and 1.3 now or as soon as possible Have your POCs fax/e-mail them as soon as possible.

Volume II

Volume II – Past Performance Relevant contracts

Submit Attachment 1.1 on up to 3 recent, relevant contracts for the prime

Submit Attachment 1.1 on up to 3 recent, relevant contracts for each significant subcontractor demonstrating their ability to perform on the proposed effort

Refer to Section L on the number of PPIS forms which satisfies your proposal submittal

Make sure they are relevant –

– Similar service, complexity, scope, type, magnitude, schedule

– Similar breadth and depth of skills

» Address each in your PPIS narrative Make sure they are recent

– Performed during the past (3) three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation

Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

Past and Present Performance Information Sheets

(PPIS)

ITO attachment 1.1 Frank, precise comments are required Explain the required performance Up to 3 for the prime contractor Up to 3 for each significant subcontractor

Volume III

Volume III – Cost/Price Volume General Information

Prices are evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, and balance

Compliance with the instructions is mandatory Failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal Information beyond that required by the instructions shall not be submitted unless it is essential to support your position Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal

Appendix E Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Factors for Award

Read Evaluation Factors Appendix E-Section M Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements

The Government intends to award without discussions

Source Selection

Basis for Contract Award Tradeoff Source Selection utilizing technical proposals Tradeoffs made between Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price Only Technically acceptable Offerors only

Best Value Award Decision Government is not obligated to hold discussions nor delay the decision brief awaiting an Offeror to complete this requirement Government reserves the right to hold discussions if determined necessary

Award Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9 Conforms to the solicitation requirements Could result in award to high rated, higher priced offeror that is technically acceptable Initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint

One Prime Contractor for this acquisition Government reserves the right to not award a contract at all Correction of Proposals

Sole discretion of the Government Could be eliminated from competitive range

Not considered correctable To many corrections to meet Government requirement

Government may reject any proposal found Unreasonable in terms of program commitments

Terms and conditions Unreasonably high or low in cost Reflects an inherent lack of competence Failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program

Competitive Range Determination Multiple competitive range determinations Offeror’s can be eliminated after:

Initial proposal evaluation results After discussions Prior to issuance of Final Proposal Revision For efficiency

If eliminated Offeror’s can request debriefing IAW FAR 15.505

Evaluation Factors

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Instrument Panel Subfactor 2: System Requirement Document (SRD) Requirements Subfactor 3: Installation Design Subfactor 4: Program Schedule Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation

Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors Technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between cost/price, technical risk and past performance For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis of approximately equal to Factor 4 (Cost/Price)

Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the award decision.

Evaluation Methodology The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each Offeror Technical team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis Ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable

Technical team will evaluate technical risk Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply the products and services, including cost and schedule Based on a demonstrated record of performance

Evaluation Methodology (Con’t) The Offerors’ pricing proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each Offeror The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one rating Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each proposal

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor Subfactor 1: Instrument Panel Structure Subfactor 2: SRD Requirement Subfactor 3: Installation Design Subfactor 4: Schedule Subfactor 5: Small Business

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2: Technical Risk The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on weaknesses and mitigation strategies associated with offeror’s proposal approach for the subfactors listed in Factor 1 – Technical.

It considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs degradation of performance the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The risk ratings are defined as follows:

FACTOR 3: Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply the products and services, including cost and schedule

This evaluation is based on a demonstrated record of performance

With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor

FACTOR 4: Cost/Price The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed pricing evaluation methodology calculations

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only

TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided at Appendix F

FACTOR 4: Cost/Price Reasonableness

Proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness Pricing will also be evaluated for completeness Analysis of cost/price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness

Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business

– Unreasonably low prices or estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement

– Underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of “getting well” or recovering under-bid costs after contract award is cautioned

FACTOR 4: Cost/Price Unbalanced Pricing

Proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced

– Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more contract line items (CLINs) is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques

Offerors may provide supporting explanation in the initial proposal of variance in pricing that suggests lack of balance

– Should include reasons for the widely varying proposed pricing based on cost assumptions utilized in the development of the pricing proposal. Keeping in mind the Government intends to award without discussions

Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data Submit Complete pricing proposals that fulfill

– Additional information that is not required is neither requested nor desired by the Government

Pre-award Survey The Government may conduct a pre-award survey

– If used, results will be evaluated to determine Offeror’s capability

Solicitation Requirements – Terms and Conditions Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award

Clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale

If a discrepancy exists between the Section L, ITO, and Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M will take precedence.

CLIN Structure

CLIN Contract Type Effort

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (Estimated Cost) EMD

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (Fixed Fee) EMD

Performance Incentive Performance Incentive

0004 Installation Kits

0004AA Firm Fixed Price Installaton Kits

0004AB Firm Fixed Price Installation Kits

0004AC Firm Fixed Price Installation Kits 0005 Spares

0005AA Firm Fixed Price Spares

0005AB Firm Fixed Price Spares 0006 Fixed Price Over & Above All Ordering Period

Not Seperately Priced Data

0008 Cost Reimbursable Travel

Provide sufficient details

Technical Evaluation Details needed

Who?

What?

When?

Why?

Where?

How often?

Quality assurance/appropriate standard?

Technical Subfactors

Volume I and Evaluation

Technical Subfactors

Do Requirements Correlation Matrix Address each subfactor/element

Do not

Write a CSOW Do not regurgitate the SOW/SRD Fluff PR or marketing Give past performance in the technical

This briefing/training was designed to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions.

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary.

The Final RFP takes precedence over these slides.

Read the Final RFP.

Subfactor 1: Instrument Panel Structure

(L) The offeror shall provide an approach that shall include

(a) Proposed dimensions of the “as installed” modification

(b) Dimensional analysis that proves why the proposed solution shall not require any modifications to the existing panel structure IAW SRD 3.6.6 & SOW 3.1.4

(M) Evaluation Factor Government will assess Offeror’s proposed technical approach without modification to existing structure Offeror is required to present all information stated in section L To be acceptable the offorer must indicate

Adequate understanding of the requirements Provide convincing rational that no modification shall be required

Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements

(L) The offeror shall provide data to demonstrate the proposed unit shall meet all requirements established in the SRD

Or shall present a technically acceptable mitigation plan to bring unit into compliance

If unit meets all SRD requirements, the Offeror must address elements a and c

If unit does not meet all SRD requirements, the offeror must address elements b and c

Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements

(M) Government will assess Offeror’s proposed approach.

Offeror is required to present all information stated in section L The subfactor minimum is met when proposal indicates

Adequate understanding of the requirements Provide convincing rational that the proposed unit will meet all requirements of the specified elements.

For offerors who propose a solution is without mitigation, the applicable subfactor element is met when the proposed solution is deemed technically acceptable in accordance with all SRD requirements.

Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements- elements

(L) a. The offeror shall clearly identify how the proposed unit meets all requirements specified in the SRD without mitigation.

(M) a. For offerors who propose a unit meets all SRD requirements, the subfactor element is met when the Offeror successfully demonstrates how the unit meets each SRD requirement.

(L) b. The offeror’s proposed unit does not meet all requirements in the SRD, the offer shall:

1. Clearly identify and provide rational describing what SRD requirements are met by the proposed unit.

2. Clearly identify all SRD requirements that are not met.

3. For those requirements identified in 2 above, clearly quantify the differences(s) between the SRD requirements and the proposed unit.

4. For those requirements identified in 2 above, clearly identify what mitigation actions will be pursued during the execution to bring the proposed unit into fill compliance with the requirements identified in the SRD.

(M) b. For offeror who proposed a solution requiring mitigation, the subfactor element is met when the offeror successfully:

1. Identifies those SRD requirements that are met by the proposed unit and demonstrates how each instance meets the requirement identified in the SRD

2. Identifies those SRD requirements that are not met by the proposed unit

3. Quantifies the difference(s) stated in 2 above between the proposed unit and the requirements specified in the SRD

4. Identifies what mitigation actions will be pursued during execution of this effort to ensure the proposed solution is in full compliance with the requirements identified in the SRD

(L) c. The offeror shall clearly and concisely identify that the proposed unit has either:

completed development and has been “flight qualified” through test and demo in a flight environment similar to that of a B-1B Or had demonstrated functional performance in an actual system; that is, “flight proven” through successful operation

(M) c. For all offerors, the proposal shall demonstrate how the proposed unit has either been “flight qualified” through test and demo in a flight environment similar to that of a B-1B Or has been “flight proven” through successful operation.

A proposed unit which is a prototype or a system model that has not been “flight qualified” or “flight proven” shall be considered unacceptable.

Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements- NOTE

(L) NOTE: Where offeror cites a MIL-STD based requirement compliant by meeting a commercial or FAA standard; offeror shall clearly demonstrate the commercial or FAA standard’s equivalence with MIL- STDs referenced in the SRD.

Subfactor 3: Installation Design

(L) The offeror shall provide a proposed design such that the modification can be installed on a B-1B aircraft by Air Force personnel with 24 man-hours.

The proposed installation design must address the following:

Proposed aircraft locations where new equipment will be installed or changed, an installation concept, and an estimate of man-hours required for each installation procedure

Estimated items that require removal for installation or assess, and an estimate of man-hours required for each operation

Estimated aircraft wiring changes (modifications, deletions, or new installation) and provide an estimate of man-hours required for each installation procedure

Estimate of post-installation procedures that is necessary to operationally check the installed system; this could include any disturbed systems checks driven by equip. removal for installation access

Subfactor 3: Installation Design

(M) Government will assess Offeror’s proposed installation design.

Offeror is required to present all information stated in section L

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’ s design indicates:

Adequate understanding of the requirements Ensures the unit can be successfully installed by Air

Force personnel within 24 man-hours.

Subfactor 4: Program Schedule

(L) The offeror shall provide a notional schedule that is representative of the contents required by DID XXXX as identified in SOW paragraph 3.2.

The approach must identify the key tasks with scheduled dates that must be completed to meet the required schedule.

(M) Government will assess Offeror’s proposed notional program schedule.

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements identified in CDRL AXXX, DID XXXX and meets the requirements.

(L) The offeror shall provide an approach to describe the ability to establish and maintain subcontract arrangements and relationships, identifying the flow-down of system requirements, activities and performance which addresses the requirements of TAFB H-02, Small Business Requirements.

This is in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9.

(M) Government will assess Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation.

Offeror is required to present all information stated in section L

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates:

Adequate understanding of the requirements Provides convincing rationale which ensures the requirements of clause TAFB H-02 “Small Business Subcontracting Requirements” are met.

This requirement is in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which is not part of this subfactor evaluation.

H-02 Small Business Subcontracting Requirements Applies to Large Businesses (LB) The magnitude of this contract may require many businesses to team, partner, and/or subcontract with other businesses (large and small) Government set a SB subcontracting requirement of at least 3.5% of total obligated dollars for this contract.

All large businesses are required to meet & maintain the SB subcontracting requirement throughout the life of the contract.

Terms are expressed in percent of contract value in addition to percent of subcontracted amount LBs are required to subcontract 3.5% of total contract value to small businesses Second-tier (subcontractor two levels below prime contractor) awards may be considered in meeting or exceeding requirements. No lower tier is considered.

Subcontracting requirement will be reviewed annually & rated as an element in

CPARS IAW DFARS 219.705-4

The offeror must propose a small business subcontract target (%) of the total obligated dollars for this contract.

Factor 2: Technical Risk

(L) The offeror shall address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of the offeror’s proposed technical approach for all elements in Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 2 SRD Requirements Subfactor 3 Installation Design Subfactor 4 Program schedule

The offeror shall address all Technical Risk considered to have potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The offeror shall provide the rational for each risk, including quantitate estimates of the impacts on cost, schedule and performance.

The offeror shall describe the accomplishment of contract requirements (for example SOW requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors.

For each risk the offeror identifies, the offeror shall outline how the risk is eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level in the proposed mitigation plan.

(M) The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on weaknesses and mitigation strategies associated with the offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactors listed in Factor 1-Technical.

And considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs degradation of performance the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical subfactors 2, 3, and 4 will be evaluated for technical risk and will receive a single risk rating for all three subfactors combined.

The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Rating

Description – Technical Risk

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Past Performance Volume II & Evaluations

The government will use this data and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance Submit a consent letter (Attachment 1.4) executed by each subcontractor, etc. authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

Submit Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 1.5) All past performance information is due 15 days before the solicitation closing date Start submitting Attachment 1.2 and 1.3 now or as soon as possible Have your POCs FAX or email them in as soon as possible.

Volume II

Volume II – Past Performance Relevant Contracts (Cont.)

Evaluation will focus on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price

Do:

Structure PPIS narrative around Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Address relevance of each element under each Technical Subfactor Utilize Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity to address Relevance

Do Not:

Address performance within the PPIS other than responding to known adverse past performance Address relevance of past performance in which the prime or partner are not proposed to perform on the B-1 Submit Past Performance questionnaires from individuals who work for the prime or proposed subcontractor

Specific Content Narrative explaining

What aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort

What aspects of the proposed effort do they relate

– Address scope, magnitude, and complexity

Efforts to resolve problems encountered Past efforts to identify and manage program risk How you overcame problems encountered Management Actions employed in overcoming problems

Specific Content Narrative explaining

Effects of those actions Improvement achieved Problems rectified Quality performance indicators for support of your claims Management indicators for support of your claims Categorize the relevance of the information as it relates to the specific technical subfactors and cost/price assessment used to evaluate the proposal

Volume II

Organizational Structure Change history Changes that have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts Explain if your company been acquired?

Explain if your company acquired another company?

Explain if your company merged with other companies?

Explain any reorganizations Explain any other pertinent data such as name changes or CAGE code changes

Put all of the above information into a “roadmap” Pamphlet or other commercial document

Show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment

Roadmap must be general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Evaluation Process

Considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent/relevant record of performance in providing products and services

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price assessment, and the quality of that performance

– More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant performance

– More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance

FACTOR 3: Past Performance The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources

– Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems

– Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

– Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information system (FAPIIS)

– Electronic Subcontract Reporting (eSRS) and commercial sources

Recency Assessment Assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation

– Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Relevancy Assessment

Conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors, Offerors approach to achieve those subfactors, and Cost/Price

A relevancy rating will be assigned within each technical sub-factor and Cost/Price for each Past Performance record evaluated

– Consideration may be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule

– For individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated

– Will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity will be assessed for each Past Performance record evaluated based on the prime’s, teaming partner, or subcontractor’s proposed role Any work accomplished by the prime or team member in an area other than that which they are proposed to work for will be considered Not Applicable

FACTOR 3: Past Performance The Government may or may not utilize all of the following to determine the elements examined within Scope, Magnitude, Complexity, and Cost/Price

Scope:

Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and B-1 SCAI Modification requirement

Consideration may be given to the following elements

– Similar modification/services performed on the B-1 aircraft or other large scale airframes and the similarities between a given past performance effort providing similar SCAI functionality or similar modifications

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Magnitude:

Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the B-1 requirements

Consideration may be given to the following elements

– Quantity of flight indicators produced per year

– Contract value as it relations to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity:

Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the B-1 requirements

Consideration may be given to the following elements

– Instrument modification

– Requirement compliance

– Installation design changes/rework

Relevancy for Subfactor 5, Small Business, will only be rated as Relevant or Not Relevant

Cost/Price:

Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type of previous effort as compared to the SCAI requirement program requirement and the total value of the contract

FACTOR 3: Past Performance The past performance information forms contained in the

Section L, (Appendix D) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts

Degree Description

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, FAPIIS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), eSRS information, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients

Evaluate past performance which demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Performance Quality Assessment (Con’t) The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings Adverse finding

– Defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system

– Information identified, Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements

– Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Performance Quality Assessment (Con’t)

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed may contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Assigning Ratings

Using relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating

Although past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Assigning Ratings

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Using relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating

Evaluation Factor #2

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

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

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform…