SCAI_Pre-Solicitation_Tele-Conference_-_17_Mar_14_FINAL.ppsx

B-1 Self-Contained Attitude Indicator (SCAI) Pre-Solicitation Tele-Conference for Request for Proposal (RFP) # FA8107-14-R-0001 17 March 2014

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

Introductions

WELCOME

Sign-in Open Communication is Encouraged

WELCOME

Sign-in sheet prepared in advance & verified physically at the conference Open communication is encouraged

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

We don’t have everything locked down as of today. Some little things may change so read the final RFP and attachments and appendices for the latest information. The formal solicitation takes precedence.

Disclaimer 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.

BE AWARE!!!!

What we want to do here today is go over the Instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria so that you have a better understanding of what we are looking for in your proposals.

Additional proposals and responses to EN costs you money and costs the govt money. Let’s all get it right the first time.

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

Rules of Engagement Everyone is afforded the opportunity to ask questions or provide comments Official questions will be taken in writing There will be 3 days after the conference to submit further questions/comments Answers to questions will be posted on FedBizopps Verbal Questions and Answers are not binding

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?

North American Industry Classification System 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

Overview 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)

Offeror agrees to hold proposal prices for 180 days

3.2 Debriefings - The CO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, where upon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing. The CO will notify unsuccessful Offerors IAW FAR 15.503. 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

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

3.3 Discrepancies - If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

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

3.4 Electronic Reference Documents - All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site 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

3.8 Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals - Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages in paper media and electronic media (either CD or DVD) addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A, and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the Offeror.

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

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

3.9.10 Requirements Correlation Matrix -- The Offeror shall complete the Requirements Correlation Matrix provided in Table 2 that will indicate the corresponding proposal paragraph in each volume which addresses the referenced item.

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

These are the only formats so don’t send something in a PDF format and expect it to be acceptable.

Requirements Correlation Matrix

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

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

Volume I

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

Volume II

Volume II – Past Performance 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 Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors for Award 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 Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors for Award 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 Factors for Award 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 Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors for Award

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

A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technically unacceptable rating.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award 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.

Will be discussed more in-depth later.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award The risk ratings are defined as follows:

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award 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

TEP is calculated as detailed in paragraphs 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 of Appendix L. Appendix G is provided as a TEP calculation worksheet based on pricing calculations from Tables 1 and 2.

Will be discussed in-depth later.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Examples of Unbalanced Pricing

2.4.3.1 There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

2.4.3.2 The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment if the Offeror believes additional data other than cost or pricing data provides support necessary to justify or clarify proposed pricing, it may be included in Cost/Price Volume IV FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items applies to this solicitation. FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR part 15 applies regarding price analysis as a basis for determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors for Award 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

Provide sufficient details Technical Evaluation Details needed Who?

What?

When?

Why?

Where?

How often?

Quality assurance/appropriate standard?

Technical Subfactors Volume I and Evaluation

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

(L) 4.1 Subfactor 1: Instrument panel The Offeror shall provide an approach for instrument panel installation that shall include Proposed dimensions of the “as installed“ modification Dimensional analysis that proves why the proposed solution shall not require any modification to the existing instrument panel structure (i.e. mounting hole enlargement, modification of internal structure such as cooling ducts, legacy wire harness routing, movement/re-location of other instruments, etc) IAW SRD 3.6.6 and SOW 3.1.4.

(M) 2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Instrument Panel Structure The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for instrument panel structure without modification to the existing instrument panel structure. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that the proposed installation design shall not require any alteration to the existing instrument panel structure in accordance with SCAI SRD 3.6.6 and SOW 3.1.4.

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

(L) 4.2 Subfactor 2: System Requirement Document (SRD) Requirements The Offeror shall provide data to demonstrate the proposed unit shall meet all requirements established in the SCAI SRD or shall present a technically acceptable mitigation plan to bring the unit into compliance. If the proposed unit meets all SRD requirements without mitigation, the Offeror must address elements a and c. If the proposed unit does not meet all SRD requirements without mitigation, the Offeror must address elements b and c.

(M) The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed SCAI approach to meet all SRD requirements. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed unit will meet all requirements of the following elements: For Offerors who propose a solution without mitigation, the subfactor element is met when the proposed solution is deemed technically acceptable in accordance with all SCAI SRD requirements.

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.

(L) 4.2 Subfactor 2: System Requirement Document (SRD) Requirements The Offeror shall provide data to demonstrate the proposed unit shall meet all requirements established in the SCAI SRD or shall present a technically acceptable mitigation plan to bring the unit into compliance. If the proposed unit meets all SRD requirements without mitigation, the Offeror must address elements a and c. If the proposed unit does not meet all SRD requirements without mitigation, the Offeror must address elements b and c.

(M) The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed SCAI approach to meet all SRD requirements. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed unit will meet all requirements of the following elements: For Offerors who propose a solution without mitigation, the subfactor element is met when the proposed solution is deemed technically acceptable in accordance with all SCAI 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) The Offeror shall clearly identify how the proposed unit meets all the requirements specified in the SRD without mitigation.

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

Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements- elements

(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.

(L) The Offeror’s proposed unit does not meet all requirements identified in the SRD, the Offer shall:

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

Clearly identify all SRD requirements that are not met by the proposed unit.

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

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

(M) For Offerors who propose a solution requiring mitigation, the subfactor element is met when the Offeror successfully:

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

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

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

Identifies what mitigation actions will be pursued during the execution of this effort to ensure the proposed solution is in full 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.

(L) 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 has demonstrated functional performance in an actual system; that is, “flight proven” through successful operation. SOW 3.1.3

(M) 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. (SOW 3.1.3) 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

4.3 Subfactor 3: Installation Design

The Offeror shall provide a proposed installation design such that the modification can be installed on a B-1 aircraft by Air Force personnel within 24 man-hours IAW SOW 3.1.10. 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 access, and an estimate of man-hours required for each operation.

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

Estimate of post-installation procedures that will be necessary to operationally check the installed system; this should include any disturbed systems checks driven by equipment 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.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Installation Design

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed installation design. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s installation design indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and ensures the unit can be successfully installed by Air Force personnel within 24 man-hours IAW SOW 3.1.10.

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) 4.4 Subfactor 4: Program Schedule 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) 2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Program Schedule The Government will assess the 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, SOW paragraph 3.2, 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.

(L) 4.5 Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation 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-0002, Small Business Requirements. This is in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9).

(M) 2.2.5. Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale which ensures the requirements of clause TAFB H002 “Small Business Subcontracting Requirements” are met. This requirement is in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by clause FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which is not part of this subfactor evaluation.

(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.

(a) This clause does not apply to small businesses. The magnitude of this contract may require many business concerns to team, partner, and/or subcontract with other business concerns (large and small). The Government has set a small business subcontracting requirement of at least 3.5% of total obligated dollars for this contract. All large business prime contractors are required to meet and maintain the small business subcontracting requirement throughout the life of the contract.