BRU-56_Draft_RFP_Teleconference_Slides_-_23_May_18.pptx

B-1 Bomb Rack Unit (BRU)- 56 Pre-Solicitation Conference

B-1 BRU-56 IPT

AFLCMC/WWD

23 May 2018

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

UNCLASSIFIED

AFLCMC… Providing the Warfighter’s Edge

Agenda Welcome and Opening Remark B-1 / B-52 Bomber Division Mission and Requirements Source Selection Procedures Contracting Questions / Remarks Closing

Guidelines Contracting Officer, only one with authority to bind the Government

Information stated orally today will not alter the terms and conditions of the solicitation

Will provide answers to questions up to posting date of solicitation to FedBizOpps

Questions and answers will be incorporated into the final solicitation and posted to FedBizOpps

B-1 Mission and Requirements David Bourbonnais II - Program Manager Elizabeth Blanche- Engineer

Topics Covered

Key Personnel

Mission Statement

Background / Purpose

Key Facts

Requirements BRU-56 Program Challenges Closing Remarks

Key Personnel

PEO

Brig Gen Collins

SAF/AQ

SPM

Col Reynolds Logistician Roger Crane Test Steve Adams Equipment Specialist Donnie Galt User Lead Engineer Elizabeth Blanche Program Manager David Bourbonnais

DPEO

Mr. Donald W. Thompson, JR

PCO

Kristen Carter

AFGSC/CC

Gen Rand

B-1 / B-52 Bombers Division

B-1 / B/52 Bomber Division Mission Statement

Acquire and Support War-Winning Capabilities

B-1 Background / Purpose An intercontinental highly versatile multi-mission weapon system Largest conventional payload (guided and unguided missiles) in the USAF Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) Laser Guided Missiles Sniper Pod for fixed and moving targets

B-1 Key Facts 62 aircraft (AC) fleet 2 test AC at Edwards AFB, CA Average age of fleet ~ 30 years Service life projected through 2040 Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Two Main Operating Bases (MOBs) Dyess AFB, TX Ellsworth AFB, SD

Contractor Requirements Engineering Manufacturing and Design Develop modification and prototype 14-Inch Lug Spacing Capability Non-nuclear Solenoid No change to external envelope Meet all Systems Requirements Document requirements Tech Data Updates Support Systems Engineering and Test and Evaluation Modify 44 bomb racks Production Schedule Modify 40 bomb racks per month Provide training Aircrew Training Load Crew Training Maintenance Training

B-1 BRU-56 Challenges Logistics of Shipping Location to Contractor Facilities Unknown Internal Design Non-Nuclear Solenoid

Logistical Challenges Shipping Location (CONUS or OCONUS) Shipping from Main Operating Bases (MOBs) to Contractor Facility 40 BRU’s a month

Internal Configuration of BRU-56 Internal Configuration Unknown design / routing of the internal linkage design

Non-Nuclear Solenoid Non-Nuclear Solenoid Unknown design and/or size

Contact Information Contracting Officer: Kristen Carter, kristen.carter@us.af.mil, 405-739-7095

Source Selection Procedures Van Garmon

Topics

SOURCE SELECTION

What Is It Best Value Main Members Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

Technical Past Performance Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities Past Performance Price Technical Proposals Acceptable or Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

Source Selection Team Main Members Source Selection Authority (SSA) Makes the award decision Approves entering and closing discussion

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) Directs the evaluation of proposals Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Evaluate Proposals Assign ratings Present evaluation results to the SSA

Source Selection Evaluation

Offeror A OfferorB Offeror C

A Offeror B

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror A OfferorB

SSA does compare proposals against each other SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical acceptability for each offeror Past Performance ratings (and supporting rationale) and total evaluated price for each offeror Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

Request for Proposal

FACTORS FOR

AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for award selection Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other Factor rating definitions Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria

INSTRUCTIONS

TO

OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND FORMAT

Describe technical approach Provide past performance information Provide pricing data Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc

SECTION

L

SECTION

M

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors 2 Program Schedule 3 Small Business Participation 1 Modification Design

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

Evaluation Factors and Ratings for Trade-Off Process Factor 1 Technical Acceptable Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Neutral Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence

Factor 3 Price Reasonable, Balance, Realism

Evaluation Methodology As Described in the RFP The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals.

Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror.

Technical will be evaluated IAW para 2.2

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.3

Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the and past performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment for a best value to the Government.

Exchanges with Offerors During Source Selection Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation Notices (ENs) Three types of ENs Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal.

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Rating Definitions

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government Requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

Technical Evaluation Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor 1- Modification Design – 3 bullets 2- Program Schedule – 1 bullet 3- Small Business Participation – 1 bullet

In order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor.

Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor.

An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor.

Technical Evaluation

MODIFICATION

DESIGN

PROGRAM

SCHEDULE

SM BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Deficiency

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

Deficiency

Technical Additional Notes To be Acceptable, the technical approach must… Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

Provide convincing rationale of how the approach will meet requirements.

Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding SOW and/or SRD paragraphs) are met.

Section L (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach.

The technical approach does not have to address all SOW and SRD requirements.

The technical approach must specifically address all criteria in Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award)

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.

Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.

Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

Emphasis is on demonstrated performance

Confidence Definitions

the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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

Recency Recency, as stated in the RFP The effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP

If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance

For example, if a contract was completed within the recency timeframe, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract, which may have occurred seven years ago.

Relevancy Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and Price for this requirement

Relevancy considerations Similar service Breadth and depth of skills

Similar… Scope Magnitude Complexity Price – Contract Type

Past Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE QUALITY

RELEVANCY

Reflects how similar the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT

UNKNOWN

Past Performance Evaluation

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory

-- Marginal

-- Unsatisfactory

-- Unknown -- Relevant R -- Somewhat Relevant

SR

-- Not Relevant

NR

-- Unknown

UK

Past Performance Data Sources Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance Information Forms (Prime and Subcontractors) Provided by contractor as part of proposal

Questionnaires Included as part of the RFP package Completed by contractor references Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Other sources as needed

Past Performance Additional Notes Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2.

Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team List Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria.

Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform.

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Cost/Price Evaluation Reasonableness Relates to prices that appear high (“unreasonably high”) Price proposal should address all RFP requirements Competitive market should establish price reasonableness PCO makes the determination of price reasonableness

Balance One or more CLINs pricing is significantly overstated or understated Increases performance risk & may result in unreasonable prices

Price Realism Relates to prices that appear low (“unrealistically low”) Price proposal should reflect clear understanding of requirement Realism can be based on adequate competition and/or other price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1 Provide rationale to support price

Cost/Price Evaluation Cost Realism The Government will evaluate proposals for cost realism for the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) effort only Government will conduct the evaluation to ensure proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and material described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. Proposal analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized.

The Government will utilize the probable cost for purposes of the best value determination in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

Government will not accept capped rates for the CPFF effort and will adjust the Offeror’s proposed cost based on the probably cost developed by the Government. However, the Government will make upward adjustments only based on the probable cost.

An Offeror must have an adequate accounting system in order to be awardable. Accounting system will be reviewed in accordance with Section M, para 2.4.6

Three Phases of Source Selection Evaluation

Initial Evaluation offeror’s proposal ENs prepared and finalized Evaluation of EN responses Follow-up ENs

Initial Ratings established Ratings adjusted Based on EN responses Award w/o Discussions Competitive Range Send ENs to Offerors Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Receive FPRs from offerors Final evaluation of proposals Final ratings established Best Value Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION

DISCUSSIONS

FINAL

RESULT

SOURCE SELECTION

AWARD

Evaluation Summary

Summary Source Selection is a Subjective process

Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror

SSET evaluation is based on stated factors and written criteria listed in the RFP, not a comparison of offeror proposals

SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria

Contracting Kristen Carter – Contracting Officer

CLIN STRUCTURE

Please note that Option I will not start until the EMD phase has been approved.

Price Matrix

Price Matrix (continued)

Price Matrix (continued)

Questions image4.png image5.jpg image6.jpg image7.jpg image8.png image9.jpeg image10.jpeg image11.jpeg image12.png image13.png image14.png image15.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet1.xlsx Calculation Methodology

B-1 BRU-56 SOURCE SELECTION

CLIN DESCRIPTION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

0001 EMD Target Cost Total Cost from CPFF Cost Model

0002 Fixed Fee Total Fee from CPFF Cost Model

0003 CR - Travel Not Evaluated

0004 DATA Not Separately Priced

0005 FFP - Over & Above

Sr. Engineer Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Program Manager Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Mechanic Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Data Manger Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Logistician Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

0005 Material Handling Rate Proposed material handling rate multiplied by estimated material dollars

1001 FFP -- Production Proposed unit price multiplied by quantity

1002 FFP - Training

1002AA Aircrew Training Proposed price multiplied by quantity

1002AB Load Crew Training Proposed price multiplied by quantity

1002AC Maintenance Training Proposed price multiplied by quantity

1003 CR - Travel Not Evaluated

1004 DATA Not Separately Priced

1005 FFP - Over & Above

Sr. Engineer Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Program Manager Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Mechanic Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Data Manger Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

Sr. Logistician Proposed labor rate multiplied by estimated labor hours

1005 Material Handling Rate Proposed material handling rate multiplied by estimated material dollars

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE The sum of CLINs 0001, 0002, 0005, 1001, 1002, and 1005

B-1 BRU-56 PRICING MATRIX

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete all cells highlighted in yellow

B-1 BRU-56 PRICING MATRIX

OFFEROR:

BASIC PERIOD

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION QTY U/I EST COST TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

0001 CPFF -- EMD Cost Only 1 LO Input Total Cost from CPFF Cost Model $ - 0

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION QTY U/I Fixed Fee

0002 CPFF - Fixed Fee Only 1 LO Input Total Fee from CPFF Cost Model $ - 0

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION

0003 CR - Travel - No Fee Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION

0004 DATA Not Separately Priced

2019 2020 2021

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION Hours Rate Total Hours Rate Total Hours Rate Total Extended Price

0005 FFP - Over & Above

Sr. Engineer 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 520 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Program Manager 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 520 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Mechanic 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Data Manager 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Logistician 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION Dollars Rate Total Dollars Rate Total Dollars Rate Total Extended Price

0005 Material Handling Rate $ 2,700,000.00 $ 2,700,000.00 $ 12,500,000.00 $ 12,500,000.00 $ 2,300,000.00 $ 2,300,000.00 $ 17,500,000.00 $ 17,500,000.00

$ 2,700,000.00 $ 12,500,000.00 $ 2,300,000.00

SubTotal Basic Period $ 17,500,000.00

OPTION I

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION Qty U/I Unit Price Total Extended Price

1001 FFP -- Production * 1,004 Ea $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

* Total quantity is 1,004 with anticipated quantity of approximately 40 per month

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION Qty U/I Unit Price Total Extended Price

1002 FFP - Training

1002AA Aircrew Training 1 LO $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

1002AB Load Crew Training 1 LO $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

1002AC Maintenance Training 1 LO $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION

1003 CR - Travel - No Fee Not Evaluated

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION

1004 DATA Not Separately Priced

2021 2022 2023

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION Hours Rate Total Hours Rate Total Hours Rate Total Extended Price

1005 FFP - Over & Above

Sr. Engineer 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 520 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Program Manager 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 520 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Mechanic 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Data Manager 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Sr. Logistician 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 1,040 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

CLIN TYPE/DESCRIPTION Dollars Rate Total Dollars Rate Total Dollars Rate Total Extended Price

1005 Material Handling Rate $ 2,300,000.00 $ 2,300,000.00 $ 29,500,000.00 $ 29,500,000.00 $ 30,300,000.00 $ 30,300,000.00 $ 62,100,000.00 $ 62,100,000.00

$ 2,300,000.00 $ 29,500,000.00 $ 30,300,000.00

SubTotal Option I $ 62,100,000.00

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE $ 79,600,000.00

CROSS CHECK $ 79,600,000.00

CPFF COST MODEL

Instructions - Complete all Cells highlighted in yellow as follows: Offeror's are required to provide Labor Categories (Column A), Labor Hours (Column B), Basic Labor Rates (Column C) all Overhead/Indirect Rates related to labor (Cells D13, E13, F13), and fee % on labor (Column I).

Material Types (Column A), Quantities (Column C), Unit Prices (Column B), Material Handling Rate (Column E), and Fee % on Material (Column H)

Subcontractor Name (Column A), Subcontractor Cost (Column D), Material/SubK Rate (Column E) and Fee % on Subcontractors (Column H)

Offerors shall include formulas showing all calculations of proposed prices. Rounding is required IAW Section L Paragraph 6.1.1.

Offerors may use the cost model below or provide their own cost model on a separate worksheet but included in this workbook.

If an Offeror provides their own cost model the same information listed above must be provided including all formulas and rounding format.

Offerors shall input their proposed TOTAL COST and TOTAL FEE into the B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix Worksheet

B-1 BRU-56 CPFF DETAILED COST SHEET FOR CLINs 0001 AND 0002

CLIN 0001 - EMD

CLIN 0002 - FEE

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Labor $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Material $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Subcontractor $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Cost (Labor + Material/Subcontract) Input Total COST on B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix (Cell L7) $ - 0

Total Fee Input Total FEE on B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix (Cell L10) $ - 0

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ - 0

CROSS CHECK $ - 0

&8&A SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104 &8&P

Insert Fringe Rate on Labor Cell D13 Insert OH Rate on Labor Cell E13 Insert GA Rate on Labor Cell F13

EXAMPLE - CPFF COST MODEL

Instructions - Complete all Cells highlighted in yellow as follows: Offeror's are required to provide Labor Categories (Column A), Labor Hours (Column B), Basic Labor Rates (Column C) all Overhead/Indirect Rates related to labor (Cells D13, E13, F13), and fee % on labor (Column I).

Material Types (Column A), Quantities (Column C), Unit Prices (Column B), Material Handling Rate (Column E), and Fee % on Material (Column H)

Subcontractor Name (Column A), Subcontractor Cost (Column D), Material/SubK Rate (Column E) and Fee % on Subcontractors (Column H)

Offerors shall include formulas showing all calculations of proposed prices. Rounding is required IAW Section L Paragraph 6.1.1.

Offerors may use the cost model below or provide their own cost model on a separate worksheet but included in this workbook.

If an Offeror provides their own cost model the same information listed above must be provided including all formulas and rounding format.

Offerors shall input their proposed TOTAL COST and TOTAL FEE into the B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix Worksheet

B-1 BRU-56 CPFF DETAILED COST SHEET FOR CLINs 0001 AND 0002

ABC CO.

CLIN 0001 - EMD

CLIN 0002 - FEE

1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Sr. Engineer 100 $ 100.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 103.00 $ 10,300.00 10% $ 10.30 $ 1,030.00 $ 113.30 $ 11,330.00

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Labor $ 10,300.00 $ 1,030.00 $ 11,330.00

Widget $ 10.00 1,000 $ 10,000.00 5.00% $ 500.00 $ 10,500.00 10.00% $ 1,050.00 $ 11,550.00

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Material $ 10,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 11,550.00

XYZ Company $ 100,000.00 10.00% $ 10,000.00 $ 110,000.00 10.00% $ 11,000.00 $ 121,000.00

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

$ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - 0

Total Subcontractor $ 100,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 121,000.00

Total Cost (Labor + Material/Subcontract) Input Total COST on B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix (Cell L7) $ 130,800.00

Total Fee Input Total FEE on B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix (Cell L10) $ 13,080.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 143,880.00

CROSS CHECK $ 143,880.00

&8&A SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104 &8&P

Insert Fringe Rate on Labor Cell D13 Insert OH Rate on Labor Cell E13 Insert GA Rate on Labor Cell F13

Offeror Provided CPFF CostModel

Instructions: Offeror's are required to provide labor categories, labor hours, labor rates, all overhead/indirect rates, and fee percentage on labor.

Material types, quantities, unit prices, material handling rate, and fee percentage on material.

Subcontractor name, subcontractor costs, material/subcontractor rate, and fee percentage on subcontractor costs.

Offerors shall include formulas showing all calculations of proposed prices. Rounding is required IAW Section L Paragraph 6.1.1

Offerors shall input their proposed TOTAL COST and TOTAL FEE into the B-1 BRU-56 Pricing Matrix Worksheet

Offeror Name:

&8&A &"-,Bold"&8SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104 &8&P image16.jpg image1.png image2.png image3.png