Attachment-8-Section-L.pdf

RFP ATTACHMENT 8 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO)

Section L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO RESPONDENTS FOR

PROPOSAL PREPARATION USING TRADEOFF SOURCE SELECTION

PROCEDURES

Contract Field Teams (CFT)

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

(a) The Government plans to award a multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the CFT program. CFT will primarily include an awarded set of Contractor maintenance personnel who are provided with Government-furnished special tools, equipment, work space and supplies to accomplish modification/maintenance/repair effort on-site at operational Government locations, both in the Continental United States (CONUS) and outside the CONUS (OCONUS). The CFT Program accomplishes depot, field and organizational level inspection, maintenance, modification and repair at operational Government locations worldwide.

The program supports requirements for the Active Air Force, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve components. CFT contracts are also used to support requirements generated by the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Homeland Defense and other federal agencies. The CFT Program provides a rapid deployment workforce augmentation capability to field necessary skilled technicians on site anywhere in the world to support the Government's war readiness needs.

(b) This solicitation is subject to a Partial Set-Aside of task orders that the Government estimates will require the contractor to provide up to 100 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of personnel per task order in the CONUS and task orders up to 50 FTEs OCONUS. Only qualifying small businesses will be eligible to compete for set-aside task orders. Task orders larger than the partial set-aside will be available for competition among contractors (large or small) who successfully compete under the non-set-aside portion of this solicitation for the Full and Open Competition Pool.

(c) Small Business Choice of Competition. Small Business offerors shall clearly indicate the pool(s) in which they intend to compete on the front page of the RFP. Small businesses may elect to compete in either or both competition pool(s). If a small business elects to compete in the full and open pool, they must submit a separate proposal, to include all volumes, for the Full & Open Competition Pool and meet all of the criteria for that pool to be eligible for award.

1.1 Budget/Funding Information

Funding will be obligated on each task order awarded under the basic contracts.

Orders may be fully or incrementally funded as appropriate.

2.0 General Instructions

(a) This section of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered ineligible for award. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Request for Proposal (RFP) attachments. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

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

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

(e) In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.8, “Government Contract Files”, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact

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

2.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with 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 for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.1.3 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the 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 the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

2.1.4 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.

2.1.5 Oral Presentation

Oral presentations will not be utilized.

2.1.6 Amendments to Solicitation

If the RFP is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this request by the date and time specified in the amendment(s) by signing and returning the front page of each.

2.1.7 Submission, Modification, Revision, and Withdrawal of Proposals Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages in paper media and compact disc (CD) with read only memory addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation, and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the Offeror.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

2.2.1 Title Pages

The Title Page of each volume must show solicitation number, name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of the Offeror and electronic e-mail address if available.

2.2.2 Proposal Organization Table

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 2.2, Proposal Organization.

The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table http://www.fbo.gov/

2.2. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table 2.2 Proposal Organization

Volume

ITO

Paragraph

Number

Volume Title

Hard Copies

Disk

Copies

Page Limit

I 3.0 Executive Summary 7/1 5

2.2.1 Title Page (Not included in 5 page limit) 1

3.1 Narrative Summary 5

3.2 Master Table of Contents Unlimited

II 4.0 Technical 7/1 75

2.2.1 Title Page (Not included in 75 page limit) 1

7.3.3 Team List (see Attach 2.1)(Not included in 75

page limit)

2.2.6 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.2.7 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

4.2.2 Cross Reference Matrix (See Attach 2.2) (Not

included in 75 page limit)

4.2.3 Subfactor 1, Program Management *

4.2.4 Subfactor 2, Resource Management *

4.2.5 Subfactor 3, Quality Management *

4.2.6 Subfactor 4, Scenario Application *

4.2.7 Subfactor 5, Small Business Subcontracting *

III 5.0 Past Performance 5/1 Unlimited

2.2.1 Title Page 1

7.3.3 Team List (See Attach 2.1) 5

2.2.6 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.2.7 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

5.1 Consent Letter (See Attach 1.4) Unlimited

5.1 Client Authorization Letters (See Attach 1.5) Unlimited

5.2/5.3.1 Present/Past Performance Information Sheets

(See Attach 1.2) Target 5 pages per contract

5.3.2 Relevant Contract Narrative and Contractor

Information IAW PPI tool (See Attach 1.1)

Max 5 pages per contract

5.3.3 Roadmap 2

IV 6.0 Price Volume 2/2 Unlimited

2.2.1 Title Page 1

2.2.6 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.2.7 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

6.13 Section 1 Unlimited

6.13 Section 2 Unlimited

6.13 Section 3 Unlimited

6.13 Section 4 Unlimited

V 7.0 Contract Documentation 2/1 Unlimited

2.2.1 Title Page 1

7.3.3 Team List (see Attach 2.1) 5

2.2.6 Table of Contents Unlimited

2.2.7 List of Tables and Figures Unlimited

2.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Unlimited

7.1 Model Contract and Sections A - J N/A

7.1.6 Representations and Certifications (Section K) Unlimited

7.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements Unlimited

7.3.1/7.3.2 Authorized Offeror Personnel/Contact

Information Unlimited

*The page limit for the entire technical volume is 75 for all subfactors.

2.2.3 Page Limitations

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

2.2.4 Cost or Pricing Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Volume.

2.2.5 Cross Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

2.2.6 Table of Contents

Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.2.7 Tables and Figures

The Offeror’s proposal shall include an indexed list of tables and figures.

2.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

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

2.3 Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Page line spacing shall be 1.5 lines. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 points. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics; not for pages of text. The following limitation only applies to the Technical Volume. Text intended for evaluation within all figures, charts, tables, and graphs, to include imbedded images, shall be no less than 8-pt. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals. Any text within figures, charts, tables, and graphs which do not meet this requirement will not be considered in the evaluation. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.4 Binding and Labeling

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

2.5 Electronic Offers

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies.

When discrepancies exist between the written hard copies and those provided in electronic format, the written hard copies will take precedence in all cases. For each CD the volume number and title must be indicated. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any.

The Offeror shall submit volumes I through V in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007 or 2010, MS Excel 2007 or 2010, MS- Project 2007 or 2010, and MS-Power Point 2007 or 2010.

2.6 Distribution

The "original" proposal shall be clearly identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and mailed to:

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Source Selection ATTN: Wade Ward

Source Selection Facility 7858 5th Street Tinker AFB OK 73145 Fax: 405-736-8731 bradley.ward.3@us.af.mil

3.0 Volume I – Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information.

3.1 Narrative Summary

The Offeror shall provide a concise narrative summary of the entire proposal, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.2 Table of Contents

A master table of contents of the entire proposal.

4.0 Volume II – Technical (Factor 1)

4.1 General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical criteria defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the criteria. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is neither necessary nor desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical

In the Technical Volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

4.2.2 Volume Organization

The Technical Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Team List Attach 2.1

(2) Table of Contents

(3) List of Table and Figures

(4) Glossary

(5) Cross Reference Matrix Attach 2.2

(6) Subfactor One – Program Management

(7) Subfactor Two – Resource Management

(8) Subfactor Three – Quality Management

(9) Subfactor Four – Scenario Applications

(10) Subfactor Five – Small Business Subcontracting

4.2.3 Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Program Management. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

a. An approach to identify and resolve anticipated difficulties associated with the transition of existing orders to/from another service provider and stand-up of a new CFT site. The approach must describe strategies to minimize disruption during the transition period while maintaining cost and schedule. (PWS 4.2.1)

b. The approach must describe how the Offeror’s team shall perform the roles and responsibilities associated with CFT program management requirements, to include management capability in major weapons systems maintenance/ modification/repair. The approach must also describe how the Offeror will establish a contractor management structure by contract award, perform tasks, submit deliverables, and resolve issues and discrepancies. (PWS 2.0, 4.1)

c. The approach must describe the Offeror’s plan to manage multiple requirements or teams, to include the transition of multiple sites concurrently. (PWS 2.0, 4.1 & 4.2) Offerors responding to only the Small Business Set-Aside portion should respond to (i), below. Offerors responding to only the Full & Open (non-set-aside) portion should respond to (ii) below. Offerors responding to both the set-aside and the non-set-aside portions should respond to (i) in the Small Business Set- Aside Competition Pool proposal and (ii) in the Full & Open Competition Pool proposal.

i. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) The Offeror must demonstrate their capacity to transition and manage multiple requirements or teams at multiple locations concurrently (both CONUS and OCONUS) and explain how it will meet the requirements of PWS 2.0, 4.1, and 4.2. At a minimum, the Offeror should demonstrate it has a viable plan to manage two or more requirements or teams concurrently totaling 100 FTEs, with at least one example from a CONUS location and at least one example from an OCONUS location. NOTE: For example, the Offeror could demonstrate its approach to performing multiple requirements with a team that could be up to 50 CONUS on one requirement, up to 20 CONUS on another requirement, up to 30 OCONUS on another requirement, etc. These examples are not indicative of all possible CFT team sizes needed at any given time or location.

ii. (Full & Open Competition Pool) The Offeror must demonstrate their capacity to transition and manage multiple requirements or teams at multiple locations concurrently and explain how it will meet the requirements of PWS 2.0, 4.1, and 4.2. At a minimum, the Offeror should demonstrate it has a viable plan to manage two or more requirements or teams concurrently totaling 1200 FTEs, with at least one example from a CONUS location and at least one example from an OCONUS location.

NOTE: For example, the Offeror could demonstrate its approach to performing multiple requirements with a team that could be up to 700 OCONUS on a requirement, up to 300 CONUS on another requirement, up to 200 CONUS on another requirement, etc. These examples are not indicative of all possible CFT team sizes needed at any given time or location.

d. An approach that clearly describes the capability to track, monitor, manage, control and audit task order cost down to the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) & sub-CLIN level. (PWS 4.1.1)

e. An organizational approach and management structure, i.e. organizational chart.

The response must describe how the Offeror’s team is organized to coordinate activities among team members, including, if applicable, mentor/protégé and joint venture partners. An organizational chart with the proposed management structure to include the names and locations of the prime Contractor, core team members, subcontractors, and if applicable, mentor/protégé and joint venture partners shall be included. The approach shall also describe processes for clear lines of communication with delegated authority, monitoring team performance, resolving team conflict/personnel issues, accomplishing tasks in a timely manner, and submission of deliverables and prompt resolution of task issues and discrepancies. (PWS 2.0 & 4.1)

f. An approach for establishing and enforcing safe and effective written Flight and Ground (including Safety) Procedures IAW DCMAI 8210.1C. The proposed approach must include a sample set of “core procedures” (addressing items 4.1,4.2,4.8,5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,5.9,5.14,5.26,5.29,5.30 and 6.1) illustrating how operations are uniform throughout multiple locations. Additionally, the approach must describe separate and distinct written instructions that delineate the processes personnel shall follow while conducting operations regarding aircraft subjects (i.e. towing), by task order, to the requirements of DCMAI 8210.1C. Any references to additional company procedures or operating instructions to fulfill requirements must be included in the approach. (PWS 4.4)

4.2.4 Subfactor 2: Resource Management

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Resource Management. As a minimum, the proposed approach shall provide the following essential components:

a. A process for obtaining and retaining qualified personnel and a plan for how this process will be utilized in support of this effort. As a minimum, the process shall include a detailed description of recruitment, hiring, turnover and downsizing processes, in both relocation and surge conditions. The process shall also describe personnel qualifications/certification processes, retention policies, and the number currently employed/available by skill classification. (PWS 4.2)

b. An approach that describes the process for rapid response requirements at both CONUS and OCONUS locations. (PWS 4.2) As a minimum, the approach must describe how the Offeror responds to task order solicitations within a minimum of 72 hrs, when the requirement dictates, as well as an approach for timely availability of appropriate personnel to meet accelerated delivery schedules or surge requirements at both CONUS and OCONUS locations.

c. A security clearance process describing the mix of skills and clearance levels necessary to accomplish the CFT mission. The process must address the number of current employees who hold security clearances and the level of each security clearance. The process must also address how tasks will be supported until required clearances are obtained, should personnel with a required clearance not be available. (PWS 5.2)

4.2.5 Subfactor 3: Quality Management

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Quality Management. This approach must address the Offeror’s quality management plan and overall approach to quality assurance of CFT requirements. As a minimum, the proposed approach shall provide the following essential components:

a. Quality Management System (QMS). The QMS must address the Offeror's quality management plan and overall approach to quality assurance of CFT requirements. Specifically, the QMS must address how the Offeror’s quality management plan is compliant with AS9100 supported by verifiable objective evidence. (PWS 4.3)

b. Standard Operating Procedures/Local Operating Instructions (SOPs/LOIs) as required. (PWS 4.3.2.1) Specifically, Offerors must address how the SOPs are compliant with AS9100 which include quality procedures for the following AS9100 clauses:

i. QMS processes as defined in AS9100 Clause 4 (quality manual, control of documents/records);

ii. Management responsibility as defined in AS9100 Clause 5 (management commitment, customer focus, quality policy, quality planning);

iii. Resource management as defined in AS9100 Clause 6 (provisions for resources, human resources, infrastructure, work environment);

iv. Product realization as defined in AS9100 Clause 7 (planning, customer-related processes, design and development [if applicable], purchasing, production and service provision, control of monitoring and measuring equipment, configuration management);

v. Measurement, analysis and improvement as defined in AS9100 Clause 8 (monitoring and measurement, control of nonconforming product, analysis of data, improvement).

c. A quality management approach based on AS9100 clauses 4-8 that can be implemented, through SOPs and LOIs as required, at the site level. The approach must address the development and submission of Local Operating Instructions (LOIs) when local process(es) at a site either deviate from the SOPs or the SOPs do not adequately address the process(es). The Offeror must address circumstances which would dictate the generation of site specific LOIs.

(PWS 4.3.2.1)

4.2.6 Subfactor 4: Scenario Applications

The Offeror shall provide sample scenario applications for CFT task order requirements.

As a minimum, the scenario applications shall provide the following essential components:

a. Provide a transition plan for each applicable sample scenario IAW attached Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A007 located within Section J of the RFP. (PWS 4.2.1) The transition plan must include a time-phased approach for meeting all of the applicable transition elements specified in PWS section 6.6 for each sample scenario.

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3 and Scenario 4

b. Provide a task order/scenario specific management plan, to include site supervision, for each applicable sample scenario IAW attachments located within Section J of the RFP. (PWS 4.2.3) The management plan must address the amount of supervision for each applicable sample scenario.

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3 and Scenario 4

c. Provide a complete pricing sheet (for technical evaluation purposes only, not included in Total Evaluated Price) for each applicable sample scenario IAW attachments located within Section J of the RFP. (PWS 4.2.2)

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3 and Scenario 4

d. Provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) for the applicable sample scenario IAW CDRL A009 located within Section J of the RFP. (PWS 4.3.1) The QCP for the scenario should be consistent with the approach described in subfactor 3 Quality Management. QCP’s are required on only two of the scenarios listed below:

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3

4.2.7 Subfactor 5: Small Business Subcontracting

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Small Business Subcontracting on CFT task order requirements. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential components:

a. Provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that adequately responds to each of the requirement elements of FAR clause 52.219-9(d) paragraphs (1) through

(11) and DFARS clause 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) and a Small Business Subcontracting Plan reflective of and consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. Identify the percentage of total subcontracted dollars to be performed with each of the following small business socioeconomic categories: Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, HUBZone, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned. Successful Offerors’ Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be incorporated in each applicable Contractor’s CFT ID/IQ contract.

(PWS 4.6) (Applicable to large businesses only)

b. Separate from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, all businesses both large and small (including those with large businesses with master subcontracting plans, individual subcontracting plans, commercial subcontracting plans or comprehensive subcontracting plans) shall provide a Small Business Participation Plan which includes the following:

i. The extent to which small businesses are specifically identified in proposals

ii. The extent of commitment to use such small businesses (which may include or be only the Offeror itself if it is a small business)

iii. The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform

iv. The extent of participation of such small businesses as a percentage and dollar value of total contract dollars (including the percentage of total contract dollars to be performed by each type of subcategory small business (Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, HUBZone, and Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned)). If the prime offeror is a small business, they should include the dollar and percentage they will self-perform (SB are not required to use any additional small business participation). The percentage of work performed by a small business that qualifies in multiple small business socioeconomic subcategories may be counted in each subcategory. (Applicable to both large and small businesses)

5.0 Volume III – Past Performance (Factor 2)

5.1 General Instructions

(a) Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the Past Performance Information Tool (PPI) contained in Attachment 1.1 of the ITO. This information is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

(b) Each offeror shall also complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (attachment 1.2 ITO) and the PPQ Cover Letter (attachment 1.3 ITO). These attachments shall be emailed to all points of contacts (POCs) that the Offeror has listed in the PPQ (attachment 1.2 ITO). The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by FAX, directly to the Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET). Fax copies to 405-736-8731 (Attn: Wade Ward) or e-mail bradley.ward.3@us.af.mil. RESPONDENTS

TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION

SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Offerors shall not follow-up with respondents to ensure they have completed the questionnaires. The PPET will conduct such follow-up with any POC as necessary.

(c) Along with the information required in the paragraphs above, the Offeror shall submit a consent letter (Attachment 1.4 ITO) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror so the Offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter (Attachment 1.5 ITO) authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance.

5.2 Early Proposal Information

(a) Each offeror is requested to submit Volume III Past Performance for each relevant contract ten (10) calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date. Failure to submit early proposal information will not result in the Offeror’s disqualification.

5.3 Relevant Contracts

5.3.1 Instructions Regarding Relevant Contracts

PPQ’s (ITO Attachment 1.2) shall be comprised of a target of five (5) pages. More may be submitted if necessary and relevant to the CFT effort. Request each offeror submit up to five (5) PPQ forms for the prime Contractor and up to three (3) for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner. The target of five (5) pages for each PPQ does not include the allowable five (5) pages for ITO Paragraph Number 5.3.2, Relevant Contract Narrative, which will be completed in the PPI tool located at ITO Attachment 1.1.

NOTE: The requested number of PPQs for the prime and subcontractors are preferences, and not requirements. Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPQs are not automatically assigned an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

Fewer numbers may be acceptable if the Government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Please only submit information on subcontractors and teaming partners performing key or critical portions of the CFT effort. Offerors are requested to limit responses to those efforts necessary for evaluation and relevant to the CFT effort.

Offerors shall provide recent past performance information. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

5.3.2 Relevant Contract Narrative, Specific Content

Offerors shall provide a narrative IAW with ITO Attachment 1.1 explaining what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an Offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevance information into the specific technical criteria elements and price assessment used to evaluate the proposal.

5.3.3 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between the conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, offeror’s shall include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of the Offeror’s company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror, the "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified, yet general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6.0 Volume IV – Price (Factor 3)

6.1 General Instructions

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your pricing position. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume (this includes the Labor Category Rate Matrix). Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

FAR Part 15 applies; this is not a commercial effort. Approximately six (6) Full and Open Offerors and approximately seven (7) Small Business Offerors shall be awarded based on this competition.

The Government is requesting composite Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceiling rates for both Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time and Materials (T&M). Cost breakdown of proposed labor rates, FFP and T&M, is neither required nor desired. However, if the Offeror considers it necessary to demonstrate their approach or methodology as it relates to development of composite rates and application of prime contractor’s rates to subcontractor costs/pricing, an example would be acceptable.

NOTE TO SMALL BUSINESSES: Please make sure to clearly identify on the front page of the RFP which portion of the solicitation you are responding to. If you select to propose on both portions of the solicitation, you must submit pricing volumes on both portions of this solicitation, and the pricing may be different for the set-aside portion and full and open portion.

6.2 Instructions for Submission of Information Pertaining to Price Evaluation Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism. Additionally, cost realism will be performed on a limited basis, limited to a cost reimbursable CLIN for Post Award Conference. The following details information required to make those determinations.

6.2.1 Price Reasonableness, Balanced Pricing and Price Realism Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance and realism.

Unreasonable, unbalanced, or “unrealistically low pricing” or “unreasonably high pricing” initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror.

6.2.1.1 Price Reasonableness

These instructions are to assist you in submitting information (i.e., data other than certified cost or pricing data) required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed prices. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unreasonable pricing, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unreasonable proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness.

The burden of proof for credibility of proposed pricing rests with the Offeror. It should be noted completeness is one aspect of price reasonableness—all required pricing shall be provided as complete pricing.

Price reasonableness is based on an overall evaluated proposed price and must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through proposal price analysis techniques. To assist in the price reasonableness assessment, the Offeror is required to provide supporting explanation/rationale as instructed in Pricing Section 6.0.

6.2.1.2 Balanced Pricing

The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that exhibits unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonable prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total

Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more elements of the TEP (i.e., labor rates, Burdened Material and Services Rates) is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques such that there is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest TEP; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced, its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment. Balanced pricing is determined with respect to separately priced rates or significant unexplained variance in pricing from year to year.

To assist in the determination of balanced pricing, Offerors shall complete the attached Labor Category Rate Matrix (RFP/Contract Section J, Attachment 2). Completion of the Labor Category Rate Matrix allows efficient comparison of proposed rates and extended pricing. Balanced pricing regarding proposed rates means all proposed rates reflect a logical consistency across the various job categories/skill levels as well as each successive contract performance period. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be determined ineligible for award by the CO if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. If what appears to be unbalanced pricing (i.e., unusual or unexplained variability between rates) is due to sound rationale, offerors shall provide an explanation to account for any proposed rates and extended pricing that appears unbalanced.

6.2.1.3 Price Realism

Proposed pricing must demonstrate adequate understanding of the requirement and does not pose a risk to performance. Proposed pricing shall be realistic for the work required. Proposed pricing must be consistent with the proposed approach and show understanding of the requirement. Price realism pertains primarily to the composite NTE rates proposed in the Labor Category Rate Matrix. Specifically, all proposed composite NTE rates shall be sufficient and adequately proposed to ensure performance is not at risk with rates proposed too low. Price realism pertains to “unrealistically low pricing” whereas price reasonableness pertains to “unreasonably high pricing”.

6.3 Pricing Information Requirements

FAR Part 15 applies. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3 (b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of certified cost or pricing data. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness.

Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain such data as appropriate. Should the CO determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via data other than certified cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit certified cost or pricing data.

Offerors shall complete the spreadsheet entitled, “Labor Category Rate Matrix” (RFP/Contract Section J, Attachment 2). Offerors must ensure all loaded (fully burdened) labor rates entered are for the applicable Labor Rate Period(s): 3-year Basic Period; Option 1 (2-year period); Option II (2-year period); and Extension Period (up to 6-months). Each labor classification consisting of job categories/ skill levels in the spreadsheets for all geographical locations (CONUS and OCONUS) shall be priced separately. Additionally, each labor classification consisting of job categories/skill levels for both straight time (ST) and overtime (OT) shall be priced separately.

FFP rates for all labor categories/skill levels, geographical designations (CONUS and OCONUS) shall be proposed, with extended pricing for those FFP ceiling rates (as well as Burdened Material/Services rates, as discussed below under Table 6.3 and Section 6.3.2) equaling the TEP. T&M rates shall not be priced separately—all ceiling rates reflected on RFP/Contract Section J, Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix will be ceiling rates for both FFP and T&M requirements during TEP calculation as well as task order competition. These T&M rates shall be set at the same ceiling rates as the proposed corresponding FFP rates. All T&M ceiling rates (i.e. straight time/overtime, CONUS/OCONUS) are extended based on proposed rates and historical hours and then included as part of the overall TEP evaluation.

Composite rates are required for NTE rates to include all labor categories/skill levels.

Proposed composite NTE rates for both FFP and T&M represent the ceiling rates on future task order proposals. Therefore, proposed composite ceiling rates apply equally to any future FFP task orders as well as any T&M task orders based on this contract.

The proposed loaded (fully burdened) labor rates based on prime/subcontractor blended composite rates are considered the fully burdened maximum rate for each labor category/skill level identified for the period of performance within both CONUS and OCONUS designations. For CONUS and OCONUS separately, rates are anticipated to reflect across geographical prevailing wage rates based on those broad designations.

Each job category/skill level shall be priced separately for CONUS versus OCONUS designations. All rates are required to be proposed and included in the Labor Category Rate Matrix.

These proposed fully burdened rates shall include, but are not limited to, all indirect costs (i.e., site supervision, taxes, home/corporate office support and necessary management overhead), all cost factors associated with FAR/DFARS/AFFARS/Special H-Clauses and PWS associated with this RFP, as well as profit. The awarded rates will be ceiling rates and the contractors may not exceed these rates in any task order hereunder for either FFP or T&M task orders. All T&M task order proposals will be submitted in accordance with DFARS 252.216-7002, “Alternate A, Time-and- Materials/Labor-Hour Proposal Requirements—Non-Commercial Item Acquisition with Adequate Price Competition”. At the task order level Contractor proposed subcontractor rates cannot exceed their composite NTE rates. Contractors will be afforded the chance to reduce both the FFP and T&M rates on future proposals for individual task orders issued.

The proposed FFP ceiling rates will also serve as T&M ceiling rates on future task orders resulting from this basic contract award. Although rates proposed for FFP CLINs are utilized as the basis for the basic contract award, these ceiling rates also apply to future task order T&M efforts and future T&M rates proposed. Similarly, labor rates proposed for surge effort used in future task order efforts shall have the same ceiling labor rates as FFP. Offerors must propose a composite NTE rate for each labor category, skill level and Labor Rate Period of Performance. These evaluated rates shall be based on FFP contract type effort. As fixed-priced rates, there is no requirement for demonstration of labor rate cost breakdown to support proposed rates. Composite NTE rates will serve as evaluated rates and shall be based on a composite between prime and subcontractor(s) rates.

It should be noted such proposed composite rates, both FFP and T&M, are developed based on contractor risk and must represent a logical balance between striving for competitive advantage and performance risk (i.e., contractors must be able to adequately perform the requirement at the rates proposed as a responsible Offeror).

Rates proposed shall be considered ceiling rates, upon which future task order proposed rates shall be based, either equal to or less than the proposed ceiling rates on contract. Such composite rates must adequately cover effort performed by the prime contractor, subcontractor(s), or a mix of labor effort between prime and subcontractor(s). This applies to all future out-years of contract performance. Proposed ceiling rates shall be adequately and sufficiently proposed to reasonably cover future unknowns associated with anything pertaining to contract performance. (Note: the term “out-years” applies to Options I and II and the 6-month Extension).

A “no bid” or omitted rate may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. An incomplete Labor Category Rate Matrix will be considered unreasonable since completeness is part of the price reasonableness criteria. The rates in the Offeror’s spreadsheet (excluding the Government’s estimated hours used for evaluation purposes only) shall be incorporated as an attachment of the resultant contract award and shall be the rates used as the maximum ceiling to price subsequent task orders.

For evaluation purposes only, the best estimated hours provided in the Labor Category Rate Matrix are based on a history “snapshot” of the number of contracted man-year equivalents (derived from actual FTE (Full Time Equivalent)) positions utilized for each job category and projected for future labor rate periods in the RFP/Contract Section J, Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix.