DRAFT_-_CFT_Section_L_-_29_May_14.docx

ATTACHMENT 4 - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO)

Section L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO RESPONDENTS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION USING TRADEOFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 Program Structure and Objective

(a) The Government plans to award a multiple award ID/IQ contract for the Contract Field Team 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 overseas. 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, 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) Award will be made on the basis of “best value” utilizing Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures. Awards will be made to the contractors that provide the “best value” to the Government over the entire period of performance.

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 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 that 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 that the proposal is valid until this date.

(e) In accordance with 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 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. 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 this Request for Proposal (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 electronic media 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 the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 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

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Target 5 pages per contract

Max 5 pages per contract

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

N/A

Unlimited

Unlimited

Unlimited

*The page limit for the entire technical volume is 150 for all subfactors except subfactor 4, Scenario Application. Page limits for elements a & b of subfactor 4, Scenario Application at 4.2.6 are specified in the sample FONs within section J of the RFP. Element d of subfactor 4 is unlimited.

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 that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. 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, and 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 Arial 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 Evaluation Notice (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 Arial 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 electronic copies, indicate on each Compact Disc Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) the volume number and title. 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 IV 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 Contracting Officer 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 Application

(10) Subfactor Five – Small Business Sub-contracting plan

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 office 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 ability to manage multiple requirements, to include the transition of multiple sites concurrently. (PWS 2.0, 4.1 & 4.2) Offerors responding to only the full & open portion should respond to (i) below. Offerors responding to only the SB portion should respond to (ii) below. Offerors responding to both the full & open and the SB portion should respond to both (i) and (ii).

i. (Full & Open) The offeror must demonstrate their capacity to manage multiple teams of varying size and complexity at locations worldwide. This demonstration should include concurrent management of teams with personnel up to 1200; for example, multiple task orders with teams that could be up to 1200 OCONUS on one task order, up to 800 CONUS on another task order, up to 500 CONUS on another task order, etc. These examples are not indicative of all possible CFT team sizes needed at any given time or location.

ii. (SB) The offeror must demonstrate their capacity to manage multiple teams of varying size and complexity at locations worldwide. This demonstration should include concurrent management of teams with personnel up to 100; for example, multiple task orders with teams that could be up to 100 CONUS on one task order, up to 80 CONUS on another task order, up to 50 OCONUS on another task order, 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 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 describe procedures that ensure operations are uniform throughout multiple locations. Additionally, the approach must describe how procedures shall be 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 Fair Opportunity Notices (FON) 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 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 Application

The Offeror shall provide sample scenario application for CFT Task Order requirements. As a minimum, the scenario application shall provide the following essential components:

a. Provide a transition plan for each applicable sample scenario IAW attached 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.

b. Provide a Task Order/scenario specific management plan 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.

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)

d. Provide a Quality Control Plan for each applicable sample scenario IAW CDRL A009 located within Section J of the RFP. (PWS 4.3.1) The QCP for each scenario should be consistent with the approach described in subfactor 3 Quality Management.

4.2.7 Subfactor 5: Small Business Sub-contracting

The Offeror shall provide an approach for Small Business Sub-contracting on CFT Task Order requirements. As a minimum, the approach shall provide the following essential component:

a. Provide a Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, its supplements and FAR 52.219-9. Identify the percentage of intended business 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)

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 format 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) Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter (Attachment 1.4) 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) 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 offeror disqualification.

(b) As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete Section 1 of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 1.2) and e-mail it and the Performance Questionnaire Letter (Attachment 1.3) to all points of contacts (POCs) the offeror has listed in the Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment 1.2). 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.

5.3 Relevant Contracts

5.3.1 Instructions Regarding Relevant Contracts

PPQs shall be comprised of a target of 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 5 pages for PPQ does not include the allowable 5 pages for ITO Paragraph Number 5.3.2, Relevant Contract Narrative. NOTE: The requested number of PPQ forms for the prime and subcontractors are preferences, and not requirements. Offerors who submit less than the preferred number of PPQ forms are not automatically assigned an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Fewer numbers may be acceptable if the Government determines there is sufficient information to determine a confidence rating. Please only submit information on subcontractors and teaming partners performing key or critical portions of the CFT effort. There is no limit on the number of PPQ forms allowed per team; however, offerors are requested to limit responses to those efforts necessary for evaluation and relevant to the CFT effort.

5.3.2 Relevant Contract Narrative, Specific Content

Offerors shall provide a narrative 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 that 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(s), 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. Up to 6 Full and Open Offerors and up to 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.

6.2 Instructions for Submission of Information Pertaining to Price Evaluation Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism. 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 and balance. Unreasonable proposed prices, 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) that is 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 that 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 that 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 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, indirect costs, G&A rates, profit 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 CLINs or SubCLINs 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 and fair comparison of proposed pricing with the requirement. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be determined ineligible for award by the contracting officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. If what appears to be unbalanced pricing is due to sound rationale associated with, for example, the proposal’s technical approach, Offerors shall provide an explanation to account for any 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.

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 to 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 that 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 that 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 equaling the TEP. Time and Material (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 proposed NTE rates for all labor categories/skill levels. Proposed composite rates for both FFP and T&M represent ceiling rate limits 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 all indirect costs (i.e., site supervision, taxes, home/corporate office support and necessary management overhead), all cost factors associated with all FAR/DFARS/AFFARS/Special H-Clauses and PWS associated with this RFP, as well as profit. The awarded rates will be maximum rates and the contractors may not exceed these rates in any task order hereunder for either FFP or T&M task orders. It should be noted that proposed ceiling rates for FFP labor categories/skill levels shall also be considered T&M ceiling rates. Therefore, T&M effort on all future task orders issued will have ceiling limits corresponding to the same FFP labor category/skill level. 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 Contractors 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 the future with task order effort 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 that 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 rates shall be adequately and sufficiently proposed to reasonably cover future unknowns such as increased costs or expenses associated with contract performance period for the out-years. These unknowns would include possible changes in subcontractors and/or various expenses included in these fully loaded (burdened) wrap rates per solicitation instructions.

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. The Government makes no claim that future usage will in any way mirror prior usage or our estimated number of hours; the Government shall not be held to level of effort hours used for evaluation purposes only and makes no guarantee regarding level of effort for future task orders issued.

A distinction should be clearly made that this competitive basic contract award shall be based on spreadsheet calculations for periods of three years for Basic Period; Options I and II consisting of two years for each Option period and the six-month Extension Period. At the Task Order level, future task orders will be based on the following tabular CLIN structure, utilized in accordance with each specific Task Order requirement. Therefore, CLINs 0001 through 0013 will not be used in the TEP calculation. The Labor Category Rate Matrix will be used to determine the TEP for evaluation as described herein and the rates will not be associated with the CLIN structure. The following is for informational purposes only and reflects CLIN designation in terms of how CLINs will be designated on a Task Order basis:

Table 6.3 CLIN Designations

*See Clause H-6 The RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix contains explicit instructions in terms of which CLINs apply to which rates. CLIN X012 is not separately priced (NSP) as the Data CLIN. The proposed G&A rates for Material/Service Handling (Material/Services [Composite] Burden Rates) shall be considered the high limits (ceiling) for proposed future task orders, regardless of actuals at the time of future contract performance in the out-years. These rates shall be included in the TEP calculation. Note that proposed fully burdened rates for Material and Services shall be based on a composite burden for both and applicable to material and services separately. CLIN 0009 (Travel) will be reimbursed at the task order level IAW the Joint Travel Regulation. CLIN 0013 represents the post-award conference and fulfillment of the guaranteed contract minimum of $5,000.00. Offerors will not propose rates or pricing for CLIN 0013.

6.3.1 Rounding

(a) All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to two (2) decimal places to the right of the decimal point. This is required for calculation consistency in spreadsheet formulas—not simply visibility or rounding to two decimal places. Calculations must be based on prices limited to two (2) decimal places only.

(b) Hourly labor rates (fully burdened, fully loaded rates) shall be rounded to two (2) decimal places to the right of the decimal point.

(c) Proposed material/services burden rates (CAP/CAS and Mat’l-Non-Mat’l CLINs) shall be rounded to two (2) decimal places to the right of the decimal point.

(d) Additional information is provided in paragraph 6.4.4., Explanation of Estimating Techniques and Methods. The Labor Category Rate Matrix (RFP/Contract Section J, Attachment 2) provides for two (2) decimal places that must be in accordance with the required decimal format. If any pricing proposal deviates from the stated format, the Government will apply the specified format which will provide the basis for extended pricing and TEP or may eliminate the offeror.

6.3.2 Proposed Ceiling Rates

Fully burdened (loaded) composite labor rates proposed in the attached Labor Category Rate Matrix shall be considered maximum (ceiling) rates representing a composite of prime and subcontractor rates. As firm, fixed priced rates, proposed rates shall be in accordance with the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) as applicable or the contractor’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

As such, ceiling rates proposed for out-years are considered firm, fixed rates at the ceiling rate and shall not be exceeded to include any upward adjustment in future contract out-years except as allowed under provisions of the SCLA/CBA. This includes subcontractor rate revisions in out-years, as detailed below (Note: the term “out-years” applies to Labor Rate Periods of Options I and II and the 6-month Extension).

Offerors are strongly advised to seriously note all risks for FFP and T&M out-years, which is considered contractor risk and not risk to the Government. Proposed pricing shall be sufficient to cover such contract risk of future unknowns, such as subcontractor rate increases in out-years.