SectionLWSSA.pdf

Section L

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors for the

Acquisition of Engineering Services

For the

A-10 Weapon System and Support (WSSA) Program

4 March 2014

Section Content:

1.0 - Program Structure Objectives

2.0 - General Instructions

3.0 - Volume I – Executive Summary

4.0 - Volume II – Technical Proposal

5.0 - Volume III – Performance Confidence

6.0 - Volume IV – Price Proposal

7.0 - Volume V – Contract Documentation

8.0 - Required Attachments

1.0 Program Structure and Objectives

The objective of this effort is to obtain task based systems engineering services that include analysis, engineering and management processes and tools to facilitate the role of the A-10

System Program Office (SPO) to perform system integration and to accomplish the work requirements specified within the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

2.0 General Instructions

(a) This section of the instructions 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 Instructions and must be submitted IAW these instructions. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. The proposal shall be compliant with and meet the entire RFP requirements. Offerors are advised that submissions that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided herein may result in an unacceptable proposal evaluation, and/or exclusion from further consideration.

(b) Include Sufficient Detail: The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for an effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements and objectives, but 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, capabilities, and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

(c) Embellishments Not Desired: Elaborate brochures/documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and not desired.

(d) Proposal Acceptance and Validity Dates: The proposal acceptance period is specified on the first page of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement on the front page of the contract documentation volume (volume V) that the proposal is valid through this date.

(e) Disposition of Proposals: IAW FAR Subpart 4.803 (a), the Government will retain one copy of all proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise (in their proposal), the Government will destroy extra copies of the successful and unsuccessful proposals.

(f) Past Performance: For each contract identified, the offeror shall complete a Past

Performance Information Sheet (PPIS), Attachment 1, in response to this RFP. The PCO will make a determination of acceptable past and current performance (defined in Section M) IAW

FAR part 15.101-2 and FAR part 15.305(a)(2).

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Contact Information: The PCO and the Contract Specialist are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Written requests for clarification may be sent by mail or email (preferred) to the PCO, with a copy to the Contract Specialist. Contact Information is below:

AFLCMC/WWAK

ATTN: Captain Jennifer Hutchison

Contract Specialist

6072 Fir Avenue, Bldg 1233

Hill AFB, UT 84056-5820 jennifer.huthison@us.af.mil

801-777-4207

ATTN: Mr. Nathan Lee

Procurement Contracting Officer

6072 Fir Avenue, Bldg 1233

Hill AFB, UT 84056-5820 nathan.lee.3@us.af.mil

801-775-4928

All questions and answers shall be sent through the prime offeror.

2.1.2 Debriefings: The PCO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or otherwise eliminate them from the competition IAW FAR 15.503;

whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 and/or FAR 15.506.

Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 and/or FAR 15.506 procedures, 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 PCO in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

2.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents: All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) web site at https://www.fbo.gov/ or via a mailto:jennifer.huthison@us.af.mil mailto:nathan.lee.3@us.af.mil https://www.fbo.gov/

‘Bidder’s Library’ established by the A-10 Contracting Office. 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 Presentations: Oral presentations will not be allowed.

2.1.6 Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the PCO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 &

3.104” in the Subject line. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. The PCO may determine to conduct telephone exchanges when deemed appropriate by the Government.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.1) 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. The technical proposal, price proposal, and performance confidence volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders; the remaining volumes can be in one binder with a distinct tab for each volume. However, for the electronic copy requested below, every volume shall be on a different CD-R. The paper and electronic copies shall be clearly identified.

The contents of each proposal volume are described in this section and summarized in the table below. Offerors shall include a Table of Contents in the proposal. In addition to the “Hard

Copies” requested in Table 2.1 below, please submit one CD-R for each volume of the offeror’s proposal (not on CD-RW).

Table 2.1 - Proposal Organization

Volume

Instruction

Paragraph

Number

Title Hard

Copies

Electronic

Copies

Page

Limit

I 3.0 Executive Summary 2 1 2

II 4.0 Technical Proposal 5 1 100

III 5.0 Performance Confidence 3 1 10

IV 6.0 Price Proposal 3 1 Unlimited

V 7.0 Contract Documentation 2 1 Unlimited

2.2.1 Page Limitations: Page limitations are identified in Table 2.1 – Proposal Organization, and explained below. Offerors are advised that the limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be evaluated or considered for award purposes; rather, they will be returned to the offeror, or destroyed as soon as practical. Additionally, information provided outside of the appropriate volume will not be evaluated. For example; additional technical information found within Volume V would not be evaluated.

https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/Far02.doc#T2101 https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR03.DOC#b3104

Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarded. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as 2 pages. In the event that an offeror includes fold-out pages, the folded-out portion shall be counted the same as an 8.5 x 11 sheet. Each page shall be counted except cover/title pages, tables of contents, tabbed dividers, acronym lists and glossaries.

2.2.1.1 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 by 11 inches (foldouts must fold into no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches). Pages shall be typed using single spacing, except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and contractor deliverable plans, for which the CDRL Data Item Descriptions state shall be prepared in contractor formatting. The text size shall be no less than 12 point in Times New Roman typeface. 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 also apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy format.

(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, legible and shall not exceed 8.5 by 11 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point font. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.2 Cross Referencing: Each Volume (I – V) of the proposal shall be submitted, evaluated, and considered based solely on the information contained therein (i.e. each volume “stands-alone”). Cross referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

2.2.3. Pricing Information: All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY within the

Pricing and Contract Documentation Volumes.

2.2.4. Classified Information: Classified information SHALL NOT be provided in the offeror’s response to this RFP.

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

2.2.6. 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.

2.2.7. Binding and Labeling: The three-ring loose leaf binders used to contain the proposal information shall permit the volumes to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should preface each volume, 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. Since classified information shall not be provided in the proposal, all 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 IAW FAR 52.215-

1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-5, Disclosure, Protection, and

Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information. Each page that contains proprietary information shall be marked inside the header and footer of each page with the following statement “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (FAR 3.104) FOR

OFFICIAL USE ONLY.”

2.3 Electronic Offers: The content and page size of the electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies in all respects. The electronic copies shall be submitted on a single, virus free, ISO formatted read-only CD-R. Indicate on each “CD-R” the volume number and title (NOTE

THAT “CD-RWs” CANNOT BE READ, EVALUATED, OR CONSIDERED). Each volume shall be in a different “CD-R”. File compression will not be used. Each disk will be clearly labeled. Paper and electronic copies must be identical in all respects. In the event that there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation. The electronic copy of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2007 Suite of Applications (Word, Excel, and Power

Point) as applicable. PDF files are not acceptable. To facilitate evaluation electronic copies of the Pricing Volume of the proposal shall be submitted using Microsoft’s Excel format. Please do not “read protect” submitted Excel worksheets. Provide all formulas (evident within the spreadsheet) and links used. Do not embed electronic files within other electronic files. Word documents and Excel spreadsheets must be editable and not password protected.

2.4 Distribution: The "original" proposal shall be so designated and signed by the offeror’s authorized representative, and the “copies” should be identified appropriately. All requested copies must be received by the due date identified on the front page of the RFP. Proposals shall be addressed to the PCO and delivered to:

Mr. Nathan Lee, PCO c/o Captain Jennifer Hutchison, Contract Specialist

6072 Fir Avenue, Bldg 1233

Hill AFB, UT 84056-5820 nathan.lee.3@us.af.mil

801-775-4928

Include Solicitation Number FA8202-14-R-1001 on the address label.

3.0 Volume I - Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1 Table of Contents: Provide a master table of contents for the entire proposal, by SECTION

L and Government PWS paragraph number and the corresponding paragraph that addresses the referenced item. The table of contents will not count against the page limitation for this volume.

3.2 Other Information Required

3.2.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, telephone number, and email address of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the offeror’s proposal and who can obligate (as to this proposal) the offeror’s company/firm contractually. Also identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

3.2.2 Government Offices: Provide the mailing address, telephone number, email address, and facility code for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, Defense Contract Audit Agency

(DCAA), and Government Paying Office for the offeror’s company/firm. Also provide this information for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

3.2.3 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations; and verifications:

Offeror shall provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work (for completing what is proposed) will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

Offeror shall provide verification that at least 51 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel would be expended for employees of the prime contractor performing the key and vital areas of the work in this contract.

Offeror shall provide verification that unlimited/unrestricted rights IAW DFARS

252.227-7013 or 252.227-7015 apply for all required technical data deliveries, since such deliveries are either (1) necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training

(other than detailed manufacturing or process data) and/or (2) funded completely by the

Government under this contract.

3.3 Volume Organization: The Executive Summary shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1. Table of Contents*

2. Authorized Offeror Personnel POCs

3. Government Offices POCs

4. Company Address, Cage Codes and Applicable Designations

5. Partnership/Joint Venture Agreement(s)

*Not included in page count

4.0 Volume II - Technical Proposal

4.1 General: The technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and complete and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing documentation to address how the offeror will meet these requirements. There will be no reference to rates or price in this volume. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their certifications, facilities and/or structural, mechanical, and electronics capabilities, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology the offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying these sub-factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By the offeror’s proposal submission, the offeror is representing that the company/firm will perform ALL the requirements specified in the solicitation (including PWS); it is not necessary or desirable to tell us so in the proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.1.1 Adequate Responses: Cursory responses or content which merely reiterates or reformulates FAR 52.212-1 (or its addenda), FAR 52.212-2 (or its addenda), or the PWS will not be considered as being responsive to the requirements of the solicitation. Evidence (which clearly demonstrates and supports the offeror’s claims) is essential. The absence of such evidence may result in a technically unacceptable proposal.

4.2 Volume Organization: The Proposal shall be organized according to the following general outline:

2. List of Table and Drawings*

3. Glossary*

4. Sample Task responses

5. Technical Approach

6. Management Approach

4.3 Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

4.3.1 Sub-Factor A: Sample Task #1 – Systems Engineering with Architectures – See

Attachment 4

The proposal and response to this sample task shall clearly demonstrate that the offeror has sufficient familiarity, experience, technical expertise and competence to accurately, correctly, effectively and efficiently understand, interpret, correct, complete, and update the A-10 architecture, and apply viable systems engineering using the A-10 DoDAF 2.0 Architecture (11

December 2013), the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), and A-10

SPO Engineering processes as found in the Bidder’s Library to most effectively support the A-10

Weapon System.

4.3.2 Sub-Factor B: Sample Task #2 – Engineering Drawing/Engineering Change Order (ECO)

Updates – See Attachment 5 effectively and efficiently update A-10 engineering baseline drawings and applicable Technical

Orders from multiple ECOs. Updates shall be IAW the A-10 Drawing Practices document 08-

A10DOC-001, 11 August 2008, the “A-10 2D Drawing to 3D Model Migration Specification”, 13-A10DOC-001, and CDRL A013, Product Drawings per the PWS.

4.3.3 Sub-Factor C: Sample Task #3 – AWSME Impacted REMIS Data Evaluation – See

Attachment 6 effectively and efficiently understand, interpret, correct, complete and use REMIS data via the

AWSME tool in support of the A-10 Weapon System.

4.3.4 Sub-Factor D: Technical Approach

4.3.4.1 The proposal shall describe in detail the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the

PWS, Section 3 requirements identified in the following paragraph. For those requirements, the proposal shall mirror the outline of the PWS. If the technical approach utilizes subcontractor(s), identify how the prime contractor will be responsible for performing the primary and vital requirements.

Specifically, the offeror shall provide detailed strategies of how they will accomplish and satisfy the following key requirements IAW the PWS:

Systems Engineering Based Integrated Management – (PWS para 3.1)

Requirements Management Software Licensing and Installation (PWS para 3.2)

Engineering Baseline Maintenance (PWS para 3.3)

A-10 Platform Obsolescence Plan (PWS para 3.4)

Support Equipment Roadmap (PWS para 3.5)

A-10 Weapon System Management Environment (AWSME) Engineering Services

Requirements (PWS para 3.6)

Aircraft Configuration Technical Support (PWS para 3.7)

Program and Management Support (PWS para 3.8)

Data Requirements (PWS para 3.9)

Operational Utility Evaluations (PWS para 3.10)

4.3.5 Sub-Factor E: Management Approach – Program Management (PWS Section 3, para 3.8

– 3.12, and PWS Section 4)

4.3.5.1 The proposal shall describe the offeror’s program management approach toward accomplishing the requirements of the PWS. The offeror shall submit a Program Management

Plan (PMP), which will be incorporated into the contract upon successful award.

The offeror shall describe their approach that outlines all processes and programs by which the offeror will effectively execute the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall include an organizational chart of all key contractor employees, consultants and subcontractors that contain the appropriate level of expertise and skill mix for the successful performance of the WSSA program. The plan shall address the offeror’s approach to contractually required communication with the Government in the form of Program Management Reviews (PMRs), Technical

Interchange Meetings (TIMs), etc.

5.0 Volume III (Factor 2) – Performance Confidence

5.1 General: Each offeror shall submit a performance confidence volume containing (i) completed PPIS IAW the format contained in Attachment 1, Past Performance Information

Sheets. Offerors may submit a maximum of five (5) PPISs on the prime contractor and a maximum of three (3) for its proposed key subcontractors individually for recency and relevancy

(see Section L, 5.3 & Section M, 5.1.1)); and (ii) a completed Roles and Responsibilities

Worksheet IAW the format contained in Attachment 3, Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet, for all proposed subcontractors performing direct labor for this effort. The offeror has discretion in determining the most beneficial mix and quantity of work efforts by prime offeror, key partners, or subcontractors covering as many of these elements as is practical. A minimum of two (2) relevant work efforts shall be for the prime offeror and if less than five (5) relevant work efforts are submitted, the contractor shall specifically state and acknowledge its number is less than the five (5) it could submit.

5.1.1 Consent Letter and Client Authorization Letter: The offeror shall submit a consent letter (Attachment 2) executed by each key subcontractor, and/or teaming partners identified on

Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet, Attachment 3, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. A

Consent Letter is provided because past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from key subcontractors and/or teaming partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

The offeror shall submit a client authorization letter (Attachment 2) for each identified effort for a commercial customer. This letter will authorize release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance. The government will need that consent before contacting commercial customers to assess the offeror’s past performance. The completed client authorization letters should be submitted as part of your Present/Past Performance Volume.

5.1.2 Summary Table: The offeror shall submit a Summary Table (see format below). The purpose of the summary table is to capture the total scope of work that the offeror is presenting in this Performance Confidence Volume. The Government may obtain and use performance information on any or none of these programs as well as programs not submitted by the offeror.

(This Section counts against the page count.) The table shall include (as a minimum) current information as follows:

Contractor

Contract

Number/

Work

Effort

Total Period of

Performance

Maximum

Total

Estimated

Dollars

Contracting

Agency or

Customer

Phone

Number and

E-Mail

Addresses of at Least

Two POCs

(one being a

“Contracts”

POC)

Brief

Program

Description

(max 25 words)

Stage of the

Program

& Brief

Status

(max 25 words)

5.2 Performance Confidence Volume Submission: It is requested that the offeror submit its

Performance Confidence Volume 10 calendar days prior to the date set forth in block 9 of the SF

1449 for receipt of proposal; however offerors shall not submit it later than the proposal deadline.

5.3 Relevant Contracts: Relevance does not mean same or identical. Relevant means significantly similar to this acquisition to provide indicators of performance. Consider such things as product or service similarity, complexity, contract type, contract dollar value/size, program phase, division of company, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. Submit information IAW Attachment 1, PPIS. The offeror shall submit past performance information for work efforts identified in para 5.1.2; maximum of five (5) recent work efforts that are most relevant in demonstrating the offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall also include information for a maximum of three (3) recent work efforts performed by each of the teaming partners and significant subcontractors that are considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Offeror shall include rationale supporting its assertion of relevance.

5.4 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 (see Section L, 5.3) past efforts or between conclusions of recent

(see Section L, 5.1.1) 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, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of the offeror’s company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts the offeror identifies 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 offeror’s “roadmap” should be both specifically applicable to the efforts identified and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

5.5 Contractor Relationships: If any of the offerors’ subcontractors identified on the PPIS are also potential offerors for this solicitation, the offeror may provide the POCs for the next higher level customer.

Provide information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition and will be considered in the evaluation. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent (see Section L, 5.1 & Section L, 5.1.1) past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. As with all past work efforts identified in the proposal, use the PPIS (Attachment 1).

5.6 Clarifying Submitted Past Performance: The Government may contact the points of contact provided by the offeror for the purpose of ascertaining and/or clarifying past performance information.

5.7 Other Performance Confidence Considerations: It is not presumed that the offeror’s past performance has been perfect. Rather, the proposal should contain evidence of the offeror’s ability to isolate the root causes of problems and should include in their PPIS a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed by the offeror, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of CPARS, if the offeror’s input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here. The

Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and may use data obtained from other sources in the development of the confidence assessment.

5.8 Volume Organization: The Performance Confidence volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

2. Glossary*

3. Summary Table*

4. Past Performance Information Sheets (PPISs) (Attachment 1)

5. Consent Letters (Attachment 2)*

6. Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet (Attachment 3)*

6.0 Volume IV (Factor 3) - Price Proposal

6.1 General: The price evaluation criteria of reasonableness, balance, and Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) as defined in the evaluation document of the RFP will be assessed from the offeror’s information provided in this volume.

6.1.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

(a) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in section B of the RFP for each Contract Line

Item Number (CLIN) or Sub CLIN (SLIN), including all option periods. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the provided best estimated quantity (BEQ) unit of issue. The provided BEQ is for award determination purposes only and does not represent a Government obligation and is not contractually binding.

(b) The total TEP will be the price factor in determining which offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the government. Consequently, the offeror submitting the “best value” proposal will be the successful contract awardee. The TEP is for award determination purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision.

6.1.2 Price Information: Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless offeror considers it essential to document or support their price position. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the Price Proposal and Contract Document Volumes. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

6.1.3 Pricing Information Requirements:

IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness the offeror shall be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data; if none of the exceptions in FAR

15.403-1 apply, the offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data.

Information shall be provided in format that is IAW FAR 15.403-5.

The PCO has made a preliminary determination of “Adequate Price Competition” IAW FAR

15.403-1 (c)(1). Therefore, a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data per FAR 15.403-4 will not be required. In the event that adequate competition does not emerge in response to the solicitation, the PCO may require submission of certified cost and pricing data, and a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data (IAW FAR 15.403-4).

6.1.4 Rounding: All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

6.2 Volume Organization

The Pricing Volume shall consist of the following sections:

SECTION 1 – Table of Contents.

SECTION 2 – Pricing information and supporting data.

SECTION 3 – List each exception to the terms and conditions provided in the solicitation. Provide complete rationale for any exceptions.

7.0 Volume V - Contract Documentation

7.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications: The purpose of this volume is for the offerors to provide the following:

7.2 Solicitation/Contract Form:

(a) Complete blocks 13and 27 of the RFP Section A In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. Sections A through J constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Exhibit A for all identified CLINs, including all option periods. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

8.0. SECTION L – Required Attachments

Offerors shall submit the below attachments as part of their proposal:

Attachment 1: Past Performance Information Sheet

Attachment 2: Subcontractor Teaming/Partner Consent Letter

Attachment 3: Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet

Attachment 4: Sample Task #1

Attachment 5: Sample Task #2

Attachment 6: Sample Task #3

SECTION L ATTACHMENT 1: Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS)

Past Performance Information (PPI): Offerors must provide the information requested in the paragraphs below (A through K) for each contract/program/work effort being described. Provide frank, concise comments regarding the offeror’s performance on the contracts identified. Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program/work effort submitted. Limit the number of past efforts submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth at paragraph

5 of SECTION L of this solicitation. Identify past or current contracts/programs/work efforts

(including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the

Government requirement (IAW paragraph 5 of SECTION L). Offerors may also provide information on problems encountered on the identified efforts and the offeror corrective actions.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division), CAGE Code, DUNS Number

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change

History" provided as part of the Past Performance Volume.)

B. Program Title

C. Contract/program/work effort Specifics - Contracting Agency or Customer, Contract

Number or program/work effort title/description, Contract Type (if applicable), Period of

Performance, Original Dollar Value and Current Dollar Value.

D. Brief Description of Effort as __Prime or __Subcontractor

(Please indicate whether it was development and/or production, or other acquisition phase and highlight portions considered most relevant to current acquisition)

E. Completion Date - Original date, Current Schedule, Estimate at Completion, How Many

Times Changed, Primary Causes of Change

F. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts provide current information on the Program Manager, ACO and PCO. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles.)

G. For requirements under the Technical Acceptability factor in Section M, illustrate how the offeror’s past performance in applicable sub-factors applies.

H. Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are planned to support the proposed acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.

I. Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also, estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor, or a corporate division related to the prime (define relationship)

SECTION L ATTACHMENT 2:

Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter

For the Release of Past and Present Performance Information to the Prime Contractor

Past performance information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime contractor during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government’s Performance Confidence evaluation team in assessing the offeror’s past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent letter be completed by the major subcontractors/ teaming partners identified in the offeror’s proposal. The completed consent letters should be submitted as part of the offeror’s

Performance Confidence Volume.

SAMPLE

Dear “Contracting Officer:”

We are participating as a (subcontractor/teaming partner) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Department of the Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, Request for Proposal FA8202-14-R-1001 for the A-10 WSSA contract.

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent letter to allow discussion of our past and present performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER

Past performance information concerning private sector contractors, subcontractors and joint venture partners cannot be disclosed to the government without their consent. Client authorization letters are required for each identified effort for a commercial customer. This letter will authorize release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.

The government will need that consent before contacting commercial customers to assess the offeror’s past performance. In an effort to assist the Government's Past Performance Evaluation

Team in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following client authorization letter be completed by any commercial customers identified in your proposal. The completed client authorization letters should be submitted as part of your

Present/Past Performance Volume.

Offerors should send with their list of references a letter similar to the following authorizing the reference to provide past performance information to the Government.

SAMPLE

Dear “Client:”

We are responding to a Department of the Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, Request for Proposal

FA8202-14-R-1001 for The A-10 WSSA contract.

In their acquisitions, the government is placing increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. They are requiring those clients of entities responding to their solicitation to be identified, and their participation in the evaluation process is requested. In the event that you are contacted for information on work performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms.____________________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on his/her knowledge of our work. Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed to [Bidder Point of Contact].

Sincerely, Signature and title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

SECTION L ATTACHMENT 3: Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet

Instructions: Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of each team member participating in your proposal for the Hill AFB A-10 WSSA solicitation by typing the name of each participating company in the appropriate column in the table above. Then mark an “X” for each subfactor that they will be participating in on the contract and in the next column.

Include the % of work toward the subfactor. Contractors not participating in a particular subfactor will not be evaluated for that subfactor. Also include the total % of work to be completed on the contract by each company, business size, Cage Code and DUNS Number for each as per the headings in the table.

SECTION L ATTACHMENT 4: Sample Task #1 - Systems Engineering with

Architectures Tasks

The A-10 Architecture was developed to facilitate requirements tracking, systems engineering and the execution of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process for the successful integration of sustainment and new capabilities modification. The A-10

Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) 2.0 compliant Architecture provided in Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) mirrors the architecture version in the (CORE) tool and was provided to interested vendors as GFI. This task will allow the vendors to demonstrate their experience and expertise in using DODAF architectures as a systems engineering tool as well as to demonstrate that their systems engineering experience and skills are at the level required to successfully accomplish the WSSA 5 year effort, using a fictional requirement, shown below.

1. (100 points) A new potential required capability, Homeland Threat Defense Support

(HTDS), for the A-10 (assume the source for this capability is the same source as the Close

Air Support (CAS) capability and other capabilities as found in the A-10C OPERATIONAL

VIABILITY AND SUSTAINMENT GAP ANALYSIS REPORT) is described as:

“Homeland Threat Defense Support (HTDS)

The A-10C requires the ability to provide accurate fires in close proximity to, and in close coordination with, local forces in order to destroy, disrupt, suppress, or otherwise stop terrorist threats and attacks on the homeland to include the White House, the Capitol

Building, and the Pentagon in support of the Rapid Response Commander scheme of maneuver.”

Also assume that the A-10 Operational Requirements Document (ORD) contains the following HTDS description:

HTDS provides firepower in defensive operations to destroy, disrupt, suppress, or otherwise stop, slow, and or low flying terrorist threats and attacks in close proximity to the White

House, the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon. HTDS can support defensive surface force operations with immediate or preplanned attacks. All immediate and preplanned HTDS missions may require timely, detailed and data intensive coordination to minimize collateral damage. HTDS missions require timely intelligence information and accurate delivery of guided, precision, and near-precision munitions. HTDS will likely be requested at the first indication of an attack or threat making quick response time critical. (ORD 1.1.1.X)

And finally, assume that the joint publication JP 3-09.X contains the following HTDS description:

HTDS is air action by fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft against slow and or low flying terrorist threats and attacks that are in close proximity to the homeland that require rapid response and detailed information from the Rapid Response Commander (see JP 3-09.X, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for HTDS).

To demonstrate your expertise with requirements definition, requirements tracking, and execution of the JCIDS process, using the HTML version of the A-10 DoDAF 2.0

Architecture (11 December 2013), answer the following:

a. (30 points) What is the official source of the HTDS capability for the A-10 based on? In the A-10 Operational Architecture there are two classes and an operational activity where similar definitions, references and activities of other capabilities are found. Which of these area(s) would you update with the above definition and why?

b. (35 points) From the HTML version of the architecture, copy the existing applicable sections as required to show where you would add the previous descriptions into a word document and label it “Was”. Make the changes that you recommend in parts 1.a and label as “Is”. Your submittal should clearly show all of your changes and precisely where they should be in the architecture.

c. (35 points) Based on the basic capability descriptions above, what other part(s) of the

Operational Architecture would you initially change/update to best document these new capabilities?

2. (100 points) This portion of the architecture task is based on the new potential cockpit sustainment modification to allow the offerors to fully demonstrate their systems engineering ability to initiate requirements using the architecture. This requirement is based on resolving several gaps determined in the A-10C Viability and Sustainment Gap Analysis Report and long term sustainment of A-10 avionics.

The minimum requirements for this task include a large digital display in the center of the instrument panel which will replace both physically and functionally the primary avionics displays and a smaller display that will do the same thing for the engine instruments. There is also a requirement for a new processor to run the associated independent software modules to drive the replacement displays. This would include a data concentrator for converting Line

Replaceable Units (LRU)s inputs and outputs, i.e. analog, synchro, discrete and miscellaneous signals to digital data for processing. The new processor and data concentrator would provide a path forward for sustaining (systematic physical and functional replacement of) multiple aging processors and avionics with independent software modules.

(See attached list of LRUs)

a. (25 points) Where in the architecture would you start to develop a recommended architecture for this requirement? Describe the basic A-10 systems engineering process that you would follow to complete the recommended architecture to capture and trace the minimum requirement set.

b. (10 points) Describe the systems engineering that you would accomplish to determine which systems engineering review milestones you would recommend for this requirement? What are the minimum milestones that you recommend and why?

c. (22 points) Based on the A-10 and the JCIDS processes and your systems engineering, determine which Operational Views (OV) and Service Views (SV) must be updated and/or created for each systems engineering review milestone for this requirement? For the requirement as defined above and based on the structure and intended use of the current architecture, accomplish the systems engineering required to choose any 5 required OVs and/or SVs and provide examples of the information each should contain, explain and elaborate their appropriate use (why you need it, what information it contains, and what it substantiates) for each milestone review.

d. (7 points) Accomplish a minimum design of this effort so that the architecture can be used to demonstrate some early basic design tradeoffs. (If you are trading off sustainment and support equipment options you are well beyond “minimum” and

“early basic design” stage and out of scope for this sample task) Use the architecture to demonstrate some of the early basic design tradeoffs. What kind of tradeoffs can’t be shown in the current architecture?

e. (5 points) In the current HTML version of the architecture describe where in the architecture you would obtain the detailed technical data required to define the technical requirements for the data concentrator.

f. (10 points) For at least 4 LRUs in the attached list with an applicable I/O count of a minimum of 5 I/O per LRU, build the initial specification for the data concentrator by inserting the appropriate data from the architecture into a word document within a separate section listed for each of the 4 LRUs. Accomplish sufficient systems engineering to show in the document that you have included planning for all of the types of data conversion required for the data concentrator for this modification.

Other than the technical data required for defining the specification for the data concentrator, what is the current lowest level (most complete and most detailed) of data generally found in the current version of the architecture? What are the sources for this data?

g. (5 points) What is the next lower logical level of detail below the lowest level identified and above the concentrator data in question ‘f’ required to be added to more fully describe the technical physical requirements in the architecture? What are the sources for this data?

h. (5 points) In general what is the highest level requirement referenced in the architecture? What is/are the source(s) for this data?

i. (4 points) What gaps in the A-10C Viability and Sustainment Gap Analysis Report does this modification reduce or eliminate? Explain how.

j. (7 points) Describe how you would trace gaps as found in the A-10C

OPERATIONAL VIABILITY AND SUSTAINMENT GAP ANALYSIS REPORT

to the Architecture. Demonstrate this by updating the architecture via a “was” / “Is” word document to resolve one of those gaps.

List of LRUs for question 2:

ALPHAMACH Computer

Air Speed Indicator, AVU-22/A

Altimeter, AAU-34/A

Angle of Attack Indicator, ARU-45/A

APU Tachometer DLA)

APU, Exhaust Gas Temp Indicator

Control Display Unit (CDU)

Fuel Flow Rt Engine Indicator

Fuel Quantity & Totalizer Indicator

Horizontal situation (HIS) Indicator

Ind Hydr Press (DLA)

Interturbine Temp (ITT) Indicator

Master Caution Annunciator Panel

Nav Mode Select Panel

Pressure Oil Indicator

Rate of Fuel Flow Indicator

Remote Attitude (ADI) ARU-2B/A, Indicator

Standby Attitude, ARU-42/A Indicator

Tach Core speed Indicator

Tach, Fan Speed (NF) Indicator

Vertical Velocity, AAU-9/A, Indicator

SECTION L ATTACHMENT…