ATTACK-L_and_M.pdf

Section L – Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

Section Content:

0.0 - General Instructions

1.0 - Executive Summary

2.0 - Technical Proposal

3.0 - Completed Request for Proposal and Pricing

4.0 - Past Performance

5.0 - Small Business Concern Utilization Plan

0.0 General Instructions

(a) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to fulfill Solicitation, Statement of Work (SOW) and Technical Data Package (TDP) requirements.

(b) Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

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

(d) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A (SF 1447, blk. 11) of the solicitation.

The offeror shall make a clear statement that the proposal is valid through this date.

(e) The proposal shall be provided both electronically and in hard copy. Offerors are to submit two paper copies and two CDs (CD-R/W are not acceptable) with the proposals and any supporting documentation. In addition, offerors shall provide a third copy of the Technical Volume, Executive Summary, and glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used (both hard and electronic). This third copy shall have offeror’s name, facility location, and names of key personnel removed throughout the entire package. This copy will be provided to the technical team to ensure maximum objectivity during review. Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered.

(f) The content of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. Electronic copies of spreadsheets shall be submitted using Microsoft Excel format. If there are any discrepancies between hard copies and electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

(g) Offerors are to provide the following volumes:

Volume I: Executive Summary – Limited to 5 pages Volume II: Technical Proposal – Limited to 50 pages Volume III: Completed RFP and Pricing – Completed RFP + 5 pages for pricing Volume IV: Past Performance – Limited to 15 pages per past performance submittal Volume V: Small Business Concern Utilization Plan – Limited to 10 pages

Each volume must be in a sealed package and show the time and date specified for receipt.

Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the volume. i.e. I, II, III. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars. Contractors shall use Arial font and print should be no

1386553897C Draft smaller than the font size of 12 and should be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper. Charts, graphs or spreadsheets may be on fold-out pages, but must fold within the page size specified and will count as one page. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations or spreadsheets shall be in Arial font and print shall be no smaller than the font size of 10 and paper shall not be greater than 11” x 17”. Margins shall be no smaller than 1” and each page shall be numbered consecutively.

(h) Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis. Information required for the proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

(i) Offerors are advised that submissions that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided herein may result in an unacceptable proposal evaluation, or exclusion from further consideration.

(j) The Government intends to award one contract on an all or none basis.

(k) The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost.

(l) Exchanges of source selection information will be controlled by the primary Contracting Officer

(CO), Ben Peterson, and buyer, Trena Held. At no time prior to award is the offeror to contact anyone other than the CO or buyer.

(m) Questions regarding this solicitation are encouraged. All questions and Present / Past Performance Sheet shall be directly e-mailed to benjamin.peterson.8@us.af.mil and copied to trena.held.1@us.af.mil.

(n) The CO or buyer 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. The CO or buyer will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. 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.

(o) The offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort with or without discussions. In the event the award is made without discussions, the award determination will be made based on the initial proposal submitted.

(p) Exchanges of Source Selection Information between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officers. Encrypted email may be used to transmit such information to/from offerors and must include, “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. Source Selection Information may also be sent via certified US Postal Service, FedEx or equivalent mail service. 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. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Contracting Officer and Buyer prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificate used for encryption.

To ensure the process is working correctly, it is recommended that the offeror send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information).

(q) Proposals shall contain an index to clearly identify each section.

(r) Proposals shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

(s) Each page that contains proprietary information shall be marked inside the header and footer with the following statement: “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

(t) Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, to the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors who take exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and; therefore; may not be considered for award. Prior to award, the awardee must meet all terms and conditions of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make adjustments to the solicitation and request final proposal revisions.

(u) 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 and buyer in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Government 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 discussion.

(v) All draft plans submitted for review are for evaluation purposes only. Awardee has the ability to update draft plans, with the approval of the CO, without change in price.

(w) Provide name, title, telephone number, and email address of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made, with respect to your proposal, that can obligate your firm contractually along with those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

(x) If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Past Performance Sheets (discussed below) shall be completed together by offeror and joint venture partner.

(y) Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. If page limits are made, they will be identified in the correspondence forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

(z) Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and buyer and delivered to:

A-10 Contracting ATTN: Ben Peterson or Trena Held 6072 Fir Ave, Bldg 1233 Hill AFB, UT 84056-5820

1.0 Executive Summary

Volume I shall consist of a concise, narrative summary of the entire proposal and a highlight of any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. Any exceptions to the requirements must be noted and highlighted in this volume. Summary material presented in this volume shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any other volumes of the proposal.

2.0 Technical Proposal

Offeror’s Volume II, Technical Proposal, which includes Technical Capabilities and Program Management subfactors, shall be specific and complete. The technical portion of the proposal will be used by the

Source Selection Evaluation Team to evaluate the anticipated quality of the parts and assemblies the offeror would provide. Proposals shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of the associated technical requirement documentation, to include but not limited to, Sections L&M, SOW, SOW Attachments, TDP and CDRLs. Responses will be evaluated according to the factors/sub-factors identified in Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award.

For each subfactor section listed below, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. The offeror shall describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful completion of potential contract. The offeror shall provide: rationale for each identified risk, a quantitative estimate of the impact to cost, schedule and performance, and risk mitigation. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

2.1 Technical Capabilities

Provide detailed explanation of the offeror’s expertise and capabilities to perform and/or oversee the manufacturing process (and related support activities) for the ATTACK Wing Assembly. Address the following elements and detail how offeror capabilities correlate with the technical requirements of this solicitation, i.e., Sections L&M, SOW, SOW Attachments, TDP and CDRLs and provide specific examples of similar tasks/capabilities:

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to manufacture, assemble, inspect (highlight FAI

IAW AS9102), test, repair, and package the wing and its components.

i. Provide examples of how the integrated first article process extends from the individual part through the completed assembly.

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or existing training/qualification programs that ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians: integral fuel sealing, drilling dissimilar material stack-ups, composite manufacture of honeycomb structure as a minimum.

(c) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive manufacturing concept/process (to include necessary tooling development and manufacture).

(d) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive Quality Assurance / Quality Control program and Material Review Board (MRB) process.

(e) Ability to control stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces. At a minimum demonstrate tolerance control equal to the following parts/locations related to this effort: WS 110 wing splice 162D611101-1001, Trunnion Instl 162D611102-1001, Trunnion 162D611621-2003, WS 23 162D611104-1001.

(f) Experience with split sleeve cold working and shot peening processes to improve fatigue life.

(g) Ability to control component loft and contour as defined via model based definition during manufacturing and assembly.

(h) Ability to seal and test an integral wing fuel tank (i.e. a wet wing).

(i) Ability to manufacture and procure Critical Safety Items (CSI) and manage CSI requirements at all levels of manufacture and assembly.

(j) Ability to fabricate, control and inspect bonded metallic composite structure (e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.) and bonded non-metallic composite structure (e.g. epoxy resin composite laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.).

(k) Ability to control interchangeable and replaceable (I&R) lofted and non-lofted interfaces capable of being readily installed, removed, or replaced without alteration, misalignment, or damage to items being installed, adjoining items, or structure.

(l) Ability to manufacture, inspect and test high-strength fatigue critical parts and assemblies (e.g.

Attach Fitting 162D611605-5001,-2001).

(m) Ability to understand and use available production tooling from previous contract and/or new tooling in the production of the current ATTACK wing configuration in a manner that allows delivery within the government timeline.

2.2 Program Management

The offeror shall provide a draft Integrated Management Plan (IMP) which will enable the Government to assess how the offeror will establish and maintain a program management system that will direct and control the administrative, technical, financial, manufacturing, procurement, storage, and logistics functions of this effort. The plan should provide or demonstrate:

(a) A fully integrated management approach sufficient for accomplishing an effort of this size and scope.

(b) A clear and logical structure and staffing to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources for successful program execution. Show organizational structure including lines of authority and interfaces between management, staff, sub-tier vendors/suppliers (audit/management) and the Government.

(c) A thorough understanding of the processes, procedures and communication tools required to effectively manage and successfully implement this program.

(d) A draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that at a minimum graphically details the offeror’s timeline for tooling production (to include master and production tool need timeline), material purchase, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing), low rate initial production (LRIP), and full-rate production (FRP) for an entire year (following the delivery of final LRIP unit). Assume a FRP delivery rate of three wings per month. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the SOW. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume.

(e) The integrated plan, if any, to meet incentivized delivery schedule: planning and production approaches, expedite options for long-lead items, and production and planning risks and mitigations.

(f) A list of items the offeror considers to be long-lead items and/or parts and assemblies that may cause delays in meeting government timelines and mitigations to minimize delivery impacts.

2.2.3Technical Requirements Matrix

Familiarity with technical requirements will need to be demonstrated in offeror’s proposals, as such a technical requirements matrix is provided in Table 1. Each offeror shall fill out the matrix with the information on which proposal section addresses the solicitation requirements as detailed in the matrix.

The matrix shall be included with the Technical Volume and will not be counted as part of the page count.

Table 1 Technical Requirements Matrix

Sub-factors Technical

Rqmts Doc Section

L Section

M CDRL

Proposal (Offeror

Completes)

Sub-factor 1: Technical Capabilities

SOW

Attachments

A-G

2.1 2.1.1, 2.1.2

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to manufacture, assemble, inspect (highlight FAI IAW AS9102), test, repair, and package the wing and its components

SOW Section 3.4, 5.4

SOW

Attachment E

2.1.a 2.1.1.1.a A009 A010 A022

(i) Provide examples of how the integrated first article process extends from the individual part through the completed assembly.

SOW Section 3.3, 3.4

2.1.a.i 2.1.1.1.a.i A009 A017

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or quality steps taken to ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians: integral fuel sealing, drilling dissimilar material stack-ups, composite manufacture of honeycomb structure.

SOW Section 3.3

2.1.b 2.1.1.1.b A028

(c) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive manufacturing concept/process (to include necessary tooling development and manufacture).

SOW Section 3.4

2.1.c 2.1.1.1.c A035

(d) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive Quality Assurance / Quality Control program and Material Review Board (MRB) process.

SOW Section 3.3

2.1.d 2.1.1.1.d A016 A017 A019 A025

(e) Ability to control stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces. At a minimum demonstrate tolerance control equal to the following parts/locations related to this effort: WS 110 wing splice 162D611101-1001, Trunnion Instl 162D611102-1001, Trunnion 162D611621-2003, WS 23 162D611104-1001.

SOW Section 3.4

2.1.e 2.1.1.1.e A030

(f) Experience with split sleeve cold working and shot peening processes to improve fatigue life.

2.1.f 2.1.1.1.f A022

(g) Ability to control component loft and contour as defined via model based definition during manufacturing and assembly.

SOW Section 3.3

2.1.g 2.1.1.1.g A023 A024

(h) Ability to seal and test an integral wing fuel tank (i.e. a wet wing).

2.1.h 2.1.1.1.h A022

(i) Ability to manufacture and procure Critical Safety Items (CSI) and manage CSI requirements at all levels of manufacture and assembly.

SOW Section 3.3, 3.4

SOW

Attachment B

2.1.i 2.1.1.1.i

(j) Ability to fabricate, control and inspect bonded metallic composite structure (e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.) and bonded non-metallic composite structure (e.g. epoxy resin composite laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.).

SOW Section 3.3, 3.4

2.1.j 2.1.1.1.j A022

(k) Ability to control interchangeable and replaceable (I&R) lofted and non-lofted interfaces capable of being readily installed, removed, or replaced without alteration, misalignment, or damage to items being installed, adjoining items, or structure.

SOW Section 3.4

2.1.k 2.1.1.1.k A043

(l) Ability to manufacture, inspect and test high-strength fatigue critical parts and assemblies (e.g. Attach Fitting 162D611605- 5001,-2001).

SOW Section 3.3, 3.4

2.1.l 2.1.1.1.l A022

(m) Ability to understand and use available production tooling from previous contract and/or new tooling in the production of the current ATTACK wing configuration in a manner that allows delivery within the government timeline.

SOW Section 3.4

2.1.m 2.1.1.1.m A034 A035 A042

Sub-factor 2: Program Management

Statement of Work

SOW

Attachments A-G

2.2 2.1.1, 2.1.2

(a) A fully integrated management approach sufficient for accomplishing an effort of this size and scope.

SOW Section 3.2

2.2.a 2.1.1.2.a A002

(b) A clear and logical structure and staffing to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources for successful program execution. Show organizational structure including lines of authority and interfaces between management, staff, sub-tier vendors/suppliers (audit/management) and the government.

SOW Section 3.2

2.2.b 2.1.1.2.b A001 A002

(c) A thorough understanding of the processes, procedures and communication tools required to effectively manage and successfully implement this program.

SOW Section 3.2

2.2.c 2.1.1.2.c A022 A002

(d) A draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that at a minimum graphically details the offeror’s timeline for tooling production (to include master and production tool need timeline), material purchase, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing), low rate initial production (LRIP), and full-rate production (FRP) for an entire year (following the delivery of final LRIP unit). Assume a FRP delivery rate of three wings per month. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the SOW. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count

SOW Section 3.2

2.2.d 2.1.1.2.d A001 limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume

(e) The integrated plan, if any, to meet incentivized delivery schedule: planning and production approaches, expedite options for long-lead items, and production and planning risks and mitigations

2.2.e 2.1.1.2.e

(f) A list of items the offeror considers to be long-lead items and/or parts and assemblies that may cause delays in meeting government timelines and mitigations to minimize delivery impacts

2.2.f 2.1.1.2.e

3.0 Completed Request for Proposal and Pricing

Volume III will consist of the completed and signed RFP and 5 additional pages to provide the Government with a clear understanding of how price estimates were developed and to support pricing as realistic, reasonable and balanced. Submitted pricing should be filled out directly on the RFP line items.

Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed.

The Government shall evaluate all offerors by price, to include all ordering periods. The offerors’ price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated Price (see sample Pricing Formula Tool attached to this solicitation).

(a) The Total Evaluated Price (to be calculated as shown on the Pricing Formula Tool) will be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision.

(b) All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in Volume III (Completed Request for Proposal and Pricing).

(c) The offeror must identify any minimum order requirements for components, which may not be consumed, to support this production requirement and would be responsible for the Government to pay for. These may or may not become Government material at the conclusion of this contract.

(d) All offerors will be required to propose the cost of all production tooling. GFE Tooling utilized may be excluded from pricing.

(e) It is anticipated that pricing of this action will be based on adequate price competition; therefore, offerors are not required to submit cost or pricing data. However, if after receipt of proposals it is determined that adequate price competition does not exist, cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.406- 2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data) shall be required.

(f) If it is determined that adequate price competition does not exist, the offeror shall provide current, complete and accurate cost or pricing data within 60 calendar days after receipt of the Contracting Officer's request.

4.0 Past Performance

Volume IV consists of present/past performance information. Each offeror shall submit present / past performance information for itself/joint venture member on the attached Present / Past Performance Sheet. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by the offeror, but can also use present/past performance information obtained from other sources to assign a past performance rating to the offeror’s proposal.

Offerors shall submit three contracts on the attached Present / Past Performance Sheet. Offerors proposing as joint venture shall submit 3 TOTAL contracts between the two companies (offeror could also elect to submit all three contracts for one of the contractors). All three submitted contracts must meet the recency and relevancy definitions as follows:

Recency Assessment Must have been in production within the last three years of the posting date of this solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment Must be of a metallic spar/rib and skin/stiffener both monolithic machined and mechanically fastened wing box design.

In addition, offerors are advised to provide detailed information specific to each contract to cover the list below and show the connections in design/complexity/process expected in the effort solicited: Specific examples, detailed data, graphics, drawings, etc.

(a) Contain a wing that weighs at least 2500 pounds

(b) Contain items that are (or have been) produced at a rate of at least 20 per year

(c) Contain contoured components of bonded metallic composite structure, e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.

(d) Contain contoured components of bonded non-metallic composite structure, e.g. epoxy resin composition laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.

(e) Contain integrated flight control components and systems

(f) Contain integrated avionics, hydraulic and fuel system components

(g) Contain an integral fuel tank (removable fuel tanks/bladders are not considered integral)

(h) Contain fatigue and fracture critical and CSI primary structure components

(i) Contain stringent manufacturing tolerances (e.g. surface finish 63 RHR or better, hole diameter ±0.00075, surface flatness of 0.002, hole location of 0.001 diametrical over 20 inches, etc.), particularly at I&R interfaces

(j) Demonstrate Quality Assurance/ Quality Control and Material Review Board (MRB) process capabilities

(k) Demonstrate proper understanding and use of Model Based Definition (MBD) for production control

If the contract the offeror is submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (e.g., an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), an individual order under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted in lieu of the basic contract itself. The basic contract will not be evaluated. Offeror’s are not to submit multiple orders of the same basic contract. The Government reserves the right to review multiple orders for the same contract. In this event, multiple orders shall be considered as a single effort for evaluation purposes.

On the three contracts submitted in Volume IV, Past Performance, include relevant information in the Present / Past Performance Sheet concerning the offeror’s /joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and (if applicable) FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to all businesses, whereas FAR 52.219- 9 only applies to large businesses.) When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

The offeror/joint venture member Present / Past Performance Sheet responses shall clearly correlate present/past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The Present / Past Performance Sheet responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. The answering space on the Present / Past Performance Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in Present / Past

Performance Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than fifteen (15) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages.

Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the Present / Past

Performance Sheet.

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the Present / Past Performance Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the Present

/ Past Performance Sheet but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume will be assumed to still exist.

The Present / Past Performance Sheet (attached to this solicitation) will be one means used by the

Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the Present / Past Performance Sheet without further notice to the offeror(s).

Present / Past Performance Sheet must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Offerors are requested to submit Present / Past Performance Sheets two weeks prior to the closing date of the solicitation. This will allow the Source Selection Team the opportunity to begin obtaining Past Performance Questionnaires or other past performance information from the appropriate Government and/or Commercial Sources. Failure to submit Present / Past Performance Sheets two weeks prior to the closing date will not result in offeror disqualification.

5.0 Small Business Concern Utilization Plan

Volume V shall include offeror’s Small Business Concern Utilization Plan for itself and any joint venture member. The Small Business Concern Utilization Plan is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with master, individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The offeror/joint venture member shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business Concern Utilization Plan is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business Concern

Utilization Plan. In the performance of this resultant contract, identify the following:

(a) The extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist

(b) The description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform, the company names/CAGE codes planned for use in the performance of this resultant contract along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars.

(c) If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, provide rationale for such. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Rather, adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals. Additionally, if the offeror/joint venture member is a small business concern, it should include the work it will be performing when calculating the goals for your Small Business Concern Utilization information.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Section Content:

1.0 – Source Selection

2.0 – Evaluation Factors

1.0 Source Selection

Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

The Government will select the best overall offer based on the evaluation factors in Section M. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the Government reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors and sub factors described herein. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as compliance to terms and conditions, conformance to representations and certifications, demonstrates understanding of SOW/TDP/CDRL technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in the following section. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Award without Discussions It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it determines that discussions are in the Government’s best interest. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered easily correctable or acceptable, then the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

Affordability The Government will evaluate the affordability of the potential awardee’s offer. In the event the Government does not have adequate funds to support the proposed price associated with this effort, additional funds will be sought. If the Government is still not able to afford the requirement, the contract will not be placed on award.

Executive Summary The Executive Summary will not be evaluated as part of the technical value. It is merely a tool to give evaluator’s an overview of the proposal prior to conducting the evaluations for the factors and subfactors found in this solicitation.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors The evaluation factors and sub-factors, listed below, will be used to evaluate each proposal. The evaluation factors are in descending order of importance. Within the Technical factor, the sub-factors listed are equally important. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

Factor 1: Technical/Risk

Sub-factor 1: Technical Capabilities

Sub-factor 2: Program Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost and Price

Factor 4: Small Business Concern Utilization Plan

2.1 Technical/Risk

The Technical Evaluation will consider two sub-factors: Technical Capabilities and Program Management.

Each sub-factor will receive a Technical Rating and a Risk Rating. These sub-factor ratings will be independent of each other. The technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the solicitation and is in agreement with all associated technical requirement documents, i.e. SOW/SOW attachments, TDP, CDRLs, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements and their associated risks. The Government will refer to the technical requirements matrix (Section L, Table 1) as a reference for which proposal sections address the Government’s requirements.

The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements, to include the offeror’s capability to provide quality parts and assemblies to the Government. The Risk Rating considers the risks associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

2.1.1 Technical Rating

The technical rating shall evaluate the degree to which the proposed solution meets or does not meet the Government’s performance and capability requirement. The rating shall be based on assessments that reflect excess (relative strengths), weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. Each Technical sub-factor (Technical Capabilities and Program Management) will receive one of the color ratings described in Table 1. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements. Sub-factor ratings SHALL NOT be combined into a single overall color rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at the best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of requirements found in the solicitation and all associated attachments.

2.1.1.1 Technical Capabilities

The offeror shall demonstrate to the Government that they are capable of performing all tasks associated with the Solicitation, SOW, TDP, CDRLS and attachments. The Government will assess the offeror’s capabilities in manufacturing wing assemblies (including related support activities) and familiarity with technical requirements as presented in their proposal, including the following:

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to manufacture, assemble, inspect (highlight FAI

IAW AS9102), test, repair, and package the wing and its components.

i. Provide examples of how the integrated first article process extends from the individual part through the completed assembly.

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or existing training/qualification programs that ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians: integral fuel sealing, drilling dissimilar material stack-ups, composite manufacture of honeycomb structure as a minimum.

(c) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive manufacturing concept/process (to include necessary tooling development and manufacture).

(d) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive Quality Assurance / Quality Control program and Material Review Board (MRB) process.

(e) Ability to control stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces. At a minimum demonstrate tolerance control equal to the following parts/locations related to this effort, WS 110 wing splice 162D611101-1001, Trunnion Instl 162D611102-1001, Trunnion 162D611621-2003, WS 23 162D611104-1001.

(f) Experience with split sleeve cold working and shot peening processes to improve fatigue life.

(g) Ability to control component loft and contour as defined via model based definition during manufacturing and assembly.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

(h) Ability to seal and test an integral wing fuel tank (i.e. a wet wing).

(i) Ability to manufacture and procure Critical Safety Items (CSI) and manage CSI requirements at all levels of manufacture and assembly.

(j) Ability to fabricate, control and inspect bonded metallic composite structure (e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.) and bonded non-metallic composite structure (e.g. epoxy resin composite laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.).

(k) Ability to control interchangeable and replaceable (I&R) lofted and non-lofted interfaces capable of being readily installed, removed, or replaced without alteration, misalignment, or damage to items being installed, adjoining items, or structure.

(l) Ability to manufacture, inspect and test high-strength fatigue critical parts and assemblies (e.g.

Attach Fitting 162D611605-5001,-2001).

(m) Ability to understand and use available production tooling from previous contract and/or new tooling in the production of the current ATTACK wing configuration in a manner that allows delivery within the government timeline.

2.1.1.2 Program Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s capability to establish and maintain a program management system that will direct and control the administrative, technical, financial, manufacturing, and logistics functions of this effort. The IMP shall address key events required by the technical requirements documents and offeror requirements that reflect mature program decision activities and mark a transition point between intervals of major program activity. The following list will be among the factors considered:

(a) A fully integrated management approach sufficient for accomplishing an effort of this size and scope.

(b) A clear and logical structure and staffing to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources for successful program execution. Show organizational structure including lines of authority and interfaces between management, staff, sub-tier vendors/suppliers (audit/management) and the government.

(c) A thorough understanding of the processes, procedures and communication tools required to effectively manage and successfully implement this program.

(d) A draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that at a minimum graphically details the offeror’s timeline for tooling production (to include master and production tool need timeline), material purchase, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing), low rate initial production (LRIP), and full-rate production (FRP) for an entire year (following the delivery of final LRIP unit).

Assume an FRP delivery rate of three wings per month. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the SOW. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume.

(e) The integrated plan, if any, to meet incentivized delivery schedule: planning and production approaches, expedite options for long-lead items, and production and planning risks and mitigations.

(f) A list of items the offeror considers to be long-lead items and/or parts and assemblies that may cause delays in meeting government timelines and mitigations to minimize delivery impacts.

2.1.2 Risk

The Technical Risk Evaluation focuses on the weaknesses and deficiencies associated with an offeror's proposed approach and assesses the risk of the offeror’s capability to comply with the technical requirements of the solicitation, SOW, TDP, CDRLS and attachments. The proposal shall demonstrate that the offeror has a full understanding of the scope of this task. Risk rating will be assessed based on the proposal’s familiarity with technical requirements and potential disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and general likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each technical sub-factor will receive one of the Risk Ratings described in Table 2. The rating will focus on the risks, i.e. uncertainties, weaknesses, and deficiencies, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the technical sub-factors. For any weakness identified by the offeror, the evaluation shall assess the offeror's proposed impacts and proposed mitigations. The Government will consider risks identified by the offeror and additional risks identified by the Government throughout the evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2 Past Performance Factor

The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture member’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance.

Each contract submitted will be evaluated for Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of Product and Service to produce a Contract Performance Confidence Rating. After all contracts have been evaluated, the offeror will receive an Overall Performance Confidence Rating.

Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the parts or assemblies must have been in production within the last three years from the date of the posting of this solicitation. Contracts submitted will either be considered 1) Recent or 2) Not Recent. In the event a submitted contract is not determined recent, it will not be considered in the past performance evaluation and the offeror may or may not be considered for award.

Relevancy Assessment In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant.

Contracts submitted must be of a metallic spar/rib and skin/stiffener monolithic machining and mechanically fastened, wing box design.

In addition to meeting the relevancy definition above, the evaluators will use the criteria listed below to determine the past performance relevancy rating.

(a) Contain a wing that weighs at least 2500 pounds

(b) Contain items that are (or have been) produced at a rate of at least 20 per year

(c) Contain contoured components of bonded metallic composite structure, e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.

(d) Contain contoured components of bonded non-metallic composite structure, e.g. epoxy resin composition laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.

(e) Contain integrated flight control components and systems

(f) Contain integrated avionics, hydraulic and fuel system components

(g) Contain an integral fuel tank (removable fuel tanks/bladders are not considered integral)

(h) Contain fatigue and fracture critical and CSI primary structure components

(i) Contain stringent manufacturing tolerances (e.g. surface finish 63 RHR or better, hole diameter ±0.00075, surface flatness of 0.002, hole location of 0.001 diametrical over 20 inches, etc.), particularly at I&R interfaces

(j) Demonstrate Quality Assurance/ Quality Control and Material Review Board (MRB) process capabilities

(k) Demonstrate proper understanding and use of Model Based Definition (MBD) for production control

Each criteria will be rated as “Well Supported” or “Deficiently Supported.” The aggregate of these ratings will be assessed for a contract relevancy rating.

Table 3 – RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality of Products and Services Assessment This Evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated…