DRAFT_RFP_Attachment_8_Section_L_29Apr19.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Page | 1

RFP ATTACHMENT: 8

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

I. Proposal Format A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors shall follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. 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. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering program, as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/WLDK, 6072 Fir Ave Building 1233 Hill AFB, UT 84056, Attn: Casey Hodson and Greg Hales, no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 on the face page of the RFP. However, offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to submit Volume III by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will control exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing. 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 Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mail or AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/. When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

II. Volume Organization A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes as set forth below:

Table 1 - Proposal Organization

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE HARD COPIES ELECTRONIC

COPIES

PAGE

LIMIT

I Completed RFP and Pricing*/**

1 2 Unlimited

II Technical** 4 2 50

III Past Performance** 2 2 20

IV Small Business Participation**

2 2 10

*Identification of deviations (if any) from the offeror’s standard estimating procedures for this acquisition shall not exceed one page. A summary of all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and qualifications shall not exceed five pages.

**Completed RFP/Pricing, Technical, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation proposals shall be

DRAFT

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/

Page | 2 submitted in written form (number of copies are identified in Table 1) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (number of copies are identified in Table 1) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD- R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government. Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in RFP Attachment 1, Past Performance Information (PPI) Instructions for Offerors, to electronically submit the Past Performance information into the PPI Tool. The link to the PPI Tool is attached to the solicitation posting.

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must 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, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 10. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” x 11,” excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate brochures, detailed artwork, formats, bindings, and color presentations are not desired or required.

3. The page limitation for Volume I, Completed RFP and Pricing, is unlimited. The page limitation for Volume II, Technical is 50 pages. The page limitation for Volume III, Past Performance is 20 pages. The page limitation for Volume IV, Small Business Participation is 10 pages. The page limitations include any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). Any deviations from the identified page limitations, will only be allowed if it has been specifically identified/approved within this document. In paragraph II C 3.2 (d), the draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) will not be counted towards the page limitations. In paragraph II D 7, the Past Performance Information Sheet is limited to six pages total for each submission; however, it will not be counted towards the page limitations.

Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

4. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

5. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

6. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

7. Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall be either mailed or hand-delivered. Offerors are cautioned that Hill Air Force Base has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance.

Some delay should be anticipated when hand-delivering proposal packages. Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the specified office PRIOR to the time specified for receipt of proposals.

8. Classified Information: Do not provide classified material.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP and Pricing

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP (reference Table 1) shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

Page | 3

Volume I, Pricing (reference Table 1) shall be submitted using Microsoft Word and/or Excel compatible document/spreadsheets as appropriate. Documents and spreadsheets shall be editable and not password protected. The offeror shall provide all formulas and calculations used in the respective price documents and spreadsheets. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your price position. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

2. Cross Reference Matrix:

The offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix at RFP Attachment 6 indicating where in their proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents: the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help an offeror ensure it has responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix. Additionally, to the extent the matrix discloses details as to the manner by which the Government intends to evaluate the offeror’s proposals for award, Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with Section M of the solicitation.

3. Volume Organization: The Price volume shall consist of the following sections:

SECTION 1 - Table of Contents

SECTION 2 - Data other than certified cost or pricing data, to include estimating methodology and cross reference matrix.

SECTION 3 - List the Price assumptions of the offeror’s proposal, if any. Provide complete rationale for assumptions.

4. Price Criteria: The price evaluation criteria consists of: (1) Price Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) TEP. This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness, balance, and TEP. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Offerors shall review Section M criteria to ensure the minimum requirements are met.

4.1 Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be assessed from the Offeror’s information provided in this volume. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror.

4.1.1 Offerors shall input fixed unit prices for each CLIN identified in the solicitation.

4.1.2 The cost of producing data is not separately priced in the TEP of the solicitation.

4.2 Approved Accounting and Purchasing Systems: As portions of this contract will be other-than fixed price, the Offeror must provide evidence of an approved accounting and purchasing system for themselves and any subcontractors who will be issued other-than fixed price subcontracts. The offeror shall indicate whether the accounting or purchasing systems are Government approved and if so, provide evidence of such approval. Also, identify any deviations from the offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal. In the event the offeror does not have an approved system, the offeror shall submit a completed Standard Form (SF) 1408 for a potential pre-award survey. The SF 1408 and instructions to complete the SF 1408 can be found at the following two links:

http://www.dcaa.mil/Preaward_Survey_of_Prospective_Contractor_Accounting_System_Checklist.pdf and http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778

5. Pricing Assumptions: Summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations, and/or qualifications of the cost proposal. List each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the Price Volume, if any. Provide complete rationale for any exceptions. This section shall not exceed five pages.

DRAFT

http://www.dcaa.mil/Preaward_Survey_of_Prospective_Contractor_Accounting_System_Checklist.pdf http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/115778

Page | 4

6. Estimating Techniques and Methods: Estimating methods used in the proposal shall be described in a manner that will show clear traceability into the proposed pricing throughout the Price Volume.

(a) Estimating System.

The offeror shall indicate whether it has a Government approved estimating system and if so, provide evidence of such approval. If the offeror does not have an approved estimating system, the offeror shall provide evidence that it has taken action to obtain approval or re-approval of its estimating system. The offeror shall identify any deviations from standard estimating procedures in preparing the Price Volume.

(b) Purchasing System.

The offeror shall indicate whether it has a Government approved purchasing system and if so, provide evidence of such approval. If the offeror does not have an approved purchasing system, the offeror shall provide evidence that it has taken action to obtain approval or re-approval of its purchasing system. The offeror shall identify any deviations from standard purchasing procedures in preparing the Price Volume.

7. Pricing Information Requirements: 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). 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 information 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.

C. Volume II, Technical

1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

3. Technical Factor

3.1 General

Offeror’s Volume II, Technical Factor, which includes Component Structural Analysis Plan, Parts Reverse Engineering and Re-Engineering/Manufacturing Plan, 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 Technical Data Package (TDP) and First Article Test (FAT) 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, PWS, TDP and CDRLs. Responses will be evaluated according to the factors/sub- factors identified in Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award. For each subfactor, 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

Page | 5 risk associated with their proposed approach.

3.2 Subfactor A: Component Structural Analysis Plan

The proposed approach shall describe the hardware analysis techniques that will be used for reverse engineering to develop the technical data required to reproduce the parts listed in the T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering Request for Proposal (RFP). This subfactor will be rated by the degree in which the proposal follows reverse engineering processes such as those outlined in MIL-HDBK-115A, the Defense Logistics Agency Appendix B37 (Reverse Engineering), or equivalent document (must be referenced in proposal). Additionally, the proposal will be evaluated on how well it defines the process for establishing dimensional tolerances, manufacturing processes, and technical specifications.

The proposed approach shall provide a detailed explanation of the offeror’s expertise and capabilities to perform component structural analysis for the selected structural components. Address the following elements and detail how offeror capabilities correlate with the technical requirements of this solicitation, i.e., Sections L&M, PWS, TDP and CDRLs and provide specific examples of similar tasks/capabilities:

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to perform structural analysis on the selected components.

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or existing training/qualification programs that ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians.

(c) Ability to determine and identify stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces.

(d) Ability to determine and define component loft and contour as defined via model-based definition.

(e) Ability to define the controls and inspection of bonded metallic composite structure (e.g. bonded honeycomb structure etc.) and bonded non-metallic composite structure (e.g. epoxy resin composite laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.).

(f) Ability to determine inspections and manufacturing processes required to guarantee quality high-strength fatigue critical parts and assemblies.

3.3 Subfactor B: Parts Reverse Engineering and Re-Engineering/Manufacturing Plan

The proposed approach shall provide a detailed parts Reverse Engineering and/or Re- Engineering/Manufacturing and procurement plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to develop a technical data package sufficient for the production of parts that are Fit and Function replacements of the parts listed in the T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering RFP. The subfactor is met when the plan clearly portrays the facilities, equipment, capabilities and plan layout pertaining to processes associated with the reverse and/or re-engineering and manufacturing of the select structural parts.

Additionally, the proposal successfully explains the Offeror’s capability and capacity to:

(a) Manufacture, at a minimum, the component first article assemblies listed in the RFP

(b) Obtain required materials with applicable material certifications

(c) Design/build/obtain specialized tooling to aid in manufacturing of parts

(d) Machine parts

(e) Form/contour/manipulate large and small extrusions and unformed stock

(f) Post process (i.e.; heat treat, peen, anodize, plate, coat)

(g) Application of metrology and inspection for dimensional conformity

(h) Perform Nondestructive testing

The proposed approach shall also provide a detailed explanation of the offeror’s expertise and capabilities to perform and/or oversee the reverse engineering process (and related support activities) for selected structural components.

Page | 6

Address the following elements and detail how offeror capabilities correlate with the technical requirements of this solicitation, i.e., Sections L&M, PWS, TDP and CDRLs and provide specific examples of similar tasks/capabilities:

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to reverse engineer, manufacture FAT components, assemble, inspect (highlight FAI IAW AS9102), test, repair, and package components.

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or existing training/qualification programs that ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians.

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

(d) Ability to control stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces.

(e) Ability to control component loft and contour as defined via model-based definition during manufacturing and assembly on FAT articles.

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

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

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

3.4 Subfactor C: Program Management

The proposed approach shall provide a supply chain management approach that clearly identifies the supply chain process and logistical capacity for obtaining the parts listed in the T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering RFP as well as any materiel needed for the reverse engineering process and/or prototype production. The proposal shall clearly identify/provide:

3.4.1 Resource Management

The prime contractor’s organizational structure, which identifies key personnel. The proposal shall clearly document the primary roles and lines of responsibility, and technical interface with subject matter experts.

The proposal shall identify personnel with experience in TDP development. The proposal shall include a draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that details the Offeror’s proposed process for parts procurement (to include long lead items), teardown and engineering analysis, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing) and with sufficient detail to depict program execution from contract award to completion of all deliverables. The IMS shall address lead times for the delivery of First Article Test components and outline schedule recovery processes to address possible critical path schedule slip. The proposal shall illustrate all planned subcontractor relationships to include name and CAGE code with letter of intent between prime and sub agreeing to be on contract within 90 days of contract award.

3.4.2 Subcontractor Management

A clear and feasible management approach for meeting quality system requirements on work performed by subcontractors, partners, and sub-tier subcontractors/partners. This management approach should include the process for evaluating and selecting supply chain partners for this effort.

3.4.3 Risk Management

An acceptable risk management plan will identify and address specific risks that may impact this program, its successful implementation, and the delivery of required data. The plan must demonstrate the ability to identify specific quantitative and qualitative risks and mitigation strategies that demonstrate the clear ability to ensure an on schedule delivery of a technically acceptable TDP as well as FAT components.

The offeror shall provide a draft Integrated Management Plan which will enable the Government to assess

Page | 7 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 proposed process for parts procurement (to include long lead items), teardown and engineering analysis, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing) and with sufficient detail to depict program execution from contract award to completion of all deliverables. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the PWS. 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 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.

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: Offerors must use the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool (Use the latest version from https://www.fbo.gov) in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume. Offerors shall submit present and past performance information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the “Past Performance Information Instructions” (See RFP Attachment 1) and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform at least 20% of the manufacturing and/or assembly work by part quantity or weight. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

2. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume III - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and critical subcontractor (nature of work and percentage of overall work). The summary page does not count toward the page limit. Summary page information must clearly communicate that proposed critical subcontractor(s) meet the definition of a critical subcontractor established above. Efforts submitted for proposed critical subcontractors not meeting the established definition will not be evaluated. Each offeror/joint venture member shall complete a separate Past Performance Information Sheet (See RFP Attachment 2) for three (3) active or completed contracts (with at least one year of performance history) in the past five (5) years from the issuance date of the RFP, that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three (3), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its three (3) most recent and relevant contracts. For each critical subcontractor included in the offeror's proposal, a Past Performance Information Sheet for three (3) of their most recent and relevant contracts shall also be included. The offeror's/joint venture member’s or critical subcontractor’s present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The Past Performance Information Sheet (and PPI Tool) shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that https://www.fbo.gov/

Page | 8 performed or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or series of orders) under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government, for an ordering type contractual vehicle, shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, Paragraph II.D for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M paragraph II.D.4 Note and paragraph 4.1, the offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible.

However, a series of orders should only be submitted if the series of orders is for continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. Not all ordering type contractual vehicles will have series of orders that meet these criteria. In this instance, only the single order demonstrating relevant technical scope should be submitted for evaluation.

When submitting an individual order (or series of orders) under an ordering type contractual vehicle, it is important that the offeror’s past performance information be accurate, complete, and in the correct format. If the information is not submitted in the correct format, the Government will not be able to evaluate the effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. There are specific places for submission of this information in the Past Performance Information Sheet RFP Attachment 2. Please ensure the information submitted, in the Past Performance Information Sheet RFP Attachment 2, is for each order (or series of orders), in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. This includes but is not limited to information such as the estimated total dollar value, period of performance, quantity produced/managed, and complexity/type of data deliverables, for each order or series of orders. See paragraph 3.1 for further information on how to submit series of orders.

3.1 Series of Orders: When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror should list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy, as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M paragraph II.D.4. Per the Note in Section M paragraph II.D.4, Relevancy consists of not only technical complexities, but also programmatic/logistical considerations. The programmatic/logistical considerations include but are not limited to information such as the estimated total dollar value, period of performance, quantity produced/managed, and complexity/type of data deliverables If an offeror submits a series of orders for evaluation, the total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders), the period of performance dates of each order (in the series of orders), the total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) and the type and complexity of data deliverables for each order (in the series of orders) shall be submitted. The total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Dollar Value to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total period of performance of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Period of Performance to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The type and complexity of data deliverables provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders, being submitted, should be for the same continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror or points of contact provided to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel, even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. Leave this entry on the PPI Tool blank.

5. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form (See RFP Attachment 3): In addition to the information provided in the Past Performance Information Sheet (RFP Attachment 2) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) and/or critical subcontractors

Page | 9 authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample subcontractor/teaming partner consent form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 3). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) and/or critical subcontractors identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance (Volume III).

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the three (3) contracts submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the Past Performance Information Sheet concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if these clauses are or were contained in the contract. (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 and critical subcontractor, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor 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/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’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.

7. Past Performance Information Sheet (See RFP Attachment 2): The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor, if applicable, shall focus its Past Performance Information Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The Past Performance Information Sheet responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. Within the Past Performance Information Sheet, offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors may mention efforts by subcontractors as long as it is made clear what the subcontractor accomplished independently, what the contractor accomplished independently, what the contractor and subcontractor accomplished together, and whether the subcontractor will be used in the proposed effort.

This is in addition to qualifying critical subcontractors for the current effort (as specified in Section L) being able to provide three Past Performance Information Sheets providing past performance data for tasks they will execute under the proposed T-38 Structural Component Reverse Engineering contract. The answering space on the Past Performance Information Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in Past Performance Information Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages (i.e., no more than six (6) pages). Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the Past Performance Information Sheets. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs on the Past Performance Information Sheets:

(a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

(d) Other (As specified in your Past Performance Information 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 Past Performance Information Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the Past Performance Information Sheet, 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

8. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 4) 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 questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment 4) to each of the offeror’s, Page | 10 joint venture members and/or critical subcontractors’ (i.e., each entity’s) Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each Past Performance Information Sheet. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals.

POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically, or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph I.B. Communications above, and email to:

casey.hodson@us.af.mil and gregory.hales.2@us.af.mil. If mailing, the POCs may return the completed questionnaires via mail directly to:

AFLCMC/WLDKA

ATTN: Casey Hodson and Gregory Hales

6072 Fir Ave. Building 1233 Hill AFB, UT 84056

If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

9. Client Authorization Letter (See RFP Attachment 5): In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 5). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

10. Follow-up Discussions: The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the Past Performance Information Sheets or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and through other sources, other than those listed within the Past Performance Information Sheets.

11. RFP Attachment Legend: Past Performance Information Sheet and Present/Past Performance Questionnaire must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

E. Volume IV, Small Business Participation

1. General: Volume IV shall include offeror’s Small Business Participation approach for itself and any joint venture member. The Small Business Participation approach is required IAW FAR 52.219-8 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 Participation approach is not the same, as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required for large businesses by FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business Participation approach. In the performance of this resultant contract, identify the following:

DRAFT

mailto:casey.hodson@us.af.mil mailto:gregory.hales.2@us.af.mil

Page | 11

(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 Participation approach.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: If applicable to the Contractor, the offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, to be incorporated into the resultant contract that describes how it plans to comply with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The plan shall outline how the contractor plans to track their compliance in subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. Subcontracting goals shall also be expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be determined to be “Acceptable” in order for the offeror to be eligible for contract award. Information concerning its subcontracting plans already submitted and approved does not need to be redeveloped or renegotiated.