Section_M_PDGU_3Dec15b.pdf

PDGU, Section M For Official Use Only 3 December 2015

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.2 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 04 March 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall approach to meeting Government requirements and/or superior past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award only one contract for the F-16 Programmable Display Generator Upgrade (PDGU) program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract.

1.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

1.5 Discussions

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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

The evaluation factors are listed in order of importance.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1 – Technical Requirements Subfactor 2 – Data Rights and Sustainment Subfactor 3 – Organic Software Development Support

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical Capability is more important than Past Performance and each are individually more important than Cost/Price.

Within the Technical Capability Factor, subfactors 1-3 are of approximately equal value.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, is significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2.3 Factor One: Technical Capability

The Technical Capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments:

the Technical Capability Technical Rating and the Technical Capability Risk Rating.

These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical Capability subfactor.

2.3.1 Technical Compliance Rating

The Technical Compliance Rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings (address provided at end of document), excerpted below as Table 1. They focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Capability subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Capability factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration with the color rating, i.e., assign a strength, for proposed Contract Statement of Work (CSOW) in excess of threshold requirements.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.3.2 Technical Risk Rating

The Technical Risk Rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Capability subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings (link provided at end of document), excerpted below as Table 2. They focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Technical Capability subfactors.

For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has 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

Can 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

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.

2.3.3 Subfactor 1: Technical Requirements

Proposals will be evaluated to determine offeror’s capability to meet or exceed all requirements outlined in the F-16 PDGU Subsystem Requirements Document (SSRD) and Statement of Objectives (SOO). Particular emphasis will be placed on the offeror’s ability to develop, document, and qualify the product as well as provide proper security standards.

Measures of Merit: This sub factor will be evaluated based on the offer’s demonstration of understanding, ability, and approach to perform the following requirements:

a) The Government will review the offeror’s CSOW and narration to evaluate the extent to which it demonstrates a thorough understanding and a quality approach to accomplish all SOO and SSRD requirements as clearly identified in the Cross Reference Matrix.

b) The Government will review the offeror’s proposed approach to accomplishing

System Engineering and evaluate to what extent the detailed comprehensive Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) meets all technical requirements of the SSRD. SOO Section: 3.2.2 (all)

c) The Government will review thoroughness of the approach to plan, design, test, produce, and maintain the product throughout the life of the contract in a detailed Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). SOO Section: 3.2.1.2

d) The Government will review the detailed and comprehensive Program

Management Plan and evaluate the extent to which it clearly defines configuration management, logistics support and safety assurance. Sections: 3.2.1 and 3.2.1.3

e) The Government will review the CSOW and narration to assess the thoroughness of the proposed system’s hardware and software architecture. This architecture will be assessed for correlation and compliance with the requirements established in the SOO and SSRD. SSRD Sections: 3.1.3.1 (all), 3.1.5.1.1, 3.2.1.3(all), 3.2.1.5(all) , 3.2.1.6 (all),

3.2.1.7 (all), 3.2.1.8 (all), 3.3.13 (all). SOO Section: 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.8, 3.2.2.5, 3.2.3. 5

f) The Government will review all elements of the offeror’s proposal to assess the completeness and validity of the proposed software architecture; specifically as it relates to the support the re-hosting of the existing Operational Flight Program (OFP) and ensuring all PDGU functions are supported. SOO Sections: 3.2.3, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.4.2, 3.2.5.6, 3.2.7.1, 3.2.7.2, and 3.2.7.4. SSRD Sections: 3.3.13.1 and 3.3.13.4.1.

g) The Government will review the CSOW and narration for a complete and proven process and plan for the hardware qualification of the proposed PDGU. SSRD Sections: 3.3.5 (all) and 3.3.6 (all) SOO Section: 3.2.4 (all)

h) The Government will review the CSOW and narration to ensure that the proposed manufacturing plan is thorough and complete for the following requirements: 1) how the proposed manufacturing management system meets the requirements of AS6500. The submitted production transition approach, quality assurance program approach, and current ISO certifications must support the proposed manufacturing approach; 2) provides a detailed facility requirements and layouts and plans to provide the needed manpower, facilities, and equipment for expected delivery rates; 3) includes information regarding the major assembly sequence and manufacturing process flows to include an integrated, achievable schedule incorporating design, tooling, supplier, fabrication, assembly, and delivery milestones. SOO Sections: 3.2.1.2, 3.2.5.5., 3.2.9.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

i) The Government will review the accuracy and completeness of the proposed Anti-

Tamper Concept Plan and how well it demonstrates the ability to meet all mandated Cyber Security (CS) controls. SSRD Section: 3.2.1.6 SOO Section: 3.2.5.

j) The Government will review the offeror’s CSOW and narration for a detailed and sufficient approach to the man-power, training and technical support to be provided to aid the Government with integration, and testing of the offeror’s re-hosted PDGU OFP. SOO Sections: 3.2.3.5.2, 3.2.7.1, 3.2.7.2, and 3.2.7.4.

k) The Government will review the CSOW and narration for a detailed and complete concept for accomplishing Software Safety and Assurance throughout the program. SOO Sections: 3.2.2.11, 3.2.3.2, and 3.2.5.6. SSRD Sections: 3.3.13.5

l) The Government will review the offeror’s identified program risks that are anticipated in supporting the PDGU program for detail and completeness. This will include a review of the thoroughness of the anticipated mitigation for each identified risk. SOO Sections:

3.2.1.5, 3.2.2.11, 3.2.5.3, 3.2.5.5, 3.2.5.6, 3.2.5.7, and 3.2.9.2.

m) The Government will review the detailed description of the PDGU RTOS operational and development environment characteristics as provided in the offeror’s proposal. The detailed description will be reviewed for completeness and approach. SOO Sections:

3.2.3 (all) and 3.2.5 (all), SSRD Sections: 3.2.1.5 and 3.3.13.1

n) The Government will review the offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan to ensure it clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Subcontracting goals as defined in the Service Summary Matrix Clause, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements Clause. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation Plan. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan will also include the following:

• The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals

• The extent of commitment to use such firms

2.3.4 Subfactor 2: Data Rights and Sustainment

Proposals will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to design a product with sustainment as a focus. This subfactor will evaluate sustainment planning, contractor supported repair, the offeror’s approach to meeting the required Mean Time Between Failure, and the transfer of sustainment related knowledge through the technical data package and the related data rights.

a) The Government will review the CSOW and narrative to ensure a thorough and detailed approach along with all the products necessary to enable the Government to stand up organic repair to the Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) component level. The review will specifically address the completeness of the proposed depot maintenance standup support proposed. SOO Section: 3.2.6, 4.3, and 4.4.

b) The Government will review the CSOW and narrative to ensure that a systematic and detailed explanation is provided of the technical data package, and how it will be managed, to include specific information on how SOO requirements for drawings and data rights will be met. SOO Section: 3.2.2.16, 3.2.6.2, 4.3, and 4.5.

c) The Government will review the offeror’s proposed data and licensing rights associated with both software and hardware deliverables ensuring they clearly relate to the defined support the Government has required for the purposes identified in the SOO and SSRD.

SOO Section: 3.2.3.4 and 3.2.3.5.2.

d) The Government will review the meticulousness of the approach identified in the CSOW and narration to providing contract supported sustainment of pre and post production PDGU systems. SOO Section: 3.2.2.5, 3.2.2.6, 3.2.2.8, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5.

e) The Government will review all proposed calculations used to establish your calculated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) ensuring that it is statistically acceptable and realistic. SSRD Section: 3.2.1.9.1, 3.2.1.10.2

f) The Government will assess the effects of the proposed MTBF on the long term sustainment of the PDGU as detailed by the offeror for realism and completeness. SOO Section: 3.2.2.5. SSRD Section: 3.2.1.9.1

2.3.5 Subfactor 3: Organic Software Development Support

Proposals will be evaluated to determine the offerors’ approach to supporting the On-Site OFP Software Development. This complete approach to PDGU software knowledge transfer should address; all tools needed, compliance processes, licensing details, and anticipated staffing.

a) The Government will review the CSOW and narrative for detail and realism of approach to the man-power, training and technical support required to assist the Government in enhancing, maintaining, integrating, and testing a Government developed version of the re-hosted PDGU OFP. SOO Section: 3.2.3.5.1, 3.2.3.5.2, and 3.2.7 (all) SSRD Section:

3.3.13.4.1 and 3.3.13.4.2.

b) The Government will review the CSOW and narrative to ensure the proposal includes a complete and detailed approach to supporting all planned software development tools, anticipated licensing agreements, and special hardware requirements essential to support the Government modification of the re-hosted OFP. SOO Section: 3.2.7.1, 3.2.7.2, 3.2.3.5.2, and 3.2.3.5.3. SSRD Section: 3.3.13.3

c) The Government will review the offeror’s explanation in the CSOW and narrative on how the proposed software architecture, coding standards and development environment supports transition of efficient software maintenance to the Government. SOO Section:

3.2.3, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.3.5.1, and 3.2.5.6. SSRD Section: 3.3.13.4 (all)

d) The Government will review all proposed proprietary software development tools, firmware, drivers, and software to ensure completeness and identify if they satisfy the criteria as stated in the SOO and SSRD. SOO Sections: 3.2.3.4, and 3.2.3.5.1. SSRD Section: 3.3.13 (all)

e) The Government will review the CSOW and narrative to ensure that the proposed PDGU emulation is described in sufficient detail and will support the requirements as stated in the SOO and SSRD. SOO Section: 3.2.7.1 SSRD Section: 3.2.1.2.2 (all)

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance that, includes cost and schedule.

2.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments (address provided at end of document), excerpted below as Table 3.

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort..

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offerors’ recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor and taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 2.1. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference 2.1). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed generally will be assessed for the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to:

a) Efforts involving same or similar efforts in system development, including recent system qualification or software development;

b) Contracts/negotiated agreements/task or delivery orders with similar complexity in scope and contract type;

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Information Forms (PIFs), and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 4 RELEVANCY

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.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 5 Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

PURPLE/VERY GOOD The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

GREEN/SATISFACTORY The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performances contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

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

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P123_5649

YELLOW/MARGINAL Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

RED/UNSATISFACTORY Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

WHITE/NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a score.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical capability subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4 Cost/Price

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, (3) Realism, (where identified) and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.4.1 Reasonableness

The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. The CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). All other CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Cost/Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.4.2 Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.3 Realism

The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed costs for Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN X007. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government may consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactors. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be used. If the Government determines the offeror’s probable cost differs from its proposed cost, the Government reserves the right to use the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP is the sum of CLIN totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be considered in the award decision. For ease in numbering the below CLINs ‘X’ represents ‘0’ through ‘9’ as applicable for the base and all applicable option periods. It will be calculated as follows:

2.4.4.1 The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X004, X006, X010, X011, X012, X014, X016, X017, X018) at their proposed value for all applicable years of the contract multiplied by quantities or option quantities (if applicable).

2.4.4.2 The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X005, X008, X009) shall be proposed for each specified year of the contract; however, they will only be evaluated for one year that will be determined by the Government. This will represent the Government’s best estimate of the timing of the exercise of this option. Recognize that these options will be priced for multiple years, but only exercised once.

2.4.4.3 The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X020, X021) will be evaluated by applying Government generated notional ordering quantities and applying them to offeror proposed prices in the CLIN X020 and X021 (respectively) Tabs in Section J Attachment (TEP Spreadsheet).

The notional ordering quantities will represent the Government’s best estimate of ordering quantities for all years of the contract. The notional ordering quantities will not be disclosed outside the Government.

2.4.4.4 The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X013, X022) will be calculated by multiplying the proposed price per supported production unit per year by a Government generated notional ordering quantity. The notional ordering quantity will not be disclosed outside the government.

The offerors price per unit must reflect the price of supporting production units from a minimum ordering quantity up to the maximum option quantity (see CLINs X020 & X021).

2.4.4.5 The Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN (X007) at its probable cost plus proposed fixed fee applicable years of the contract.

2.4.4.6 The Firm-Fixed-Price, Level-of-Effort (FPLOE) CLIN (X015) will be proposed by filling in rates on the CLIN X015 Tab in Section J Attachment (TEP Spreadsheet) and inputting the figure the spread-sheet generates. The Level of Effort is already defined in terms of number of hours per Government defined labor category.

2.4.4.7 The Fixed Price Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) CLIN (X002) will be evaluated by applying Government generated notional hours and labor mix against offeror proposed fully burdened rates in Section J Attachment (Labor Rate Matrix). The notional hours and labor mix will represent the Government’s best estimate of the expected work under this CLIN. Neither the notional hours nor the labor mix will be disclosed outside the Government.

2.4.4.8 The Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLIN (X001) will not be included in the TEP.

A cost shall be proposed within section B of the solicitation, but for purposes of the evaluation, the cost will be normalized to zero.

2.4.4.9 All Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs (X003) are assumed to be included in the costs for other line items and so will not be separately included in the TEP.

2.4.5 Approval of Accounting System

As portions of this contract are other-than fixed price, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror has a Government approved accounting system along with all subcontractors who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other-than fixed price CLINs. Failure to possess or obtain Government approval of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award.

If the offeror or any other entity who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other-than fixed price CLINs does not currently have Government approval of its accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award Accounting System Audit.

2.4.6 Priced Basis of Estimate (BOE)

The BOE will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance. If any element of the offeror’s BOE is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable, or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable.

2.5 Affordability

The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s price proposed for CLINs X004, X011, and X012 is affordable based on a comparison between proposed prices with affordability caps for Fiscal Years (FY) 16 and 17 of the contract. The offeror’s price proposal in FY16 and FY17, to include termination liability, shall not exceed its respective affordability cap identified below.

Beyond FY17, offerors shall propose prices according to the offeror’s funding requirement.

Affordability Cap in Then-Year Dollars in Millions (CLIN X004, X011, X012) FY16 (October 2015- October 2016): $4.48M FY17 (October 2016 – October 2017): $4.341M

Offerors are encouraged to find efficiencies and propose prices less than stated budget estimated maximums. Failure to propose a price within the stated Affordability Cap for FY16 and FY17 will result in the offeror's proposal being un-awardable. In addition, the Government will incrementally fund CLINs X004, X011, and X012 only obligating an aggregate amount of $500,000 at the time of contract award. The remaining FY16 funds will be made available, based on government requirements, consistent with DoD 7000.14-R Vol. 2a Chapter 1, paragraph 010214. The Government reserves the right at its sole discretion to change the funding profile at any time, in any direction.

2.6 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR Clause 52.215-1 (Contract award). If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs, and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision if they are retained in the competitive range.

3.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

Source Selection Procedures Address www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

Annex A Acronym List

ACO- Administrative Contracting Officer

AF - Air Force

AFFARS - Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

BOE - Basis of Estimate

CLIN - Contract Line Item Number

CPARS - Contractor Performance Assessment Reports

CPFF - Cost Plus Fixed Fee

CRNF - Cost Reimbursable No Fee

CS - Cyber Security

CSOW – Contract Statement of Work

DCMA - Defense Contract Management Agency

DFARS - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

DoD - Department of Defense

ECP - Engineering Change Proposal

EN - Evaluation Notices eSRS- Electronic Subcontractor Reporting System

FAPIIS - Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

FAR- Federal Acquisition Regulation

FFP - Firm Fixed Price

FRP - Final Proposal Revision

IAW – In Accordance With

IMP - Integrated Master Plan

IMS - Integrated Master Schedule

MTBF - Mean Time Between Failure

NSP - Not Separately Priced

OFP - Operational Flight Program

PDGU – Programmable Display Generator Upgrade

PIF - Performance Information Forms

PPIRS - Past Performance Information Retrieval System

RTOS - Real-time Operating System

SDP – Software Development Plan

SEMP - Systems Engineering Management Plan

SIL – System Integration Lab

SOO - Statement of Objectives

SSRD - Subsystem Requirements Document

SRU - Shop Replaceable Unit

SSA - Source Selection Authority

TEP - Total Evaluated Price