Attach 2 Section L and M_7Oct24.docx

Attachment 2 - FA830724RB040 Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Critera for Award

REMOTE CONTROL UNIT (RCU) PRODUCTION

7 October 2024

1. Section L, Instructions to Offerors:

A. This is a competitive acquisition conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. Any award resulting from this solicitation is a source selection and is subject to FAR 15.3.

B. Proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) must be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the requirement as stated in the RFP and attachments, and the Statement of Objectives (SOO) (Attachment 1). All claimed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal or an unfavorable proposal evaluation or being deemed ineligible for award. The Contracting officer (CO) will select the lowest price technically acceptable proposal which conforms to the RFP requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal to the Government.

C. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intend to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of its facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

D. System for Award Management (SAM) Requirements. Offerors must be registered and active in the SAM database. If registration is not active at the time of award, the Offeror will not be eligible for award. Offerors may obtain information on registration at https://sam.gov and/or https://www.acquisition.gov.

E. Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

F. Consent to Disclosure and Company-to-Company Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

a. The Government intends to make use of the following companies to perform advisory and assistance services (A&AS) for this FOPR:

· MITRE Corporation

· Applied Research Solutions (ARS)

· OSI Vision

UNCLASSIFIED

· Astrion

UNCLASSIFIED

b. Pursuant to FAR 9.505-4(b), Obtaining Access to Proprietary Information, a contractor that gains access to proprietary information of other companies in performing A&AS for the Government must agree with the other companies to protect its information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. The CO shall obtain copies of these agreements and ensure that they are properly executed. While FAR 9.505-4(b) affords Offerors the ability to obtain an NDA from any company that will provide A&AS to the Government for this FOPR, Offerors may choose not to do so. If an Offeror chooses the latter, the Offeror must provide clear indication of that choice in writing to the CO prior to or at the time of submission of its proposal. If an Offeror chooses to obtain an NDA, to facilitate that process the Government is providing MITRE, ARS, OSI Vision and Oasis Systems points of contact, with address, to whom Offerors should submit both its and any subcontractor NDAs for signature:

Eric Dube The MITRE Corporation eric.dube.ctr@us.af.mil 7323 Hwy 90 West, Suite 402 San Antonio, TX 78227-3562

Andrea Jackson Applied Research Solutions ajackson@appliedres.com 51 Plum St., Suite 240 Beavercreek, OH 45440

Paul Skowronek OsiVision, LLC paul.skowronek@osivision.com 100 Sandau Drive, Ste 210 San Antonio, TX 78216

Troy Irwin Astrion troy.irwin@astrion.us 12500 N San Pedro Ave, Ste. 540 San Antonio, TX 78216

c. Offerors' NDAs should be:

(1) In the format and with the content preferred by the Offeror so long as it meets the intent of FAR 9.505-4(b),

(2) Signed by the Offeror,

(3) Written such that it can be signed by an appropriate employee of the A&AS provider; and,

(4) Submit a fully executed NDA with Volume I – Administrative

d. If an Offeror objects to disclosure of any part of its proposal to the A&AS providers identified above, its objection to disclosure of a portion of its proposal (a) shall be provided in writing to the CO within 3 days of RFP issuance, and (b) shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal to which the Offeror objects to disclosure to the A&AS advisor. Failure to permit disclosure of any part of an Offeror's proposal to the A&AS advisor could result in those withheld portions of the Offeror's proposal not being evaluated, which could impact the Offeror's ability to receive this award. Note that A&AS providers will only be assisting with the technical evaluation and will not have access to any pricing information.

G. Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic copy of the proposal via email on or before the RFP closing date of 29 October 2024. Proposals received after the time and date listed will not be considered or evaluated for award. The Government will not be responsible for any failure of receipt of the proposal or any failure of the Offeror to verify receipt of the proposal.

H. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall submit an administrative volume, technical volume, and price volume. Volumes must be submitted as separate attachments. Proposals shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements; but rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements.

Proposals shall be single-spaced, on 8.5 x 11 paper, have a minimum of one-inch margin all around and not less than Times New Roman 12 pt. font. Foldouts may be used for tables, figures, and charts only, on 11 x 17 paper and not less than Times New Roman 10 pt. font. Each fold out will be counted as 2 pages. Offerors shall number each page. Proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word, MS Excel, or PDF searchable format be compatible with MS Office 2016.

Page limits do not include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indexes, section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal, and pages marked “This page intentionally left blank.”

The following table identifies the page limits to which Offerors must adhere. Pages in excess of these page limits will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Note: Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included with Volume IV - Price. Do NOT include any pricing information in Volume I – Administrative or Volume II - Technical. Any pricing information in Volume III – Past Performance shall be limited any contract values related to those efforts. All labor rates and total proposed price shall be provided in whole-dollar amounts. Submit your proposal IAW the table below. All submissions shall reference the complete FOPR number.

Volume

*Exceptions to page limitations: CSOW

(1) Volume I: CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTATION

(a) Offerors shall provide a cover letter with the proposal to include current points of contact (Contract Manager and Program Manager), mailing address, current e-mail address and phone number, a statement that the company understands the requirements specified and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein, and acknowledges use of non-Government advisors. Offerors shall also confirm proposal validity for 120 days. Limited to no more than one (1) page.

(b) The Government requires unlimited rights to all data purchased and/or delivered as part of this effort. Offerors shall populate the attached Data Rights Assertions Document (Attachment 7) and provide clear statements as to the data rights proposed. If any items are to be provided with limited or restricted rights, include sufficient information to specifically identify those items and provide sufficient documentation to support each claim. Additionally, for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software and related software documentation, when developed at private expense, Offerors shall insert language in the Asserted Rights column of the attached Data Rights Assertion Document similar to the following: “The Government’s rights in any COTS software and related software documentation shall be determined IAW at least DFARS 227.7202,” “Commercial computer software and commercial computer software documentation,” or “Offeror will transfer the COTS software licenses to the Government as provided by the COTS vendor.” No page limit for this section.

(2) Volume II: TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1)

The technical proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical subfactors. Provide, as specifically as possible, the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the subfactor, the SOO requirements, and address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Throughout this volume, where applicable, describe the tools and processes used to produce the RCU Z-ANP device, generate and deliver the necessary training material, and develop the required technical & maintenance manuals. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Evidence of capabilities is required to receive credit for evaluation factors. At a minimum, the following should be addressed in this volume:

(a) Subfactor 1.1: Technical Performance

(i) Offerors shall submit a technical approach to describe how it will produce the RCU device based on the Bill of Materials (BOM) and Technical Data Package (TDP). Any proposed performance shall be reflected in the Offeror’s proposed Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW). In addition, the offeror shall provide specific information on how they plan to:

· Manufacture and populate a printed circuit board in sufficient quantities to meet the delivery period for each order

· Manufacture and populate a flexible printed circuit board in sufficient quantities to meet the delivery period for each order

· Manufacture sufficient quantities of the RCU case to meet the delivery period for each order

· Integrate individual components into a top-level assembly IAW AS9100, Rev D standards

(ii) Offerors shall submit their approach to maintenance training, describing how it will develop and provide the necessary depot-level training in order to ensure personnel are properly trained to perform required RCU device maintenance. Specifically, the offeror shall provide specific information on how they plan to understand the operational capabilities of the RCU device in sufficient detail in order to author the necessary training material.

(iii) Offerors shall submit their approach to technical/maintenance manual generation, describing how they will generate the necessary documentation to accurately and completely detail the required levels of repair for the RCU device. Specifically, the offeror shall provide specific information on how they plan to understand the operational capabilities of the RCU device in sufficient detail in order to author the necessary maintenance manuals.

(iv) Offerors shall identify all risks associated with its approach and shall identify risks as "high", "moderate", or "low" based on the probability of occurrence for each identified risk and the associated impact to the program if it occurs. Provide rationale for each risk assessment. For all risks identified as "moderate" or "high" include a discussion of how the Offeror plans to mitigate each risk. Then show how application of the Offeror’s proposed mitigation strategies changes the Offeror’s original risk assessment. Offerors shall provide risk assessments associated with its ability to accomplish the following:

· Capability to produce the RCU device in sufficient quantities to meet the Government’s timeline.

· Capability to provide the necessary training and materials, prior to initial RCU delivery, that will meet the Government’s requirements.

· Capability to generate the necessary technical/maintenance manuals, prior to initial RCU delivery, to the level of detail needed to allow for proper depot-level repair of the RCU device.

· Offeror’s capability to meet the Government’s 36-month timeframe for this requirement.

(v) Offerors shall provide recent examples where the offeror directly performed work using the technical approach related to the following areas.

• Manufacturing and populating printed circuit boards

• Manufacturing and populating flexible circuit boards

• Manufacturing of aluminum enclosures IAW U.S. Military Standards (MIL-STDs)

• Integration of individual components into a top-level assembly

• Operating National Instruments PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation (PXI) test equipment along with demonstrated knowledge of the LabVIEW® software

(b) Subfactor 1.2: Program Management Approach

(i) Offerors shall describe its approach to managing RCU production as a whole entity. Details shall include, but not limited to:

· Subcontractor management (if used)

· Parts management and maintaining sufficient stock to fulfill orders

· Configuration Management processes employed to ensure all requirements are accurately tracked throughout its lifecycle to delivery

(ii) Offeror’s overview of their proposal shall provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a complete understanding of their approach.

(iii) Offeror’s schedule for constructing a RCU device shall provide sufficient detail to confirm their understanding of the BOM, TDP, associated part procurement requirements.

(iv) Offerors shall provide a Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) that discusses how the Offeror intends to complete all the requirements outlined in the SOO. The Offeror shall include appropriate CSOW tasking for delivery of the RCU device, training material, and maintenance manual documentation. The CSOW may be in the Offeror’s format, but Offerors shall use MIL-HDBK-245D as a guide. The proposed CSOW, when accepted by the Government, will be incorporated into any subsequent order. (Note: While the CSOW does not count towards the page count, it is limited to 65 pages).

(c) Subfactor 1.3: Logistics Approach

(i) The offeror shall provide specific information on how they plan to:

· Manage the production Item Unique Identification (IUID) process

· Oversee the process for managing the RCU engineering data for provisioning

· Oversee the process for managing Government Furnished Property/Information

· Capability to meet the Government’s timeline to provide technical training

· Capability to meet the Government’s timeline for authoring and delivering the necessary technical manuals

(3) Volume III: PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2)

(a) The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will be manufacturing and populating printed and flexible circuit boards. Offerors shall submit three (3) recent (not older than five years) and relevant past performance experience related to the following areas:

(i) Manufacturing and populating printed circuit boards

(ii) Manufacturing and populating flexible circuit boards

(iii) Manufacturing of aluminum enclosures IAW U.S. Military Standards (MIL-STDs)

(iv) Authoring training material and technical manuals IAW MIL-STDs

(v) Summary of at least two (2) AS9100 related programs offeror has performed top-level assembly and integration work

(vi) Summary of at least two (2) AS9100 related programs offeror has performed Factory Acceptance Tests to include burn-in test and environmental stress screening for defense avionic equipment addressed in MIL-STD-810H

(vii) Summary of using Government Automatic Test Equipment a PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation (PXI) tester to functionally accept manufactured items

(viii) Summary of at least two (2) related programs offeror has performed first article testing

(4) Volume IV: COST/PRICE (FACTOR 3)

(a) Offerors shall provide a cost/price proposal to support the completeness and reasonableness of proposed prices. Pricing shall include all anticipated costs to fully perform all requirements as stated in the solicitation. Attachment 3 – B Tables has been provided to assist in preparing the cost/price proposal.

(b) Cost/price proposals shall be sufficiently detailed to allow comprehensive understanding of completeness, reasonableness, and balanced as well as provide a baseline for future modifications/changes. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

2. Section M, Evaluation Criteria for Award:

A. Award will be made IAW the procedures specified in this RFP to the reasonable Offeror whose proposal is evaluated to be technically acceptable and to have the lowest evaluated price.

B. The Government will review all proposals to determine if they are responsive to the RFP requirements. A responsive proposal is one that meets all the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. Offerors must provide all documents listed and comply with all submission instructions in order for the proposal to be considered “responsive” to this RFP.

The CO will conduct an integrated assessment on all proposals received that comply with the instructions in the RFP. Current and relevant information should be provided to assist the Government with the evaluation process. Therefore, each initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for technical and cost/price.

C. The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award the contracts without discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them not to be necessary. In the event discussions are conducted, they will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306 and will be limited to those Offerors determined to be a part of the competitive range.

D. Evaluation Factors. IAW FAR 15.304, regarding the relative importance of each factor, Factor 1 – Technical, Factor 2 – Past Performance are equal, and Factor 3 – Price is more important than Factor 1 and 2. Within Factor 1 - Technical, the subfactors Subfactor 1.1 - Technical Performance, Subfactor 1.2 – Program Management Approach, and Subfactor 1.3 – Logistics Approach are equal.

E. Responses to this RFP will be evaluated either acceptable or unacceptable against the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Technical Performance Subfactor 1.2: Program Management Approach Subfactor 1.3: Logistics Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government evaluation process is as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will conduct a compliance review to determine if each Offeror met the submission requirements as outlined above. If a proposal is found to be non-compliant, no further consideration will be afforded to that proposal.

Step 2 – Once the Government has determined which proposals are compliant, only those proposals will continue with the evaluation process as outline below.

Step 3 – Evaluation based on the following:

Subfactor 1.1 Technical Performance: The Offeror’s technical proposal shall, at a minimum, demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to perform the technical requirements.

The following rating will be used to annotate the technical evaluations and will form the basis of the assignment of ratings for Subfactor 1.1 Technical Performance:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Subfactor 1.2 Program Management Approach: The Offeror’s Program Management Approach clearly articulates their understanding of the Government’s requirements.

The following rating will be used to annotate the technical evaluations and will form the basis of the assignment of ratings for Subfactor 1.2 Program Management Approach:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Subfactor 1.3 Logistics Approach: The Offeror’s Logistics Approach clearly articulates their understanding of the Government’s requirements.

The following rating will be used to annotate the technical evaluations and will form the basis of the assignment of ratings for Subfactor 1.3 Logistics Approach:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Note: Subfactors will not be rolled up for one overall rating. Proposals with an UNACCEPTABLE rating in any factors or subfactors will not be eligible for award.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

This factor is met when the Offeror proposes a technical narrative that is achievable, technically sound, realistic, and clearly and completely substantiates how it intends to accomplish/satisfy ALL requirements of the SOO. A sound technical approach means the overall approach is well constructed, logically valid, and meets the requirements of the solicitation. A realistic approach is one that is achievable based on known facts within the program’s time and resources limitations. It is desirable for the Offeror to provide a comprehensive description of the processes and tools used for this program.

Please note that any assumptions provided with your proposal will be reviewed and may affect your technical acceptability. The Government will evaluate this factor based on the following:

Sub-Factor 1.1 – Technical Performance. This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates the ability to accomplish or meet the following:

(i) Offeror provide a technical approach for manufacturing the RCU device, maintenance training and technical/maintenance manual and documentation generation that demonstrates acceptable capability and experience to accomplish these requirements and have an active AS9100, Rev D certification

(ii) Offeror shall provide at minimum three (3) recent examples where the offeror directly performed work using the technical approach related to the following areas. These examples must have occurred within the last five (5) years and highlight performance in each of the following areas.

· Manufacturing and populating printed circuit boards

· Manufacturing and populating flexible circuit boards

· Manufacturing of aluminum enclosures IAW U.S. Military Standards (MIL-STDs)

· Integration of individual components into a top-level assembly

· Operating National Instruments PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation (PXI) test equipment along with demonstrated knowledge of the LabVIEW® software

Sub-Factor 1.2 – Program Management Approach. This subfactor is met when the Offeror:

(i) Provides a production schedule, utilizing industry recognized production scheduling software, which allows the offeror to manage predecessor/successor relationships and allows for resource loading of scheduled tasks. In additional, the offeror shall detail how they will

· Author and provide training and materials as well as maintenance manuals prior to the start of production

· Produce and deliver the required quantities of RCUs within the Government’s timeframe

(ii) Provides evidence of active risk management policies and procedures, to include

· Examples of software offeror utilizes to track and mitigate risks

· Decision tree or similar process offeror utilizes to guide courses of action related to risk

· Examples of at least two (2) previous instances where the offeror utilized their risk management policies and procedures within the last five (5) years and the outcome from those events

(iii) Provides evidence of active configuration management policies and procedures, to include

· Examples of software offeror utilizes to manage changes in production related documents and hardware

· Examples of at least two (2) previous instances where the offeror utilized their configuration management policies and procedures within the last five (5) years and the outcome from those events

(iv) Demonstrates evidence of offeror’s capability to effectively and efficiently communicate with the US Government, demonstrated by

· Providing evidence of offeror’s capability to either host or attend Microsoft Teams meetings

· Providing a sample production status report IAW SOO CDRLs

(v) Provide explicit statement concerning one (1) year parts and labor warranty to resolve deficiencies, starting from date of RCU unit acceptance.

Sub-Factor 1.3 – Logistics Approach. This subfactor is met when the Offeror:

(i) Demonstrates evidence of experience with marking/labeling U.S. government property for inventory accountability, storage and shipment through DOD supply chain and transportation systems by

· Providing evidence of having developed/employed an Item Unique Identification (IUID) process IAW MIL-STD-130N

· Providing evidence for marking/stenciling/labeling U.S. government property for inventory accountability, storage, and shipment IAW MIL-STD-129R

(ii) Provide evidence of experience with engineering data for provisioning

· Evidence of at least one (1) previously submitted and Government accepted engineering data package which was used to identify, catalogue, and procure each part in the end item and their relationship to other parts in the equipment. Reference standards in Activities 12.8 and 12.10 of TA-STD-0017.

(iii) Provide evidence of maintaining government property accountability

· Evidence of at least one (1) previously utilized automated system and process for maintaining and tracking government furnished property with ability to provide status reports as required in CDRLs

(iv) Provide evidence of ability to train depot level technicians

· Evidence of ability to provide maintenance training with required equipment

(v) Demonstrates capability to author technical manuals by providing samples of technical material offeror has previously written which has been accepted by the DoD

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE:

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet performance requirements. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine reasonable expectation of successful performance.

• Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

The following rating will be used to annotate the technical evaluations and will form the basis of the assignment of ratings for Factor 2 Past Peformance:

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

This factor is met when the Offeror provides three (3) references of recent (in the previous five (5) years) performance consisting of relevant work performed that demonstrates satisfactory performance according to industry and military standards for quality. Relevant work is defined as work related to the:

· Manufacturing and populating printed circuit cards

· Manufacturing and populating flexible circuit cards

· Manufacturing aluminum enclosures IAW MIL-STDs

· Integration of components into a top-level assembly IAW AS9100 standards

· Authoring training materials related to the repair of electronic devices

· Authoring technical manuals IAW MIL-STDs

· Managing Government Furnished Property/Information

FACTOR 3: PRICE

Price proposals shall support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated based on the (1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), for (2) completeness, (3) reasonableness, and (4) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

(1) Total Evaluated Price. The TEP for award purposes will be the sum of CLINs

(2) Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the RFP requirements.

(3) Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

(4) Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

(5) Ombudsman. IAW DAFFARS 5352.201-9101, Ombudsman (JUN 2023), an Ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns from Offerors, potential Offerors, and others for this acquisition If resolution cannot be made by the CO, concerned parties may contact the following: Deputy Director, Acquisition Excellence & Program Execution Directorate at AFLCMC/AQ-AZ Workflow (email: ASCA@us.af.mil) or at 937-255-5512/DSN 785-5512, Wright- Patterson AFB, OH.