MACM_IDIQ_L.900_-_Section_L_Draft.doc

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. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must 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. Two separate pools of awardees are anticipated; allowing an offeror to propose to either Pool A- Fixed Wing, or Pool B- Rotary Wing, or both Pools A and Pool B. If an offeror proposes to both Pools A and B, the offeror may be awarded to one or both Pools. The singular proposal shall differentiate between the Pools so that the proposal includes a Section A for Pool A- Fixed Wing and a Section B for Pool B- Rotary Wing. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Special Operations Forces/Personnel Recovery (SOF/PR) Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/WIUKA, 235 Byron Street, Suite 19A, Robins AFB, GA 31098, Attention: Lindsay Gooding or Amanda Ragan, no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. 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. 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 mailing. 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 two (2) separate volumes as set forth below:

Proposal Organization

Paper/Electronic Page Limit

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution

Subfactor Two, Airworthiness

Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution

Subfactor Two, Airworthiness

Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise

**The Technical proposal information shall be submitted in written form (1 copy) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (3 copies) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. Offerors shall submit a CD, and identify the Technical volume by sufficiently marking the face of the disc with the RFP Number, Company Name, and disclosure statement: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. 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.

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, address, point of contact information (telephone number and e-mail address), and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language.

2. Print shall be Times New Roman and shall be 12 point font. 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 formats, bindings, color presentations are not desired or required. In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format. Hyperlinking will not be allowed within the proposal. The proposal shall not be supplemented by a package or reference documents.

3. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

4. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal is 40 pages. The page limitations include any cover page, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). 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. The printed Technical Proposal must be bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should should be used to clearly mark the volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror’s name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

5. 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.

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

8. 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

9. Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail or oral presentations will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered. Offerors are cautioned that Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex 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 for sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the specified office PRIOR to the time specified for receipt of proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP 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.

2. Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA): The offeror shall identify and provide all ACAs between Contractors, in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.22.1, as an attachment to the RFP.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal: Two separate pools of awardees are anticipated; allowing an offeror to propose to either Pool A- Fixed Wing, or Pool B- Rotary Wing, or both Pools A and Pool B. If an offeror proposes to both Pools A and B, the offeror may be awarded to one or both Pools. The singular proposal shall differentiate between the Pools so that the proposal includes a Section A for Pool A- Fixed Wing and a Section B for Pool B- Rotary Wing. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Special Operations Forces/Personnel Recovery (SOF/PR) Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

1. General: The responsibility for providing a well‐prepared and fully supported technical proposal lies soley with the offeror. The basis and rationale for all proposed technical solutions shall be provided as part of the proposal. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, shall contain the following: 1) Consolidated Bill of Material (CBOM) and 2) Basis of Estimate (BOE). The CBOM shall include proposed Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) and major structural components (i.e. higher assemblies) with proposed quantities. The BOE shall include proposed labor hours associated with labor categories. The CBOM and BOE shall support the proposed technical solution/approach as outlined in Sections L & M. The CBOM and BOE shall be submitted in an electronic sortable format (Excel spreadsheet). Due to the utilization of the Class Deviation, no costs/rates/prices should be found in the proposal documents.

POOL A - Fixed Wing

C-130J Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link

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. Statements of the nature that the offeror understands, can or will comply and meet the solicitation requirements, or which merely paraphrase the specification or parts thereof are considered inadequate. Phrases such as “Standard procedures will be employed” or “Well known techniques will be used” are also inadequate and unsatisfactory. A proposal which does not address all of the proposal requirements described in the following sections will be considered unsatisfactory due to insufficient information to evaluate and may be a basis for eliminating the proposal from further consideration.

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 and associated technical risk 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 below for each Subfactor as defined below. Based on the RFP requirements, the offeror shall provide a technical approach with supporting rationale and assumptions to meet the requirements of the sample task. Excluding those assumptions already identified in the sample tasks, the offeror shall identify their assumptions including any perceived, omitted, conflicting, and/or incomplete information. The offeror shall not assume Government services or equipment are available unless otherwise stated in the sample task. It is understood that the offeror’s proposal is based on the offeror’s assumptions. For each Subfactor, the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the proposed approach to the sample task and actions to be taken to mitigate that risk. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. Only the responses to the sample tasks will be evaluated for the technical factor.

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution

Using C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task, the proposal shall include a detailed narrative approach, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Engineering Analysis to produce the Technical “Design Output” associated with the proposed technical solution. Provide a response in the “Design Output” column utilizing the seven (7) factors listed in “Table 1: Technical Factors”.

Table 1: Technical Factors

2. The detailed narrative of the proposed technical solution shall include, but is not limited to:

a. Overall Design: Assumptions, engineering approaches/methodologies used, tradeoffs considered, modeling information, and hand calculations (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.15, 3.19);

b. Engineering analysis required to produce each proposed “Design Output” for Table 1;

c. Component/Material selection (C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.8);

d. Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.21);

e. Technical Risk Assessment (MACM SOW 3.29);

f. Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.25)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.17);

g. Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9.1)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.18);

h. Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.2), and;

i. Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.20), and;

j. Joint Interoperability Test Command (MACM SOW 3.16)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.2) Subfactor Two, Airworthiness Using C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task, the proposal shall include a detailed narrative approach, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Identification of Modification Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) Sections affected (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.15)

Section 4: Systems Engineering

Section 5: Structures

Section 6: Flight technology

Section 7: Propulsion & Propulsion Inst'l

Section 8: Air Vehicle Subsystems

Section 9: Crew Systems

Section 10: Diagnostic Systems

Section 11: Avionics

Section 12: Electrical Systems

Section 13: Electromagnetic Environ Effects

Section 14: System Safety

Section 15: Computer Systems & Software

Section 16: Maintenance

Section 17: Armament /Stores Integration

Section 18: Passenger Safety

Section 19: Materials

Section 20: Air Transportability, etc.

Table 2: Airworthiness

2. The detailed narrative shall include rationale for Airworthiness selections and the criteria used in assessing each individual MACC Section’s affectability rating (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.15).

Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise

Using C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task, the proposal shall include a detailed narrative approach, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Within your technical experience as a contractor (either prime or subcontractor) who either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work, illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the Draft SOW within the past 10 years that demonstrates military aircraft modifications that in summation included at least three (3) of the four (4) following elements:

a. Design – Developing the technical approach, drawings, and data utilizing set requirements to produce an operationally effective capability. (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.15, 3.19);

b. Integration – Implementing a design within the existing framework of the overall system and existing sub-systems. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.9, 3.15, 3.20.1);

c. Installation – The act of implementing a technical design on a designated system in the form of a modification trial kit, kit proof, and production manufactured kits. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.9, 3.15, 3.20.1), or;

d. Test – Measure the overall ability of a modification, in a lead or supporting role, utilizing ground procedures, operational checkout, and/or aircraft flights via a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or similar plans. (MACM SOW 3.9.6, 3.9.9)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.1-4.3)

2. To support the expertise related to Subfactor three - number one, supporting documentation shall include, but is not limited to:

a. Contract numbers;

b. Test procedures/reports;

c. Period of performance;

d. Agency/organization supported;

e. Individual point of contact (Contracting Officer or Program Manager);

f. Brief description of the work performed (e.g., performance based work statements, statement of work, statement of objectives, contractual engineering task; SEP; TEMP);

g. Weapon system;

h. Government Customer or requirements holder;

i. Applicable Government testing agencies interaction (where applicable);

j. Program name, and;

k. Describe your company's capabilities and experience in generating technical data (i.e., CAD/hand-sketched drawings, installation plan etc.) and engineering drawings/product level TDPs. Identify what software programs are utilized to generate these data products and what formats are available for delivered items.

NOTE: Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise is for verification purposes only.

POOL B - Rotary Wing

HH-60G BLOS Data Link

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. Statements of the nature that the offeror understands, can or will comply and meet the solicitation requirements, or which merely paraphrase the specification or parts thereof are considered inadequate. Phrases such as “Standard procedures will be employed” or “Well known techniques will be used” are also inadequate and unsatisfactory. A proposal which does not address all of the proposal requirements described in the following sections will be considered unsatisfactory due to insufficient information to evaluate and may be a basis for eliminating the proposal from further consideration.

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 and associated technical risk 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 below for each Subfactor as defined below. Based on the RFP requirements, the offeror shall provide a technical approach with supporting rationale and assumptions to meet the requirements of the sample task. Excluding those assumptions already identified in the sample tasks, the offeror shall identify their assumptions including any perceived, omitted, conflicting, and/or incomplete information. The offeror shall not assume Government services or equipment are available unless otherwise stated in the sample task. It is understood that the offeror’s proposal is based on the offeror’s assumptions. For each Subfactor, the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the proposed approach to the sample task and actions to be taken to mitigate that risk. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. Only the responses to the sample tasks will be evaluated for the technical factor.

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution.

Using HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task, the proposal shall include a detailed narrative approach, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Engineering Analysis to produce the Technical “Design Output” associated with the proposed technical solution. Provide a response in the “Design Output” column utilizing the seven (7) factors listed in “Table 1: Technical Factors”.

Table 1: Technical Factors

2. The detailed narrative of the proposed technical solution shall include, but is not limited to:

a. Overall Design: Assumptions, engineering approaches/methodologies used, tradeoffs considered, modeling information, and hand calculations (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.17, 3.20);

b. Engineering analysis required to produce each proposed “Design Output” for Table 1;

c. Component/Material selection (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.4, 3.1, 3.8);

d. Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.22)

e. Technical Risk Assessment (MACM SOW 3.29);

f. Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.25)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.18);

g. Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9.1)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.19);

h. Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.2), and;

i. Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.21)

j. Joint Interoperability Test Command (MACM SOW 3.16)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.2)

Subfactor Two, Airworthiness.

Using HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task, the proposal shall include a detailed narrative approach, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Identification of Modification Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) Sections affected (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.16)

Section 4: Systems Engineering

Section 5: Structures

Section 6: Flight technology

Section 7: Propulsion & Propulsion Inst'l

Section 8: Air Vehicle Subsystems

Section 9: Crew Systems

Section 10: Diagnostic Systems

Section 11: Avionics

Section 12: Electrical Systems

Section 13: Electromagnetic Environ Effects

Section 14: System Safety

Section 15: Computer Systems & Software

Section 16: Maintenance

Section 17: Armament /Stores Integration

Section 18: Passenger Safety

Section 19: Materials

Section 20: Air Transportability, etc.

Table 2: Airworthiness

2. The detailed narrative shall include rationale for Airworthiness selections and the criteria used in assessing each individual MACC Section’s affectability rating (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.16).

Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise.

Using HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task, the proposal shall include a detailed narrative approach, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Within your technical experience as a contractor (either prime or subcontractor) who either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work, illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the Draft SOW within the past 10 years that demonstrates military aircraft modifications that in summation included at least three (3) of the four (4) following elements:

a. Design – Developing the technical approach, drawings, and data utilizing set requirements to produce an operationally effective capability. (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.16, 3.20);

b. Integration – Implementing a design within the existing framework of the overall system and existing sub-systems. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.22.1);

c. Installation – The act of implementing a technical design on a designated system in the form of a modification trial kit, kit proof, and production manufactured kits. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.22.1), or;

d. Test – Measure the overall ability of a modification, in a lead or supporting role, utilizing ground procedures, operational checkout, and/or aircraft flights via a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or similar plans. (MACM SOW 3.9.6, 3.9.9)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.1-4.3)

2. To support the expertise related to Subfactor three, number one, supporting documentation shall include, but is not limited to:

a. Contract numbers;

b. Test procedures/reports;

c. Period of performance;

d. Agency/organization supported;

e. Individual point of contact (Contracting Officer or Program Manager);

f. Brief description of the work performed (e.g., performance based work statements, statement of work, statement of objectives, contractual engineering task; SEP; TEMP);

g. Weapon system;

h. Government Customer or requirements holder;

i. Applicable Government testing agencies interaction (where applicable);

j. Program name, and;

k. Describe your company's capabilities and experience in generating technical data (i.e., CAD/hand-sketched drawings, installation plan etc.) and engineering drawings/product level TDPs. Identify what software programs are utilized to generate these data products and what formats are available for delivered items.

NOTE: Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise is for verification purposes only.

Table 2: Airworthiness