L-900 Instructions to Offerors.pdf

L - 900 - Instructions to Offerors

I. Proposal Instructions

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this Request for Proposal (RFP). 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. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Ground Power Modernization (GPM) program as the Government will review only one proposal per group, per offeror.

Offerors may choose to propose to Group A (combined 72 kilo-Watt (kW) Ground Power Unit (GPU), 144 kW GPU and 144 kW Universal Load Bank (ULB)); Group B (72 kW GPU; please note Group B is a small-business set aside effort); or both Group A and Group B. The Government’s intention is to award one (1) contract for Group A and one (1) contract for Group B (see Section M paragraph I.A. for further information). The Government’s intention is to maximize commonality between the 72 kW and 144 kW GPUs and to ensure the 144 kW ULB will interoperate with and properly test all new GPU designs resulting from this RFP and subsequent award(s), as well as existing legacy GPU designs. Thus, Group A combines all three requirements, and must be proposed to in its entirety to submit a Group A proposal.

Group B is for those small business offerors who choose to either not to bid on the 144 kW GPU and the 144 kW ULB requirements, or for those small business offerors submitting a proposal for Group A that wish to also compete for the contract for the 72 kW GPU should their proposal not be determined the best value for Group A. Group B is required as the Government intends to have multiple production lines available for the 72 kW GPU to meet production requirements.

Proposal submissions shall be staggered. In other words, proposal volumes shall not be submitted all at once. Although the proposal volumes will not be submitted all at once, it is imperative that offerors continue working and refining their approach/proposal to ensure timely submittals upon request. The proposal shall be submitted in the following staggered approach:

Initial Proposal Submittal (Gate 1): Volume I (Completed RFP), Volume II (Past Performance)

Initial proposal submittals must be received by Brandi Owens, Contracting Officer, brandi.owens@us.af.mil and Reid Sawyer, Contracting Specialist, reid.sawyer@us.af.mil, via DoD SAFE (see paragraph L.II.A.7. below), no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 on the face page of the RFP. Initial proposal submittals received after this date and time will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208(b). However, offerors are requested to submit Volume II, Past Performance Information, ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals to allow the Government to begin past performance data gathering. Failure to submit Volume II by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

All offerors that submit a timely initial submittal shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M for Gate 1 (see paragraph M.II.A.2. for specific evaluation procedures). For those offerors identified as meeting the criteria for moving into Gate 2, the Government shall notify those offerors of Gate 2 inclusion, and Gate 2 Proposals will be requested.

Proposal Submittal 2 (Gate 2 Proposal): Volume III (Written Technical Proposal)

For Offerors that have been identified as being moved into Gate 2, Gate 2 proposals must be received by Brandi Owens, Contracting Officer, brandi.owens@us.af.mil and Reid Sawyer, Contracting Specialist, reid.sawyer@us.af.mil, via DoD SAFE (see paragraph L.II.A.7. below), no later than the date and time specified in the notification of Gate 2 inclusion. Gate 2 Proposals received after the specified receipt date and time (to be specified at a later date) will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208(b).

Offerors within Gate 2 that submit a timely Gate 2 Proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M for Gate 2 (see paragraph M.II.A.2. for specific evaluation procedures). For those offerors identified as meeting the criteria for moving into Gate 3, the Government shall notify those offerors of Gate 3 inclusion, and Gate 3 Proposals will be requested.

Proposal Submittal 3 (Gate 3 Proposal): Volume I (Small Business Subcontracting Plan), Volume IV (Small Business Participation) and Volume V (Price Proposal)

For Offerors that have been identified as being moved into Gate 3, Gate 3 Proposals must be received by Brandi Owens, Contracting Officer, brandi.owens@us.af.mil and Reid Sawyer, Contracting Specialist, reid.sawyer@us.af.mil, via DoD SAFE (see paragraph L.II.A.7. below), no later than the date and time specified in the notification of Gate 3 inclusion . Gate 3 Proposals received after the specified receipt date and time (to be specified at a later date) will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208(b).

Offerors within Gate 3 that submit a timely Gate 3 Proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M for Gate 3 (see paragraph M.II.A.2. for specific evaluation procedures). For those offerors identified as meeting the criteria for moving into Gate 4, the Government shall notify those offerors of Gate 4 inclusion, and Gate 4 Proposals (Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)) will be requested and discussions will be closed.

FPRs (Gate 4 Proposal)

For Offerors that have been identified as being moved into Gate 4, FPRs must be received by Brandi Owens, Contracting Officer, brandi.owens@us.af.mil and Reid Sawyer, Contracting Specialist, reid.sawyer@us.af.mil, via DoD SAFE (see paragraph L.II.A.7.bloe), no later than the date and time specified in the closing discussions letters. FPRs received after the specified receipt date and time (to be specified at a later date) will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208(b). The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey [typically conducted by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)] for those offerors that submit timely FPRs prior to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) making a best value determination in accordance with Section M, paragraph I.A.

Offerors within Gate 4 that submit a timely FPR shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M for Gate 4 (see paragraph M.II.A.2. for specific evaluation procedures). For those offerors identified as meeting the criteria for moving into Gate 5 (i.e., SSA decision), notifications regarding successful and unsuccessful offerors will be provided upon contract award.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between 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 RFP 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 or DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil/. When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

When submitting source selection documentation, offerors shall contact the Contracting Officer (Brandi Owens, brandi.owens@us.af.mil, 478-222-1910) and/or Contracting Specialist (Reid Sawyer, reid.sawyer@us.af.mil, 478-222-4701) via email or telephone to advise of information submittal and obtain acknowledgement of receipt.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in 5 separate volumes as set forth below:

PAGE NUMBER

VOLUME LIMITS OF COPIES* DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 Completed RFP (Including Subcontracting

Plan) II N/A 1 Past Performance III 30 (A)/10 (B) 1 Written Technical Proposal IV 5 1 Small Business Participation V N/A 1 Price Proposal

*All proposal information shall be submitted in electronic form via DoD SAFE (see paragraph L.II.A.7.

below). Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government. Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in the RFP Attachment 1, Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors, to electronically submit the Past Performance information into the PPI Tool (RFP Attachment 4). The PPI Tool will need to be sent to the offeror by the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist. In order to obtain the PPI Tool, the offeror shall send an email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified above to request a copy of the PPI Tool be sent via DoD SAFE. The offeror is also required to submit an electronic copy of the Past Performance Volume II,that includes an RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment.

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

1. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11”, excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Multiple charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. may be submitted on paper that are either 8 1/2” X 11” or 11” X 17”. No paper shall be larger than 11” x 17”. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. If the contractor prints on the front and the back of a sheet of paper, each printed side will be counted as one page for a total of two pages. 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.

3. The page limitation for Volume III, Written Technical Proposal is ten (10) pages per end item for a total of 30 pages for Group A proposals. The page limitation for Volume III, Written Technical Proposal is ten (10) pages for Group B proposals. See paragraph L.II.F. for further specific formatting requirements. The page limitation for Volume IV, Small Business Participation, is five (5) 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) and the GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet. While the GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet is excluded from the technical proposal page limitation, the page limitation for the GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet submittal is eight (8) pages. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

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

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

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

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

7. Mailed or hand-delivered proposal packages will not be accepted. Proposal packages must be submitted via DoD SAFE at https://safe.apps.mil. In order to submit the proposal package, the offeror shall send an email to both the Contracting Officer (Brandi Owens, brandi.owens@us.af.mil) and Contract Specialist (Reid Sawyer, reid.sawyer@us.af.mil) identified above and request a DoD SAFE drop-off link. Once the Contracting Officer and/or Contract Specialist receive the request, a drop-off link will be sent to the offeror to upload and send the proposal submittal. It must be noted that the proposal submittal, and not the request for drop off link, must be received by either the Contracting Officer and/or Contract Specialist by the proposal due date and time. Should the DoD SAFE proposal submittal be received after the proposal due date and time, the proposal will be considered late in accordance with FAR 15.208(b).

B. Oral Discussions

1. Process: After the electronic copies of the proposals are received and evaluated, oral discussions will be scheduled and will be held in accordance with M.II.A.1. Offerors will be required to participate in oral discussions via telephonic or virtual teleconference utilizing telephonic meeting conference lines or collaborative tools such as Microsoft Teams. Oral discussions will be held to allow for a heightened understanding and real-time dialogue between the offeror and the Government. The oral discussions will streamline and shorten the acquisition timeline and process.

The Government will conduct evaluations during the oral discussions. After the presentation is complete, the Government will meet to discuss the evaluation results and any required follow-on ENs. The Government will reconvene the telephonic or video teleconference meeting and conduct oral discussions on any required follow-on ENs. The reconvened meeting will either take place during the same time or will be scheduled at a time that is mutually agreeable to both parties. The oral discussions and the Government’s evaluation of the discussions will be recorded and documented in the official contract file.

Upon completion of oral discussions, written ENs documenting the oral discussions and offeror’s responses will be sent to the offeror to annotate accuracy. The offeror will be required to sign and return the ENs.

The Government’s objective is to conclude discussions for each gate/proposal submittal by the end of time allotted for oral discussions and arrive at a rating for each factor. However, due to required additional, internal Air Force processes and approvals, the offeror will not be notified of their full (i.e., all gates the offeror has progressed through) interim evaluation ratings until the formal closing of discussions/Final Proposal Revisions.

2. Format of the Slide Deck: Oral discussions shall be briefed using Microsoft PowerPoint. It is the Government’s intention to conduct oral discussions for each gate/proposal submittal (see paragraph L.I.A.

above). Offerors shall structure their oral discussions to follow the order as provided in RFP Attachment 2, Oral Discussions Slide Deck. This Slide Deck Template has the required information needed for each factor to be addressed during oral discussions. Any and all information contained in the slides not orally presented will not be considered as part of the offeror’s oral evaluation (including but not limited to information contained within the notes section).

The font shall be Times New Roman. Line spacing shall be set at 1.0 or greater. Text size shall be 14-point or larger. Formatting is left up to the offeror as long as all other instructions in this section are adhered to. Offerors will not be compensated for proposals or discussions. A time limit for each scheduled oral discussions session will be identified in the written notification of the offeror’s date and time of presentation. For those offerors proposing to both Group A and Group B, the Government will schedule a separate session for each Group.

Each offeror shall notify the Government of their capability to participate in oral discussions via telecon or video teleconference, not later than two (2) weeks after the release of the RFP, via email to brandi.owens@us.af.mil and reid.sawyer@us.af.mil. The oral discussions shall be given by key personnel responsible for project performance such as program/project managers and supervisors. The offeror is allowed up to a total of five (5) representatives that may participate in the oral discussions. A knowledgeable company representative should be present to answer any oral discussions that may occur for the evaluation factors being discussed.

The offeror shall notify the aforementioned Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist, in writing, of the name, phone number, and email address of the individuals who will receive Government notices regarding oral discussion brief schedules. The Contracting Officer and/or Contracting Specialist will schedule oral discussions based on receipt of this email notification. Time and date on each offeror’s email notification will be used to establish the order of discussions. The Contracting Officer and/or Contracting Specialist will notify offerors within one (1) week prior to oral discussions of the offeror’s date and time of presentation. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to change the order of oral discussions if external events necessitate.

All oral discussions will be recorded.

If oral discussions are cancelled due to circumstances beyond the Air Force’s control, the Air Force reserves the right to award a contract based on the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal and responses to written ENs (if required). If this occurs, all offerors will be notified prior to award.

Initial Proposal Submittal: The oral discussions for the initial proposal submittal will tentatively begin within three (3) weeks after the proposal due date and will be held via telecon or video teleconference at a specified time for each offeror. The offeror’s oral discussions charts shall include the Government’s identified ENs and associated offeror responses (RFP Attachment 2 is a template available for use).

Should additional ENs be identified by the Government as a result of oral discussions, the offeror shall include the additional ENs and associated offeror responses within the oral discussions slide deck. The Government will utilize this slide deck as formal written documentation of all ENs and offeror responses for the initial proposal submittal.

Proposal Submittal 2: The oral discussions for the proposal submittal 2, for those offerors notified of their inclusion within Gate 2, will tentatively begin within three (3) weeks after the proposal due date and will be held via telecon or video teleconference at a specified time for each offeror. Offerors shall utilize the oral discussions slide deck from the initial proposal submittal discussions, and update the oral discussions slides to include the “Proposal Submittal 2 / Gate 2 Discussions” slides with the Government’s identified ENs and associated offeror responses (RFP Attachment 2 is a template available for use). Should additional ENs be identified by the Government as a result of oral discussions, the offeror shall include the additional ENs and associated offeror responses within the oral discussions slide deck.

The Government will utilize this slide deck as formal written documentation of all ENs and offeror responses for both the initial proposal submittal and Proposal Submittal 2.

Proposal Submittal 3: The oral presentations/discussions for the proposal submittal 3, for those offerors notified of their inclusion within Gate 3, will tentatively begin within three (3) weeks after the proposal due date and will be held via telecon or video teleconference at a specified time for each offeror. Offerors shall utilize the oral discussions slide deck from the Proposal Submittal 2 discussions, and update the oral discussions slides to include the “Proposal Submittal 3 / Gate 3 Discussions” slides with the Government’s identified ENs and associated offeror responses (RFP Attachment 2 is a template available for use). Should additional ENs be identified by the Government as a result of oral discussions, the offeror shall include the additional ENs and associated offeror responses within the oral discussions slide deck.

The Government will utilize this slide deck as a part of the formal written documentation of all ENs and offeror responses for the initial proposal submittal, Proposal Submittal 2, and Proposal Submittal 3.

C. 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. Within the cover letter, the offeror shall clearly identify which group (Group A and/or Group B) the offeror is proposing to.

Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed (see RFP Attachment 3, List of Fill-In Clauses to Complete). Offeror’s shall not include prices in the submitted RFP. Proposed prices shall be submitted along with Proposal Submittal 3, as discussed in paragraph L.I.A. above.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan – Group A Large Business Offerors Only: The small business subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS and AFFARS, shall be submitted as a part of Proposal Submittal 3 for Group A proposals submitted by large business offerors. The plan shall set forth the offeror’s plan for subcontracting with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 as supplemented by the DFARS and AFFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by FAR 19.7, DFARS 219.7, AFFARS 5319.7, and all associated clauses within this RFP. Should the offeror proceed through all of the gates, a final small business subcontracting plan incorporating the prices shall be submitted along with Proposal Submittal 3 and the offeror’s Final Proposal Revision (FPR) should the offeror remain within the competitive range.

Note: The small business subcontracting plan is required by large business offerors (to include large business joint ventures) only. Small businesses proposing to Group A shall not submit a small business subcontracting plan. Additionally, Group B is set aside for small business offerors; thus, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required for Group B proposals.

D. Volume II, Past Performance

1. General: The offeror shall utilize the PPI Tool (RFP Attachment 4) in order to submit Volume II, Past Performance. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the PPI Tool, RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment, and the following paragraphs. For each Group (i.e., Group A and Group B), a critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will:

Group A: provide or perform the loadbank portion of the work or the 270 VDC output.

Group B: provide or perform the 270 VDC output.

The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any of the following even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement:

-subcontractor(s), vendor(s), or supplier(s) (with the exception of those entities identified as meeting the critical subcontractor definition)

-any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management

-any key personnel

Should the offeror chose to propose to both Group A and Group B, the offeror shall provide separate Volume II submittals; one submittal per group. The offeror shall provide past performance information in accordance with this paragraph, to include all subparagraphs (i.e., paragraph L.II.D.1. through paragraph L.II.D.10.) for each Volume II submittal.

2. Past Performance Format: The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume labeled "Volume II - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and critical subcontractor (nature of work and percentage of overall work). Summary page information must clearly communicate that proposed critical subcontractor(s) meet the definition of a critical subcontractor established in paragraph L.II.D.1. above. Efforts submitted for proposed critical subcontractors not meeting the established definition will not be evaluated. Further, the summary page information shall clearly identify the specific group (A and/or B) the offeror is proposing to.

For Group A: Each offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for up to six (6) active or completed efforts in the past fifteen (15) years from the issuance date of the RFP that the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds six (6), each offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor shall address its six (6) most recent and relevant contracts. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

For Group B: Each offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for up to three (3) active or completed efforts in the past fifteen (15) years from the issuance date of the RFP that the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three (3), each offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor shall address its three (3) most recent and relevant contracts. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

Please note that the offeror/joint venture member shall be the party to submit all performance information in the PPI Tool.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or series of orders) under the basic ordering contract shall be submitted, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. All information provided to the Government for an ordering type contractual vehicle, shall be at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Otherwise, the Government will be unable to evaluate the ordering-type contract.

When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, Paragraph II.C. for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M paragraph II.C.4 Note, 4.3 and 4.4, the offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible. However, a series of orders should only be submitted if the series of orders is for continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition.

Not all ordering type contractual vehicles will have series of orders that meet this criteria. In this instance, only the single order demonstrating relevant technical scope should be submitted for evaluation.

When submitting an individual order (or series of orders) under an ordering type contractual vehicle, it is important that the offeror’s past performance information be submitted in the correct format. There are specific places for submission of this information in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment. Please ensure the information submitted in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment is for each order (or series of orders), in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. This includes but is not limited to information such as the dollar value, period of performance, quantity produced, type and complexity of data deliverables, and type and complexity of testing for each order or series of orders.

3.1 Series of Orders: When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror shall list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy, as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M paragraph II.C.4. When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, Paragraph II.C. for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M paragraph II.C.4 Note, 4.3, and 4.4, the offeror should consider submitting a series of orders, if possible.

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

Per the Note in Section M paragraph II.C.4, Relevancy consists of not only technical complexities, but programmatic/logistical considerations. The programmatic/logistical considerations include quantity produced, length of effort, dollar value, type and complexity of data deliverables, and type and complexity of testing. If an offeror submits a series of orders for evaluation, the total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders), the period of performance dates of each order (in the series of orders), the total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders), the type and complexity of data deliverables for each order (in the series of orders), and the type and complexity of testing for each order (in the series of orders) shall be submitted.

The total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

The total period of performance of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Period of Performance to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

The total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Dollar Value to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

The type and complexity of data deliverables provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

The type and complexity of testing provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

Caution: All orders within the series of orders being submitted should be for the same continuous technical scope demonstrating relevancy to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror or Points of Contacts (POCs) provided or any other means available to the Government to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment for each entity as required above, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) and/or critical subcontractors authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 6). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) and/or critical subcontractors identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume II.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the up to six (6) Group A and/or up to three (3) Group B contracts submitted in Volume II, Past Performance, include relevant information in the PPI Tool concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if these clauses are or were contained in the contract. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL businesses, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.* When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor awarded subcontracts to small business concerns** to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, identify if subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, and address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns* to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

*Small business offerors shall not simply identify themselves as a small business, as that does not address how the offeror utilized small business concerns in the performance of the submitted effort.

**Small business concerns includes small business categories of veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns.

6. PPI Tool and Relevancy Assessment Attachment: The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor (if applicable) must submit information for each past performance effort in the PPI Tool and the RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment. The offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor (if applicable) shall focus its responses in the PPI Tool and RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The information must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. In addition, the offeror is requested to provide data/specification sheets and copies of aircraft certification/approval (if applicable) for each submitted effort as an attachment to RFP Attachment 5, Relevancy Assessment for evaluation streamlining purposes. Provide the most current information for the POCs identified in the PPI Tool. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs in the PPI Tool:

a. Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

b. Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

c. Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

d. Other (As specified in the PPI Tool)

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and actions taken to resolve those causes in the information provided in the PPI Tool for each contract identified for evaluation. Problems not addressed in the PPI Tool, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

7. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment

7) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. A telephone interview will be conducted utilizing the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 7). The offeror is requested to send the identified POCs on each effort a copy of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 7) with the accompanying cover letter.

This will allow the POC to gather information that may be needed prior to the interview. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).

8. Client Authorization Letter: In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting/authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 8). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

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

10. RFP Attachment Legend: RFP Attachments 5 and 7, Relevancy Assessment and Present/Past Performance Questionnaire, respectively, must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

E. Volume III, Written Technical Proposal

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. In order to assist with streamlining the evaluation, it is requested that offerors address only one subfactor per section in the technical proposal, avoid including subfactor discussions in multiple sections, and use the same headings/subfactor numbers/PD paragraph numbers/etc. as used in this paragraph. For offerors proposing to Group A, the offeror shall clearly delineate between the 72 kW GPU, the 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB.

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.

Should the offeror choose to propose to both Group A and Group B, the offeror shall provide separate Volume III submittals; one submittal per group. The offeror shall provide a technical proposal in accordance with this paragraph, to include all subparagraphs (i.e., paragraph L.II.E.1. through paragraph L.II.E.2., including subparagraphs L.II.E.2.1. (2.1.1., 2.1.2., 2.1.3., and 2.1.4.) and subparagraph L.II.E.2.2. (2.2.1., 2.2.2., 2.2.3., and 2.2.4.)) for each Volume III submittal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. In order to ensure a more efficient evaluation, the technical proposal shall address only one subfactor per section of the proposal volume. As stated in paragraph L.II.3., the technical proposal page limitation for Group A is 10 pages per end item, for a total of 30 pages; the page limitation for Group B is 10 pages for the 72 kW GPU. Further, the GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet (required in Subfactor 3 for both Group A and Group B) is excluded from the aforementioned page limitations. However, the total length of the offeror’s completed GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet shall not exceed 8 pages (excluding the instruction sheet which is not required to be submitted as part of the completed GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet). The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the 144 kW GPU Purchase Description (PD) - PD21WRWNZEA007, the 72 kW GPU PD - PD21WRWNZEA008, and the 144 kW ULB PD – PD21WRWNZEA009.

2.1. Group A (144 kW GPU PD - PD21WRWNZEA007; 72 kW GPU PD - PD21WRWNZEA008;

144 kW ULB PD – PD21WRWNZEA009):

2.1.1. Subfactor 1: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Design

The offeror’s technical proposal shall provide a detailed narrative explanation that demonstrates a sound engineering approach to be used for the design of the 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB, and further demonstrates through accurate supporting data such as explanations, analysis, calculations, and/or conceptual layout drawings that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs (excluding associated subparagraphs) of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.2.1 GPU general layout, 3.5.7.7 Fuel tank (without addressing paragraph 3.5.5 embedded in paragraph 3.5.7.7), 3.9.1 Weight and dimensions, 3.9.2 Enclosure,

3.9.2.1 Doors, 3.9.2.2 Power cable storage, 3.9.3.3 Axles, 3.9.3.4 Towbar, and 3.10.6.2 Air transportability.

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.2.1 GPU general layout, 3.5.7.7 Fuel tank (without addressing paragraph 3.5.5 embedded in paragraph 3.5.7.7), 3.9.1 Weight and dimensions, 3.9.2 Enclosure,

3.9.2.1 Doors, 3.9.2.2 Power cable storage, 3.9.3.3 Axles, 3.9.3.4 Towbar, and 3.10.6.2 Air transportability.

PD21WRWNZEA009: 3.2.1 ULB general layout, 3.9.1 Weight and dimensions, 3.9.2 Enclosure,

3.9.2.1 Doors, 3.9.2.2.1 B-52 external power cable assembly compartment, 3.3.2 ULB power input panels, 3.9.3.3 Axles, 3.9.3.4 Towbar, and 3.10.6.2 Air transportability.

72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU: The submitted information shall include supporting data needed to verify that the proposed 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU designs are capable of meeting the dimensional, weight, and air transportability requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008. The supporting data shall include, at a minimum, the following documentation:

1. Conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs that sufficiently outline the complete 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU via exterior views (top, bottom, both sides, and both ends). At a minimum, the exterior views shall illustrate cable assembly storage, the doors (in both the open and closed positions), axles, towbar, and fuel filler location(s).

2. A direct exterior side view conceptual illustration, isometric drawing, or model print out that sufficiently illustrates the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU in its maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) condition negotiating the maximum C-130 ramp cresting angle.

3. Superimposed (ghost) conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs (wherein the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU exterior is superimposed over the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU interior) that sufficiently illustrates the locations of major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: radiator/CAC, engine, engine air cleaner assembly, engine muffler/resonator, batteries, fuel tank(s), A.C. generator, LRU(s), and 120/208 VAC, 60 Hz power supplies/transformer.

4. Calculated maximum dimensions and weight of the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU. Sufficient weight details shall be provided for major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: chassis and running gear; enclosure; the complete engine system to include batteries, liquid cooling system, and fuel system; the complete 480 VAC, 60 Hz power system to include the internal A.C. generator, the utility grid shore power inputs, and required regulation and control devices); LRU(s); and control system with control panel.

144 kW ULB: The submitted information shall include supporting data needed to verify that the proposed 144 kW ULB design is capable of meeting the dimensional, weight, and air transportability requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA009. The supporting data shall include, at a minimum, the following documentation:

complete 144 kW ULB via exterior views (top, bottom, both sides, and both ends). At a minimum, the exterior views illustrates the location of 144 kW ULB power input panel(s), the power cable storage, the 144 kW ULB cooling air entrance(s) and exit(s), doors (in both the open and closed positions), axles, and towbar.

2. A direct exterior side view conceptual illustration, isometric drawing, or model print out that sufficiently illustrates the 144 kW ULB in its maximum GVW condition negotiating the maximum C-130 ramp cresting angle.

3. Superimposed (ghost) conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs (wherein the 144 kW ULB exterior is superimposed over the 144 kW ULB interior) that sufficiently illustrates the locations of major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: load elements, cooling fans, and any required power conversion/inversion devices.

4. Calculated maximum weight of the 144 kW ULB. Sufficient weight detail shall be provided for major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: chassis and running gear;

enclosure; the complete load element system to include control devices; the complete cooling system, any required power conversion/inversion devices; and control system with control panel.

2.1.2. Subfactor 2: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Human Factors

The offeror’s technical proposal shall provide conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs to demonstrate a sound engineering approach to be used for the human factors of the 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB, and further demonstrate that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.6 Control system (to include all subparagraphs)

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.6 Control system (to include all subparagraphs)

PD21WRWNZEA009: 3.6 Control system (to include all subparagraphs)

72 kW GPU: The submitted information shall include conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs needed to verify that the proposed 72 kW GPU design is capable of meeting the human factor requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA008. The conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs shall sufficiently outline the complete 72 kW GPU control panel and human to machine interface (HMI).

144 kW GPU: The submitted information shall include conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs needed to verify that the proposed 144 kW GPU design is capable of meeting the human factor requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA007. The conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs shall sufficiently outline the complete 144 kW GPU control panel and HMI.

144 kW ULB: The submitted information shall include conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs needed to verify that the proposed 144 kW ULB design is capable of meeting the human factor requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA009. The conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs shall sufficiently outline the complete 144 kW ULB control panel and HMI.

2.1.3. Subfactor 3: 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU Output Power Rating

The offeror’s technical proposal shall provide a detailed narrative explanation that demonstrates a sound engineering approach to be used for the output power rating of the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU, and further demonstrates through accurate supporting data such as explanations, analysis, and/or calculations that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs (excluding associated subparagraphs) of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.3.1 GPU generator sub-system, 3.4 GPU outputs (without addressing paragraph 3.3 embedded in paragraph 3.4), 3.4.2.3 400 Hz output power rating (without addressing paragraphs 3.4.2.10 and 3.4.2.20 embedded in paragraph 3.4.2.3), 3.4.3.4 28.5 VDC output power rating (without addressing paragraph 3.4.3.8 embedded in paragraph 3.4.3.4),

3.4.4.4 270 VDC output power rating, 3.5 Engine system (addressing temperature and altitude requirements in paragraph 3.8, but not addressing paragraph 3.10.9 embedded in paragraph 3.5),

3.8.1 Operating temperature range, and 3.8.3 Altitude.

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.3.1 GPU generator sub-system, 3.4 GPU outputs (without addressing paragraph 3.3 embedded in paragraph 3.4), 3.4.2.2 400 Hz output power rating, 3.4.3.3 28.5 VDC output power rating (without addressing paragraph 3.4.3.1.7 embedded in paragraph 3.4.3.3),

3.4.4.3 270 VDC output power rating, 3.5 Engine system (addressing temperature and altitude requirements in paragraph 3.8, but not addressing paragraph 3.10.9 embedded in paragraph 3.5),

3.8.1 Operating temperature range, and 3.8.3 Altitude.

72 kW GPU and 144 kW…