DRAFT-ATSA-I SECTIONS L-M-25JAN2024.pdf

DRAFT L-900 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

AUTOMATIC TEST SYSTEMS ACQUISITION – I (ATSA-I)

RFP: FA8533-24-R-0002

RFP ATTACHMENT X

L-900. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the Offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. 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. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the ATSA-I Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as the Government will review only one proposal per Offeror. Proposals must be received by the following contracting team members listed below via email or DoD SAFE, no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP:

Contracting Officer (Sandra E. Harvey, sandra.harvey.2@us.af.mil) Contract Specialist (Jonathan R. Riggins, jonathan.riggins.2@us.af.mil) Contract Specialist (LaToya V. Williams, latoya.williams.13@us.af.mil)

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions with an Offeror, the Contracting Officer will notify the Offeror. Should discussions be conducted, Evaluations Notices (ENs) will be issued. The Government may conduct ENs either orally or in writing, and may issue ENs to some, none, or all Offerors. To streamline and shorten the process, the Government may elect to conduct oral discussions via telephone or virtual conference.

The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this solicitation. The Government is estimating to award to no more than 50 awardees with a task order of $1000 to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to change the total number of contracts awarded, to include no award without prior notice to Offerors.

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. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via DoD SAFE. 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).

If an Offeror’s computer system cannot support encryption technology, DoD Safe at https://safe.apps.mil is the preferred alternative method of electronic submissions. The Offeror should send an unencrypted email, including “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line, requesting a Drop Link for transmission purposes. When submitting source selection information via email (to include DoD SAFE), file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

NOTE: When sending files via DoD SAFE, please note there is a size limit of 8GB, as well as a 25 files number limit. Offerors shall advise the PCO and buyer of any submissions that will be outside of these limitations so that multiple DoD SAFE drop-off request links can be sent. A formal notice must be sent to the PCO and buyer for a drop off link to be sent. Drop off request/links sent to companies by the Government are only valid for 14 days.

Additionally, drop off request/links are only good for one submittal per use.

If the Offeror chooses not to utilize encrypted email or DoD SAFE, the Offeror shall send the PCO correspondence at the time that it submits the proposal stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail.

When submitting source selection documentation, Offerors shall contact the names in Section A above via email to advise of information submittal and obtain acknowledgement of receipt.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below:

ATSA-I Proposal Organization:

Volume Page Limit Description I N/A Completed RFP Cover Letter

II 30 Technical Proposal ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix [1 Page Maximum] Work Sample Cover Sheets [2 Page Maximum per Work Sample] Work Sample Contract Front Page [1 Page per Work Sample] Work Sample(s)

III N/A Small Business Participation Plan

All proposal information shall be submitted in electronic form via email or DoD SAFE. The Government will not accept hard copy deliveries of the proposal. Electronic files 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. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the Offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, etc. Proposals shall be in the English language.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” 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”. Each volume within the proposal shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively.

Neither elaborate formats nor color presentations are 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 II, Technical Proposal is thirty (30) pages. There is no page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Participation. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. 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 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

CUI

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. The Government reserves the right to independently identify exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP outside of those identified in the Offeror’s cover letter. 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.

The proposal acceptance period is specified on the RFP front page as 180 days. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in the cover that the proposal is valid for 180 days from proposal submission date.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan required by FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS and DAFFARS, shall be 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 DAFFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by FAR 19.7, DFARS 219.7, DAFFARS 5319.7, and all associated clauses within this RFP. NOTE: The small business subcontracting plan is required by large business Offerors only.

C. Volume II, Technical Proposal

1. General: The technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal shall 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. The burden of proof to substantiate the Offeror’s self-score from the ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix rests with the Offeror. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is artificially inflated. Definitions of the Focus Area Categories are found in Section M paragraph II.C.1 as well as on the Definitions tab within the Self-Scoring Matrix.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The Technical Proposal which consists of the ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix and a maximum of three (3) recent/relevant work samples (e.g., body of facts, data, proof) as substantiating documentation will be evaluated. The work samples shall meet a recency period within the past five (5) years from the proposal due date and represent contracts with the United States Government. Using the instructions provided below, the Offeror shall substantiate their self-score from the matrix by providing, as specifically as possible, the actual deliverables for the accomplished work that are detailed in the work samples. Each work sample shall demonstrate the Offeror’s experience for any of the three (3) identified Focus Area Categories where points are being claimed on the self-score matrix so that the Government can validate the Offeror’s submitted self-score.

In order to maximize the Offeror’s self-score matrix, the Government recommends that each submitted work sample shows expertise across multiple Focus Area Categories. The Offeror must show experience in at least one element of a Focus Area Category in order to get a point on the self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an Offeror can claim for any given work sample is three (3) points: one for each Focus Area Category. The Government reserves the right to contact the Government POCs identified in the work samples, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during validation of self-scores.

In addition, the Offeror shall:

Demonstrate traceability between the evaluation criteria and submitted evidence so that the Government can make a clear connection;

Provide documented evidence that clearly supports the evaluation criteria—if the Government cannot conclusively align the evidence to support the requirement, it may result in decremented points, and;

Ensure that the proposed evidence guides the Government to a validated conclusion—if the evidence is unclear and/or the Government cannot make the connection, points will be decremented.

3. What Not To Submit: Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. The Government will NOT accept discretely generated documentation for the sole purpose of point validation. Discretely generated documentation is defined as documentation that is newly generated expressly for the purpose of responding to this solicitation and was in no way a product of the work sample.

4. ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix: The Offeror shall submit a one (1) ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment X) utilizing up to a maximum of three work samples. The Offeror shall substantiate their self-score for each evaluation criterion for the Government to validate the Offeror’s self-score.

5. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation: Offerors may highlight sections of the evidence document without inserting text notes. Highlighting must not adversely impact the legibility of the document. Offerors should explain how the work sample artifacts substantiate the self-score in the cover sheet for each evaluation criterion work sample package. All work samples require their own coversheet. Do not submit one (1) work sample cover sheet for all work samples. Work samples should be arranged such that each segment is readily identifiable allowing for ease of searching. The overall work sample artifacts should be contained in one electronic file with an easily distinguishable name—e.g. for a PDF file the Offeror may use “Work Sample 1 (WS-1).pdf”.

The contents of this file shall be as follows:

a) ATSA-I Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment X) Work Sample Number: WS- Company Name: XYZ Corporation Work Sample Name: (i.e. contract name associated with work sample) ATS Refresh Work Sample Contract/Order Number: FA1234-24-D-5678 Work Sample Period of Performance: 1 Jan 2020 – 30 Jun 2023 Focus Area Categories Claimed: (i.e. category/categories for which points are being claimed by this work sample) o ATS Sustainment and Logistical Support o ATS Integration and Development o ATS Digital Engineering/Innovation

Work Sample Government Point of Contact (x2):

o FirstName1 LastName1, 123-456-7890, FirstName1.LastName1@us.af.mil o FirstName2 LastName2, 987-654-3210, FirstName2.LastName2@us.af.mil

Substantiation: Provide an explanation of this work sample contract/order submitted and how it demonstrates experience in support of one or more Focus Area Categories for which points are being claimed on the self-score matrix. Within the explanation, the Offeror shall identify the evidence/information supporting the category/categories claimed and its location within the work sample, describe what each evidence/information document is, and explain how each is being used to substantiate the proposed self-score.

b) Contract/Order Front Page

c) Provide a work sample divider sheet that identifies each piece of evidence being used to substantiate points for that Focus Area Category/Categories; examples are illustrated below. Each artifact from the work sample will be placed after its respective divider sheet in the file.

Example Work Sample Divider Sheets

WS-1

ATS Refresh

Obsolescence Study

Proposed Solution

Approach to Modeling the System in SysML

Evidence proposed must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered. Names that have been manually inserted into substantiating documentation and were not part of the original document will not be used to validate experience.

D. Volume III, Small Business Participation

Currently in revision.

DRAFT M-900 – EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

AUTOMATIC TEST SYSTEMS ACQUISITION – I (ATSA-I)

RFP: FA8533-24-R-0002

RFP ATTACHMENT X

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize a hybrid Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) and technical-only source selection methodology in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government is estimating to award to no more than 50 awardees with a task order of $1000 to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation. A decision on the acceptability of each Offeror’s technical and small business participation proposals will be made. An unacceptable technical rating will result in Offerors being ineligible for award. This source selection will be conducted without tradeoffs. Past performance and cost/price will not be evaluated. Cost/Price will be evaluated at the order level. The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, and meets all requirements set forth in the RFP as described below. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts under this solicitation. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offer(s).

The Government does not intend to use non-Government advisors or evaluators in this source selection evaluation.

In the event that the Government determines that there are more technically acceptable proposals received than can be supported by the resultant contract, overall score will be used to determine rank order of qualified Offerors.

Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to make down-select decisions to ensure a balanced awardee base consists of large business, small business, non-profit, and/or educational. If more than half of the total number of technically acceptable Offerors are large businesses, the Government may elect to remove the lowest ranking large businesses. The remaining awardee base will consist of awardees classified as small business, non-profit, or educational.

B. Factors and Relative Importance

1. Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors:

Factor I: Technical

Factor II. Small Business Participation

2. Relative Importance: The Government is not evaluating cost/price; cost/price will be evaluated at the order level. As the Government is not evaluating cost/price, there will be no tradeoffs to be made. Factor I, Technical and Factor II, Small Business participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions.

Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions not listed in this cover letter. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS and DAFFARS, to assure it reflects a sound approach to the Offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting. Failure by the large business Offeror/joint venture to submit this small business subcontracting plan will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.)

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the self-score matrix, to determine if the Offeror demonstrates experience in any of the three (3) identified Focus Area Categories as detailed in the ATSA-I Focus Area Categories section below. The technical proposal shall provide substantiating documentation for the Government’s validation of the Offeror’s submitted self-score.

This technical factor is met when the Offeror’s self-score matrix with a maximum of three (3) recent/relevant work samples (e.g., body of facts, data, proof) are validated and determined by the Government to substantiate the Offeror’s self-score. The work samples shall meet a recency period within the past five (5) years from the proposal due date and represent contracts with the United States Government.

In order to maximize the Offeror’s self-score matrix, the Government recommends that each submitted work sample shows expertise across multiple Focus Area Categories. The burden of proof for substantiating points in the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix rests solely with the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact the Government POCs identified in the work samples, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during validation of self-scores.

The Offeror must show experience in at least one element of a Focus Area Category in order to get a point on the self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an Offeror can claim for any given work sample is three (3) points:

one for each Focus Area Category. If the Government determines that an Offeror’s substantiating documentation is insufficient to support the self-score in a Focus Area Category, the Government will decrement a point for any Focus Area Category found to be insufficient. Consequentially, the total work sample self-score could potentially be decremented to zero (0) points.

ATSA-I Focus Area Categories

a) ATS Sustainment and Logistical Support

This Focus Area Category represents the capability of the Offeror to perform sustainment/logistical support activities in support of Automated Test Systems (ATS). Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:

Supportability studies Reverse engineering efforts Logistics data analysis Deficiency investigations

System Contract Logistics Support (CLS) contracts, which would include supply chain management, maintenance management, and sustainment engineering efforts

Implementing form, fit, function solutions for ATS to mitigate system obsolescence

b) ATS Integration and Development

This Focus Area Category represents the capability of the Offeror to identify automatic test solutions and design/develop hardware and software to integrate them in new or existing ATS. Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:

Designing ATS hardware interface cabling and compatible software layers Providing ATS solutions at USAF locations for all maintenance levels including Depot or Field

(Intermediate or Organizational), as well as developmental testing in systems integration labs Developing ATS technical data packages and thoroughly documented software build projects including all source code to provide Government-owned products and solutions Developing technical orders for ATS technical content and operations Implementing cybersecurity controls in ATS controller operating systems Developing ATS product documentation including system requirements specifications, interface control documents, system product specifications, and software version descriptions Designing service life extension projects to meet existing capabilities of obsolete ATS Presenting ATS design reviews and periodic status updates

c) ATS Digital Engineering/Innovation

This Focus Area Category represents the capability of the Offeror to apply an integrated digital approach that uses authoritative sources of systems' data and models as a continuum across disciplines to support lifecycle activities from concept through disposal for ATS. Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:

Defining requirements, specifications, and deliverables accurately using digital engineering methods such as the System Modeling Language (SysML)

Maintaining and modifying system models using SysML tools to reflect the technical baseline for a system on contract and be able to provide Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) that include anticipated system modifications from the SysML reference architecture

Designing hardware using modern tools for modeling and simulation Developing ATS software in accordance with the DoD DevSecOps Reference Architecture

2. Technical Rating: The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for the technical factor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The total score on the self-score matrix must result in at least a one (1) point to be considered technically acceptable.

A total self-score matrix score resulting in a zero (0) means the technical factor will be determined as unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated or misleading claims could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-scoring matrix is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated, thereby resulting in the proposal being determined unacceptable.

D. Volume III, Small Business Participation Factor

Currently in revision