DRAFT Sections L and M.pdf

L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS –INITIAL SOURCE SELECTION, CAT-F SYSTEM DESIGN

I. Introduction and Overview

This acquisition will be a source selection comprised of an Initial Source Selection that may yield contracts to two

(2) offerors with a Final Downselect to at least one (1) contractor following Design Review (DR). The Initial Source

Selection will result in the award for CAT-F System Design. In the Initial Source Selection, the Government will conduct a full and open competition to narrow the competitive field down to no more than two (2) contractors that will execute CAT-F System Design and proceed to the Final Downselect. The Initial Source Selection instructions and evaluation criteria can be found in Section L-900, Instructions to Offerors - Initial Source Selection, CAT-F

System Design and Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award - Initial Source Selection, CAT-F System Design.

The Contracts will contain options for the execution of the program beyond the basic contract. The Final

Downselect source selection will determine which contractor’s Option 1 may be exercised. It is the Government's intent to exercise the Option with one contractor, however, the Government is reserving the right to exercise the

Option with both contractors. The determination of whether or not to exercise options will be based on evaluation criteria spelled out in the Section L-901, Instructions to Offerors, Final Downselect, CAT-F Engineering and

Manufacturing Development (EMD), Production and Section M-901, Evaluation Basis for Award- Final

Downselect, CAT-F Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production. The successful offeror will complete EMD and may proceed to later stages of the program (Production and Sustainment). After the down select determination is made, the government does not plan to exercise any additional contract options for the unsuccessful offeror.

The Chart below shows the proposal evaluation sequence of events.

The Government will conduct an initial evaluation of all proposal volumes upon receipt and develop Evaluation

Notices (ENs) that will be forwarded to offerors immediately after the PCO makes a competitive range determination and opens discussions with the offerors. The Government’s objective is to maximize communications between Government and offerors to permit a high level of understanding early in the evaluation process.

The full cost/price proposal will be submitted concurrently with the responses to Initial Discussion ENs and updated technical proposal, if applicable. Any updates to the technical proposal shall be identified by a change summary document. Subsequent ENs may be issued. Once discussions are complete, Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested. Contract award will take place after FPRs have been received/evaluated and final clearances/approvals to award the contract are granted.

II. 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. 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 CAT-F as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/ROKB, Attention: Oya Harrison, Contracting Officer, and Alexis Davis, Buyer/Contract

Specialist, no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 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 may use any email configured that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. Non-encrypted proposals will not be accepted. 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 DoD SAFE). When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

The test encrypted message process is as follows:

1. The offeror shall send a digitally signed “test” e-mail message containing no proprietary or source selection information to oya.harrison.1@us.af.mil and alexis.davis.13@us.af.mil. Please clearly identify the email as a “Test email for Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) RFP FA8533-25-R-0002”.

2. The PCO will open the test e-mail and add (or update) the sender’s e-mail address (and corresponding encryption certificate) to their Outlook “Contacts List”.

3. The PCO will send a digitally signed reply to the sender’s e-mail address.

4. The sender must open the PCO’s digitally signed reply and add (or update) the PCO’s e-mail address in their “Contacts List” (For Outlook users - right-click the name in the “From” box, and then click” Add to

Contacts” on the shortcut menu. Shortcut menu: a menu that shows a list of commands relevant to a particular item. To display a shortcut menu, right-click an item or press shift + F10. If you already have a contact entry for this person, select “Update New Information” from this contact to the existing one).

5. When you are ready to send an encrypted email, ensure encryption is selected and include “Source

Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email.

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 encrypted email, please note there is a size limit of 20MB.

mailto:oya.harrison.1@us.af.mil mailto:alexis.davis.13@us.af.mil https://safe.apps.mil/

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.

III. Volume Organization

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

PAGE NUMBER

VOLUME LIMITS OF COPIES* DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 Completed RFP (Including RFP Attachments, Cross

Reference Matrix (CRM), and copy of Joint Venture

Agreement (if applicable))

II 50 1 Written Technical Proposal

III 10 1 Small Business Participation

IV N/A 1 Cost/Price Proposal

*All proposal information shall be submitted in electronic form via encrypted email or DoD SAFE. 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. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number FA8533-25-R-0002 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 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 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.

Elaborate formats or 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 II, Written Technical Proposal is 50 pages. The page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Participation, is 10 pages. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision. 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, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the

Schedule of the RFP.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The offeror shall fill out the cross-reference matrix at RFP Attachment 1 indicating where in its proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document

(Statement of Objectives (SOO), System Requirements Document (SRD), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L-900 (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M-900

(Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help an offeror ensure it has responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix. Additionally, Section M-900 references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the

Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with Section M-900 of the solicitation.

3. 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.

4. Supplier Performance Risk System: If available, offerors shall have a current assessment in the Supplier

Performance Risk System (SPRS) as required by DFARS 252.204-7019 and DFARS 252.204-7020. An assessment date is considered current within the last three years of this solicitation issuance. The Government will consider the offeror’s risk assessment for item, price, and supplier risk, as applicable. Offerors are able to access their risk assessments by following the access instructions in the SPRS users guide available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm.)

C. Volume II, 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. 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.

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 in sufficient detail to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the SOO and SRD. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. The

Government reserves the right to independently identify risks with the proposed approach outside of those risks identified by the offerors themselves.

In order to assist with streamlining the evaluation, offerors shall 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.

Subfactor I: Systems Engineering

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Performance Specification and Statement of Objectives requirements as follows:

• Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan. The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a risk mitigation plan that addresses the lack of existing technical data needed to generate the required Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) test program sets (TPS) found in the SRD, Section 1.2, to include all Subsection.

• Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale: The offeror shall submit a detailed preliminary

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for Phase I (or Handheld Phase) and Engineering

Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase per the SRD Section 1. The proposed IMS shall communicate how the contractor shall meet the Phase 1 Production Readiness Review within

18 months after contract award. The offeror shall identify and define those assumptions used when constructing the IMS. The proposed IMS shall include the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones. Additionally, the proposed IMS shall identify the critical path for Phase I EMD and provide a schedule rationale narrative identifying, explaining, and providing mitigation plans for moderate and high-risk activities and events along the critical path. The proposed IMS shall include top level schedule activities, events and milestones for Phases II (Intermediate-Level Tester

Phase) and III (Production Phase) with the duration of days from exercise of contract option to Design Review (DR) and Production Readiness Review (PRR) IAW SOO. The proposed

IMS is for all 3 phases and shall not exceed 300 lines overall length, shall be depicted in Gantt format and provided in Microsoft Project 2010 format.

Subfactor II: Statement of Work

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed Statement of Work (SOW) to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the provided SOO.

Subfactor III: MOSA Utilization

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) drawings, charts, diagrams, graphs, and supporting illustrations to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) requirements. At a minimum, the Offeror shall address the following:

• Plans/approaches for integrating the systems both internally and with external systems.

• The means for ensuring conformance to open standards and profiles throughout the development process,

• A description of how the technical approach ensures having access to mature as well as the latest technologies by establishing a robust, modular, and evolving architecture based on open standards that enhances interoperability and the ability to integrate new capabilities without redesign of entire systems or large portions thereof.

• A description how risks associated with reliance on a single source of supply over the life of the system will be mitigated; to include but not be limited to, technology obsolescence and dependence on proprietary or vendor unique technology.

• A description of the strategy for maintaining the currency of technology, e.g., through COTS or reusable NDI insertion, technology refresh strategies, and other appropriate means to reduce the development cycle time and total life-cycle cost

• Identification of processes for:

▪ Isolating functionality through the use of modular design

▪ Evaluating modular open system baseline standards, defining and updating profiles, and evaluating and justifying new or vendor-unique profiles

▪ Validating implementation conformance to selected profiles

▪ Managing application conformance to selected profiles

▪ Training in use of profiles

Subfactor IV: Data Rights

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) drawings, charts, diagrams, graphs, and supporting illustrations to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the data rights requirements as follows:

• Data Rights Plan. The Offeror shall propose the extent to which the rights in technical data

(TD), computer software (CS), computer software documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents offered to the Government ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the CAT-F throughout its life cycle; allow for open and competitive procurement of CAT-F enhancements; and permit the transfer of the CAT-F non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms. The Offeror shall also propose the TD, CSD, and CS reuse portability for use on other systems or platforms.

• Data Availability Plan. The Offeror shall describe its plan for making design and interface information available as soon as possible after it is defined or established. The Offeror shall establish and maintain a process that will provide “early and often” design disclosure directly to the Government or to third-party contractors via Government established access to in-process design documentation and computer software. Access and the ability to download this information shall be supported using industry standards. The information products available in the repository shall be easily discovered and accessed. The exchange of information shall be structured so as to protect the Offeror’s and third-party developers’ proprietary rights in the information. The Offeror shall address how it intends to resolve any comments from the

Government and third-party contractors. The Offeror shall describe how it intends to provide all non-proprietary licenses, source code, drawings, repair and engineering documentation to the Government and third-party contractors at specified key events or at defined intervals.

D. Volume III, Small Business Participation

1. General: The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans.

The offeror/joint venture member and each proposed critical subcontractor (see definition in paragraph L.II.D.1 above) shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business

Participation proposal is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business

Participation proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation proposal for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor (see definition in paragraph L.II.D.1 above) in a separate volume labeled “Volume III – Small Business Participation”. The Small Business

Participation proposal shall address each of the following elements in the proposed performance of this resultant contract:

The extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB)* when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and, The description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform; and, The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total acquisition value. If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, provide rationale for such. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Rather, adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet, and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

Additionally, if the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor is a small business concern, it should include the work it will be performing when calculating the goals for your Small Business

Participation information.

* Small Businesses include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns.

E. Volume V, Cost/Price

Another DRAFT Section L&M will be released with cost/price language in the near future.

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD - INITIAL SOURCE SELECTION, CAT-F

SYSTEM DESIGN

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures 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 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award two contracts as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs may be made between technical risk and cost/price. Note, the previous sentence does not imply nor is it the Government’s intention to conduct the evaluations in sequential order (i.e., first technical, then small business participation, and finally price). The

Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower technical risk and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff 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 the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The

Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

• Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan

• Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale

• Data Rights Plan

• Data Availability Plan

Factor II. Small Business Participation

Factor III. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating is significantly more important than cost/price. However, Factor III, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision. Within Factor I, subfactors I, II, III and IV are listed in importance, but are only slightly different in level of importance. Factor II Small Business Participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and thus will not be a part of the tradeoff decision. Factor I, Technical evaluation, includes both technical acceptability/unacceptability or color/adjectival evaluation, and technical risk. The technical acceptability/unacceptability rating will not be a part of the tradeoff decision. However, the color/adjectival evaluation and technical risk rating portions of the technical factor will be a part of the tradeoff decision.

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.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 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. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents SOO, SRD, CDRL, Section L-900 (Instructions to

Offerors) and Section M-900 (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation.

If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

3. 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 written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the SOO and SRD and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves.

This subfactor will be evaluated on a technical acceptable/unacceptable basis and a technical risk rating.

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative with supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Performance

Specification and Statement of Objectives paragraph requirements as follows:

• Technical Risk Mitigation Plan: This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided a realistic risk mitigation plan that addresses the lack of existing technical data needed to generate the required Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) test program sets (TPS) found in the

SRD, Section 1.2, to include all Subsection.

• Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale: This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided a detailed preliminary Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the Increment I

EMD phase per SOO. To be acceptable, the proposed IMS must communicate how the contractor will meet the Phase I Production Readiness Review within 18 months after contract award. The offeror must have identified and defined those assumptions used when constructing the IMS. The proposed IMS identifies the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones. The proposed IMS identities the critical path for Phase I EMD and provides acceptable schedule rationale narrative identifying, explaining, and providing mitigation plans for moderate and high-risk activities and events along the critical path. The proposed IMS must identify top level schedule activities, events and milestones for Phase II and

III with the duration of days from exercise of contract options to CDR and PRR IAW SOO.

This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor is met when the offeror has provided a written Statement of Work to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the

Statement of Objectives. The SOW will be evaluated on if the offeror has met each requirement set forth in the SRD. Then the SOW will evaluated on how each entry will affect the schedule or performance of the

CAT-F, determining if there are any strengths or weaknesses for each entry.

This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides their modular open system architecture approach incorporates hardware and software modular open system architecture design requirements, as documented in the Offeror's Open Systems Management

Plan (OSMP), to demonstrate the offeror’s MOSA approach will meet or exceed the RFP requirements..

This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor is met when the offeror has provided a proposal to offer the rights in technical data (TD), computer software (CS), computer software documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents to the Government to ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the CAT-F throughout its life cycle; to allow for open and competitive procurement of CAT-F enhancements; and to permit the transfer of the CAT-F non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms.

2. Technical Rating: The technical acceptable/unacceptable rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement for subfactor I. 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. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining acceptability or unacceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABEL/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The technical color/adjectival rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution to meet the

Governments requirements for subfactors II-IV. Each subfactor identified above will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below. The color/ adjectival ratings depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets each subfactors requirement. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/ adjectival rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Color/Adjectival Ratings:

TECHNICAL COLOR/ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength

PURPLE Good

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance, will be used for all subfactors. The evaluation shall address the

Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings: 

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Note: The Government shall utilize the definitions as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, section

5 for “strength”, “significant strength”, “weakness”, “significant weakness”, “uncertainty”, and “deficiency”.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on the applicability of these terms to their proposal.

D. Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided;

and,

iii) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total acquisition value is provided.

Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities.

Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY23 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2023 goals are as follows:

Business Size Sub

Small Business 30%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5%

Historically Underutilized Business

Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned

Small Business (SDVOSB)

3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

3%

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. 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 rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Note: Offerors are hereby notified that the Small Business Participation proposal will be formally incorporated into the contract.

E. Cost/Price Proposal Factor

Another DRAFT Section L&M will be released with cost/price language in the near future.

L-901. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – FINAL DOWNSELECT, CAT-F ENGINEERING AND

MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD), PRODUCTION

Final Downselect, CAT-F EMD, Production will be based on an evaluation of data presented at Design Review

(DR), plans, tradeoff studies, and other data delivered during System Design and the final report for the Critical

Technology Demonstration (CTD), as well as plans for CAT-F fielding, Technical Data plans, and product familiarization plans. In addition, updated pricing for the program will be allowed to be submitted, but only downward adjustments will be accepted. In this context, the only planned submittal is the updated pricing volume for the CLINs identified below. Exercise of Option 1: Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), Production will constitute the authority to proceed. An updated proposal or a letter stating there are no changes shall be submitted to the Government in the volume as set forth below:

PAGE NUMBER

VOLUME LIMITS OF COPIES* DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 Cost/Price

*Cost/Price and Schedule B proposal information shall be submitted in electronic form via email

In addition, proposals should comply with the following format:

(1) Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

(2) Each page should contain the following at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(3) Submit updated proposal or letter stating no changes to Cost/Price to the following:

oya.harrison.1@us.af.mil and alexis.davis.13@us.af.mil.

*Note: If email addresses change the offerors will be notified.

(4) Volume I is due 20 days after DR, 4:30 PM, Eastern Standard Time.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the PCO. 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 may be transmitted via direct mailing. If an offeror’s computer system cannot support encryption technology or if the offeror chooses not to utilize encrypted email, 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.

Factor I: Technical (No new data delivery)

The Technical Factor (which includes both the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating) is comprised of the following subfactors:

• Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity

• Subfactor II: I-Level Maturity

• Subfactor III: Sustainment Plan

• Subfactor IV: Fielding Plan

• Subfactor V: Product Familiarization Plan

• Subfactor VI: MOSA Utilization

• Subfactor VII: Data Rights

Data required to support the Final Downselect, CAT-F Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), Production will be generated by the contractor during the course of System Design of the basic contract effort. The

Government may utilize all Contract Data Requirements List(s) (CDRLs) delivered in System Design beginning with contract award through the presentation material provided at DR in conjunction with the Critical Technology

Demonstration (CTD) report generated by the Government following the CTD. This will comprise all data to be evaluated as described in M-901 Evaluation Basis for Award – Final Downselect, CAT-F Engineering and

Manufacturing Development (EMD), Production. To assist the offeror in understanding the Government’s approach, the following explanations are provided:

mailto:oya.harrison.1@us.af.mil mailto:alexis.davis.13@us.af.mil

Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity

• The presentation material delivered and approved at DR (CDRL A007). The Government will consider the

DR data a complete description of a viable CAT-F system architecture that meets all the requirements in the CDRL A001, System/Subsystem Specification (SSS) that the offeror has affirmed/proposed will be available and implemented into a production representative system by the start of Design Verification Test as described in SOW.

o This includes a working prototype that will be able to perform the following Test Program Sets during system design reviews:

▪ F-16 C/D

• MIL-STD-1760 Pylon Test

• LAU-129 full checkout (AIM-120/AIM-9X/AIM-9LM)

• Internal Gun

• BRU-57 Rack

▪ F-15 E

• F-15 pre-load O-level

• UAI Guided bomb System Checkout at Pylon

• UAI Guided bomb System Checkout at CFT

• AIM-9X Missile System Checkout at LAU-128

• Unknown Weapons System Checkout – CFT

• The Critical Technology Demonstration (CTD) Report generated by the Government

Subfactor II: I-Level Maturity

• The presentation material delivered and approved at DR (CDRL A007). The Government will consider the

DR data a complete description of a viable CAT-F system architecture that meets all the requirements in the CDRL A001, System/Subsystem Specification (SSS) that the offeror has affirmed/proposed will be available and implemented into a production representative system by the start of Design Verification Test as described in SOW.

• The Critical Technology Demonstration (CTD) Report generated by the Government

Subfactor III: Sustainment Plan

• The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-

900, and updated after contract award in accordance with CDRL XXXX

Subfactor IV: Fielding Plan

• The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-

900, and updated after contract award in accordance with CDRL XXXX

Subfactor V: Product Familiarization Plan

• The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-

900, and updated after contract award in accordance with CDRL XXXX

Subfactor VI: MOSA Utilization

• The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-

900, and updated after contract award in accordance with CDRL XXXX

Subfactor VII: Data Rights

• The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-

900, and updated after contract award in accordance with CDRL XXXX

Factor II: Cost/Price

The Government will release a request for updated pricing, due 20 days after DR. Specific instructions for this submittal will be provided at that time.

M-901 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD – FINAL DOWNSELECT, CAT-F ENGINEERING AND

MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD), PRODUCTION

1. Basis for Option Execution

This acquisition will utilize a Tradeoff Source Selection IAW FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source

Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.3 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to execute Option 1 for at least one

(1) contractor as a result of this evaluation. Tradeoffs will be made between Technical which includes the Technical

Rating and Technical Risk Rating, and Cost/Price as described in paragraph 2 and 3 below. Technical is considered significantly more important than cost/price. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to exercise

Option 1 for the offeror/contractor who demonstrates that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision.