Attachment_17,_Section_L_&_M.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ATTACHMENT 17

SECTION L PROVISION (SEPTEMBER 2017)

L-900. Instructions to Offerors

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (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 (1) proposal for the Noise Suppressor (NS) Acquisition as the Government will review only one (1) proposal per offeror. No additional proposals (i.e., one (1) offeror submitting two (2) proposals based on differing approaches) shall be submitted. Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/WNKAC, Attn: Kevin Beck, 235 Byron St, Ste 19A, Robins AFB, GA 31098- 1813 no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Exchanges of source selection information AFTER submission of the initial proposal packages between the 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 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/guide.aspx. 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 Contract Specialist or PCO indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to your 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). 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 Kevin.Beck.8@us.af.mil and/or Travis.Simmons.3@us.af.mil. Please clearly identify the email as a “test email for Noise Suppressor Acquisition RFP FA8534-17-R- 0007.”

(2) The PCO will open the test e-mail and add (or update) the sender’s e-mail address (and corresponding encryption certificate) to his 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).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(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.

NOTE: If an offeror’s computer system cannot support encryption technology, the offeror shall send the PCO correspondence at the time that it submits its proposal stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail if it chooses to utilize unencrypted email as a channel of communication.

II. Volume Organization

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

VOLUME PAGE

LIMITS

NUMBER OF COPIES DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 paper/1 electronic Completed RFP (excluding Section B of the Schedule) (Including RFP Attachment 2, RFP Checklist, RFP Attachment 1, Pricing Exhibits, RFP Attachment 8, Cross Reference Matrix, and copy of Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable)

II 150 2 paper/2 electronic Written Technical Proposal (page count excludes Acceptance Test Plan (ATP), Performance Work Statement (PWS), and Bills of Materials (BOMs))

III N/A 2 paper/2 electronic Past Performance (submitted through Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool)

IV N/A 1 paper/1 electronic Small Business Concern Utilization Proposal V N/A 2 paper/2 electronic Cost/Price Proposal (RFP Attachment 4, Cost

Model)

Electronic copies shall be submitted in accordance with RFP Attachment 5, Electronic Format for All Proposal Volumes. Proposals shall be submitted in written form and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government. Electronic media shall be accessible by a computer running Microsoft Windows 10 and above and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) documents must be fully searchable in Adobe. Additionally, file suppression utilities, to include, but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted. For each electronic media copy, indicate the volume number and title. Each volume must be stored on a separate CD-R or DVD-R.

Offerors shall use the instructions set forth in the RFP Attachment 6, Past Performance Information for Offerors, to electronically submit the PPI into the PPI Tool. The link to the PPI Tool is attached, as a link, to the solicitation posting. The offeror is also required to submit a hardcopy Past Performance Volume III that includes an RFP Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment.

Cost/Price Proposal information (completed RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model) shall be submitted in written form (two (2) copies) and CDR-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (2 copies). Completed RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model, shall be submitted in CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (2 copies).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The information submitted via CD-R or DVD-R shall be in .xlsx file format; other file formats will not be accepted.

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

(1) The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number, the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e., I, II, III, IV, or V. 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. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Double-sided printing shall count as two (2) pages. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets may be on fold-out pages, but most fold within the page size specified and will count as one (1) page. Each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume (written and electronic) shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings, and 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 one hundred and fifty (150) pages (not including the ATPs referenced in Section L, paragraphs C.2.a and C.2.b, PWS, and BOMs). 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). A “page” is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two (2) pages. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or sent back to the offeror.

(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) In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

(6) Each page containing proprietary information shall be so marked and each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(7) Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered. Offerors are cautioned that Warner Robins – Air Logistics Complex (WR-ALC) has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. Some delay should be anticipated when hand-delivering proposal packages. Offerors should allow for sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the specified office PRIOR to the time specified for receipt of proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP with clauses to include RFP Attachment 2, RFP Checklist, RFP Attachment 8, Cross Reference Matrix, and Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP (excluding Section B of the Schedule), to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model, which can be found in Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix at RFP Attachment 8, Cross Reference Matrix, 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 PWS, Sample Tasks 1 and 2 as defined in Section L, paragraphs C.2.a and C.2.b, the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M (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, to the extent the matrix discloses details as to the manner by which the Government intends to evaluate the offeror’s proposals for award, Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with Section M of the solicitation.

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 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.

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. See RFP Attachment 9, Statement of Objectives for Sample Task 1, and RFP Attachment 10, Statement of Objectives for Sample Task 2.

Based on RFP Attachment 11, PWS for the Noise Suppressor Sustainment Strategy dated 8 Aug 17 (and any revisions), the offeror shall provide a technical approach with supporting rationale and assumptions to meet the requirements of the sample tasks (RFP Attachments 9 and 10). Excluding those assumptions already identified in the sample tasks, the offeror shall identify their assumptions including any perceived omitted, conflicting, and/or incomplete information. The offeror shall not assume Government services or equipment are available unless otherwise stated in the sample task. It is understood that the offeror’s proposal is based on the offeror’s assumptions. The proposed technical approach to the sample task shall also address the following Subfactors. For each Subfactor, the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the proposed approach to the sample task and actions to be taken to mitigate that risk. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Evaluation of Sample Task 1 – Relocation Capability: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a detailed narrative with supporting documentation, including but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, that demonstrates a technical approach that will meet the Sample Task 1 requirements to relocate a T-10 NS as follows:

Assumptions:The following assumptions shall be made relative to Sample Task 1:

(1) Delaminating corrosion is present in the lower intake and exhaust baffle sections (contained within 2 feet of the floor) requiring repair/replacement of affected components.

(2) The T-10 is already equipped with a current configuration (Gold Plate Programmable Logic

Controller (PLC)) Facility Control System.

(3) The following Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) will need to be implemented: 166, 167, 168, and 172.

(4) The T-10 is equipped with a Halon-based Fire Suppression System (FSS); removal of the FSS and disposal of Halon shall be included as part of this Sample Task, but relocation and installation of the FSS shall not be included.

Repair Approach: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a technical approach to disassemble, package, transport to another base, reassemble, repair, and test a T-10 NS in a systematic, constructive, and safe method in terms of form, fit, function, performance, workmanship, quality, and condition. The offeror shall include a list of all applicable drawings and specifications.

PWS: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a PWS in accordance with CDRL A004 and Sample Task 1 that addresses all requirements of Sample Task 1 and identifies all parts to be repaired, replaced, and/or refurbished as detailed in drawings, ECPs, and Technical Orders (TOs) 33D4- 6-645-1 and 33D4-6-645-4 by national stock number (NSN) and/or part number (P/N).

ATP: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an ATP in accordance with CDRL A005 and Sample Task 1 that describes the procedures necessary to conduct a full functional/operational test of the T-10 upon completion of relocation and repairs of Sample Task 1. The offeror shall include a concise description of the extent of repair, replacement, and/or refurbishment actions required to bring the T-10 NS to proper operation; this description shall include all alignments or adjustments made. The offeror shall include quantitative details that describe all electrical and physical test requirements and parameters that the T-10 NS must meet upon completion of repairs. The offeror shall provide a detailed description of the electrical (voltage, amperage, etc.) and mechanical (thermal, alignment, etc.) tests to be conducted in order to ensure and demonstrate that all NS components, systems, and sub-systems consistently operate correctly.

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an IMS in accordance with CDRL A015 and Sample Task 1. The IMS shall communicate how the offeror will meet all aspects of Sample Task 1 within 10 months after award. The offeror shall identify the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones.

Operational, Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E) Approach: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an approach for Systems Engineering OSS&E. The offeror shall include all processes, procedures, and quality controls for creating, maintaining, and updating engineering drawings and other Technical Data Package (TDP) contents, including obsolete data, to maintain conformance to the existing hardware/software configuration and technical data during all phases of Sample Task 1.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Subfactor 2: Technical Evaluation of Sample Task 2 – Novec FSS Conversion Capability: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall include a detailed narrative with supporting documentation, including but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, that demonstrates a technical approach that will meet the Sample Task 2 requirements to convert the FSS in a T-10 NS from Halon to Novec as follows:

Assumptions: The following assumptions shall be made relative to Sample Task 2:

(1) Rooms 5 and 6 are already in the -30 configuration (i.e., tool rooms are present).Existing Halon

FSS is pneumatically-actuated and interfaces with the current-configuration Gold Plate PLC Facility Control System to control doors, sirens, and Fire Department notifications.

Repair Approach: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a technical approach to remove a Halon FSS from a T-10 NS and install in its place a Novec FSS that meets all requirements listed in RFP Attachment 11, PWS for the Noise Suppressor Sustainment Strategy dated 8 Aug 17, and is functionally equivalent to the Novec FSSs currently installed in USAF T-10s. The offeror shall describe all packaging requirements and return of Halon to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The offeror shall include a list of all applicable drawings and specifications.

PWS: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a PWS in accordance with CDRL A004 and Sample Task 2. The offeror shall address all requirements of Sample Task 2 and identify all parts to be repaired, replaced, and/or refurbished as detailed in drawings, ECPs, and TOs 33D4-6-645-1 and 33D4-6-645-4 by NSN or P/N.

ATP: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an ATP in accordance with CDRL A005 and Sample Task 2. The offeror shall describe the procedures necessary to conduct a full functional/operational test of the FSS upon completion of the installation in Sample Task 2. The offeror shall include quantitative details that describe all the electrical and physical test requirements and parameters that the T-10 FSS must meet upon completion of installation.

IMS: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an IMS in accordance with CDRL A015 and Sample Task 2. The IMS shall communicate how the offeror will meet all aspects of Sample Task 2 within 2 months after award. The offeror shall identify the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones.

OSS&E Approach: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an approach for Systems Engineering OSS&E. The offeror shall include all processes, procedures, and quality controls for creating, maintaining, and updating engineering drawings and other Technical Data Package (TDP) contents, including obsolete data, to maintain conformance to the existing hardware/software configuration and technical data during all phases of Sample Task 2.

b. Subfactor 3: Resource Planning and Program Management Capability: The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide an approach for Resource Planning and Program Management capabilities. The offeror shall include all processes, procedures, and controls necessary to obtain and maintain a qualified workforce, parts, and materials. The offeror shall also include plans to meet surge requirements and unforeseen personnel shortages in support of eight (8) total concurrent task orders at USAF locations (six (6) in CONUS and two (2) in OCONUS). The offeror shall include adequate procedures for internal communications, monitoring of subcontracted activities, and methodology to ensure employees are qualified to manage problem tracking and corrective action measures.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: The offeror shall utilize the PPI Tool in order to submit Volume III, Past Performance (See RFP Attachment 6, Past Performance Information for Offerors). The offeror shall submit PPI for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor. A joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two (2) or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period. The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor) other than the offeror itself that will perform 51% or more of the FSS as it is defined in the NS TOs, associated engineering drawings, and RFP Attachment 11, PWS for the Noise Suppresor Sustainment Strategy dated 8 Aug 17 (and any revisions).

In considering past performance, the Government will not consider “Key Personnel” of the offeror.

2. Past Performance Format: In addition to PPI Tool submission, PPI shall be provided in a separate, hard copy volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume III - Past Performance" that includes an RFP Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment. A summary, not to exceed five (5) pages, shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror, any joint venture member and critical subcontractor (nature of work, criticality of work, and percentage of overall work). The Summary information must clearly communicate that proposed critical subcontractor(s) meet the definition of a critical subcontractor established above. Efforts submitted for proposed critical subcontractors not meeting the established definition will not be evaluated. Each offeror/joint venture member shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for four (4) active or completed effort (with at least one (1) year of performance history) in the past five (5) years from the issuance date of the RFP, that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such efforts exceeds four (4), each offeror/joint venture member shall address its four

(4) most recent and relevant efforts. For each critical subcontractor included in the offeror's proposal, the offeror/joint venture member shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for four (4) of their most recent and relevant efforts shall also be included. The offeror's/joint venture member’s or critical subcontractor’s present and PPI may include data on efforts performed by other predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the instant proposed effort. The information completed in the PPI Tool shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed or is presently performing the contract. Efforts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission:

If the effort 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). When determining what order (or series of orders) to submit for evaluation, please reference Section M, paragraphs II.D.3.c, II.D.4, and II.D.5 for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. Recency is defined as active or

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M, paragraph II.D.3, 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 PPI be accurate, complete, and in the correct format. If the information is not submitted in the correct format, the Government will not be able to evaluate the effort for recency, relevancy, and quality. There are specific places for submission of this information in the PPI Tool.

Please ensure the information submitted, in the PPI Tool is for each order (or series of orders), in lieu of just the basic ordering effort itself. This includes but is not limited to information such as the dollar value, PoP, and quantity managed for each order or series of orders. See Section L, paragraph II.D.3.a for further information on how to submit series of orders.

a. Series of Orders: When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror should list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M, paragraph II.D.3. Per the Note in Section M, paragraph II.D.3, relevancy consists of not only technical complexities, but programmatic/logistical considerations. The programmatic/logistical considerations include dollar value, length of effort, and quantity produced/serviced/managed. 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), and the total quantity produced/serviced/managed on each order (in the series of orders) for each order (in the series of orders) shall be submitted. 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 total PoP of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total PoP to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort. The total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced/Serviced/Managed to be used in the evaluation for the submitted effort.

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 provided to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Key Personnel: The offerors may submit information on key personnel; however, key personnel will not be evaluated as part of the source selection.

5. Subcontractor/Teaming Member Consent Form: In addition to the information provided in the PPI Tool (see RFP Attachment 6, Past Performance Information for Offerors) for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) and/or critical subcontractors authorizing release of adverse PPI 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 12, Sample Subcontractor Teaming). 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 III.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the four (4) efforts submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the PPI Tool concerning the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s 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 effort. (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 efforts 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, veteran-owned small business concerns, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns, and Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, SDVOSB concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, SDB concerns, and WOSB concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

7. Relevancy: The offeror/joint venture member shall focus its information in the PPI Tool so that it clearly correlates past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The information shall clearly describe the relevancy of the effort to the work proposed. Provide the most current Points of Contact (POCs) for each submitted effort identified in the PPI Tool. At least two (2) of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs in the information provided in the PPI Tool:

(1) PCO/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(2) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(3) Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

(4) Other (as specified in the information submitted in the PPI Tool)

In addition to the information provided in the PPI Tool, each offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor shall complete a separate Relevancy Assessment (see RFP Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment) for each effort identified in the PPI Tool for evaluation.

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified efforts, provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the information provided in the PPI Tool a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the information provided 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.

8. Past Performance Questionnaire: The Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 13, Past Performance Questionnaire) will be one (1) means used by the Government to obtain PPI. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out – and track the completion of - the Past Performance Questionnaires to each of the offeror’s, joint venture member’s and/or critical subcontractors’ (i.e., each entity’s) POCs identified in the PPI Tool. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (see RFP Attachment 14, Transmittal Letter) shall be used by the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

offeror in sending out the Past Performance Questionnaires. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two (2) POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in Section L, paragraph I.B above, and email to Kevin.Beck.8@us.af.mil and/or Travis.Simmons.3@us.af.mil. If mailing, the POCs may return the completed questionnaires via mail directly to:

AFLCMC/WNKAC

ATTN: Kevin Beck or Travis Simmons 235 Byron Street, Suite 19A Robins AFB, GA 31098-1813 Reference: RFP: (FA8534-17-R-0007)

If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

POCs may send the completed questionnaires via email and/or AMRDEC SAFE site. Please have your POCs call Kevin Beck at (478)222-1921 or Travis Simmons at (478)222-1754 before emailing their response.

Once the Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

9. Client Authorization Letter: In the event that commercial efforts 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 Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 15, Client Authorization Letter). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial efforts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after the RFP due date.

10. Follow-up Discussions: The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume. The Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources, other than those listed within the information submitted in the PPI Tool (i.e., from successor personnel, such as a new Program Manager that took the program over, etc.)

11. RFP Attachment Legend: RFP Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment, and RFP Attachment 13, FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Past Performance Questionnaire, must include the following legend at the top and bottom of each page:

“SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY”

E. Volume IV, Small Business Concern Utilization

1. General: The Small Business Concern Utilization 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 shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business Utilization 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 Concern Utilization proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The offeror shall submit a Small Business Concern Utilization proposal for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled “Volume IV – Small Business Concern Utilization”. The Small Business Concern Utilization proposal shall address each of the following elements in the proposed performance of this resultant contract:

(1) The extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

(2) The description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform; and,

(3) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars. 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 Concern Utilization information.

F. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal

1. General Submission Instructions: These instructions are to assist offerors in submitting cost/price information that is required to evaluate Volume V - Cost/Price Factor. Offerors are cautioned that compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may cause their proposal to be determined non-compliant and ineligible for award. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted.

All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal. If pricing information is included elsewhere in the documentation, the proposal may be deemed non-compliant and ineligible for award. All prices shall be in “then-year” dollars, that is, not constant (base-year) dollars. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

NOTE: See the “Instructions” tab within RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model, for instructions on proposing within the RFP Attachment 4 spreadsheet.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Offerors shall insert unit prices/rates as part of Volume V of the proposal in the Noise Suppression Requirement Cost/Price Spreadsheet in accordance with the following instructions:

(1) Offerors shall propose a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in relation to the recurring tasks (CLINs X001 thru X017 and X019, see Exhibits in RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model). Prices shall be proposed within the corresponding tab titled “Exhibits” in RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model.

(a) Offerors shall propose FFP Labor Rates within the RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model, spreadsheet tabs titled “FFP Labor Rates”. All labor rates shall be fully burdened. All labor rates will be not-to-exceed rates.

(b) Offerors shall propose Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) Travel (CLIN within the RFP Attachment 4, Cost Model, Spreadsheet tabs titled “Travel”).

(c) Each offeror shall submit Volume V-Cost/Price Proposal in hard copy format and in electronic (Microsoft Excel) format. The Microsoft Excel worksheets provided shall contain mathematical formulas. Do not limit/protect the files to “read only” format. Scanned PDF or any other type of file is not acceptable. Electronic submittals shall comply with the following:

(a) They shall be submitted on a CD-R (Write once/read only. CR-R/W and DVD-R/W are not acceptable. All media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submittal.)

(b) Data files/CD-Rs should be accessible by a computer running Windows 10 or higher.

(c) Data files should be .xlsx file format (Microsoft Excel 2007 or later).

NOTE: MEDIA MUST BE VIRUS SCANNED BY THE OFFEROR PRIOR TO SUBMITTING

TO THE GOVERNMENT.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ATTACHMENT 17

SECTION M PROVISION (SEPTEMBER 2017)

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one (1) contract 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 Concern Utilization, tradeoffs may be made between technical risk, past performance and cost/price. Technically acceptable proposals with a High or Unacceptable technical risk rating will not be considered for award.

The Past Performance Factor is slightly more important than the Technical Factor (which includes the Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk). When combined, the Technical Factor and the Past Performance Factor are considered significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor. 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 (SST’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 (1) 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 Request for Proposal (RFP) and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, paragraph II below.

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. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluations, the “correction potential” of the proposal. The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government.

If one (1) or more aspects of an offeror’s proposal do not meet the Government’s requirements and the proposal is not considered to be correctable without substantial rewrite, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) 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 PCO, 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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Factors and Subfactors: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Factors and Subfactors:

Factor I: Technical (includes Technical Acceptability Rating and separate Technical Risk Rating:

o Subfactor 1) Relocation Capability o Subfactor 2) Novec Conversion Capability o Subfactor 3) Resource Planning and Program Management Capability

Factor II: Past Performance Factor III: Small Business Concern Utilization Factor IV: Cost/Price

a. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: Within Factor I, Technical, all three (3) Subfactors are of equal importance. Factor II, Past Performance, is slightly more important than Factor I, Technical (which includes the Technical Acceptability Rating and Technical Risk Rating). Factor I and Factor II, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor IV, Cost/Price. However, Factor IV, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision. Factor III, Small Business Concern Utilization, will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as discussed below and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Performance Work Statement (PWS)), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (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.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal will be evaluated based on the Subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement for Noise Suppressor Sustainment Strategy dated 8 Aug 17 (and any revisions) 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.

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Evaluation of Sample Task 1 – Relocation Capability: This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an acceptable detailed narrative with supporting documentation, including but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, that adequately demonstrates a realistic, achievable, and viable approach that will meet the Sample Task 1 requirements to…