Section_M_18MAR21.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

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 AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered approximately equal to cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; thereffore, 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. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Amendment to the solicitation/contract.

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 Source Selection Authority, 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.

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. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), vendors, or suppliers even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

d) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission:

In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, the offeror shall have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity produced for each order in the series.

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph II.C.4 Note below. As explained in Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph II.C.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Total Quantity Produced of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT: Present and/or past performance efforts involving essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must have included the design and production of a chassis mounted, aircraft deicing unit with at least 5 out of the 7 the following specifications:

• commercially available diesel and jet fuel compatible engine in accordance with

40 CFR 1068.225;

• air transportable on C-5 and C-17 aircraft;

• a maximum unloaded, overall weight of no more than 60,000 lb;

• extendable/retractable boom with a working height of not less than 75 ft;

• deicing and anti-icing combined fluid tank capacity of not less than 2,600 gal;

• non-continuous boom rotation of 360 degrees;

• a dual fluid spray nozzle capable of delivering deicing fluid at not less than 40 gallons per minute (GPM) with each nozzle capable of minimum 20 GPM;

RELEVANT: Present and/or past performance efforts involving much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included the design and production of a chassis mounted, aircraft deicing unit with at least 3 out of the 5 following specifications:

• commercially available diesel engine;

• extendable/retractable boom with a working height of not less than 30 ft;

• deicing and anti-icing combined fluid tank capacity of not less than 1,500 gal;

• non-continuous boom rotation of not less than 180 degrees;

• a spray nozzle capable of delivering deicing fluid at not less than 30 gallons per minute (GPM)

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present and/or past performance efforts involving some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat relevant efforts must have included the design and production of a special purpose vehicle with at least one of the following specifications:

• integrated spraying system;

• platform on extendable/retractable boom capable of transporting one or more personnel to positions located a minimum of not less than 15 ft above ground level

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Definitions Design: plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product or process.

Production: converting all types of input into finished products. Along with converting raw materials and partially finished products into finished products; the conversion of money, credit and labor into finished products may be accomplished.

Chassis Mounted Aircraft Deicing Unit: diesel powered, spraying units, which are capable of deicing, anti-icing, cleaning, and decontaminating the entire range of airframes in the U.S. Air Force’s inventory.

Special Purpose Vehicle: vehicle or equipment designed for a unique mission/purpose under the specified requirements set by the U.S. Air Force.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, and dollar values. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Aircraft Deicers. The Government understands that not all efforts submitted will be able to demonstrate essentially the same programmatic/logistical scope as the instant acquisition. As such, the Government will utilize professional and business judgement in the programmatic/logistical scope evaluation. They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Quantities: Class A BEQ: 34; Class B BEQ: 23

• Duration of Time: 6 Years

• Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable;

however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Please note that in order to be considered as a part of the confidence assessment, efforts must demonstrate recency, relevancy and quality (the Government must receive some form of verified quality of performance information from the customer). The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns when this clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three

(3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included this clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Cost/Price Proposal Factor

The offeror’s proposed prices, as submitted in the RFP and in accordance with the requirements of Commercial Item Description (CID) A-A-59145D, will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance, and a TEP will be calculated in accordance with paragraphs A, B, and C below. In order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced (NSP)”, No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items, where the quantity of one (1) is specified, the quantity of one

(1) should be used. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of Options shall not obligate the Government to exercise said options.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices, such as cost analysis.

B. Unbalance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items (Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or unit costs/prices between program years, (b) unit costs/prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost/price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, because acceptance of the proposal could result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Proposed unit costs/prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Schedule B of the RFP. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price/cost for the CLINs as outlined below in both the Basic and Option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINS below will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs.

DEICER CLIN STRUCTURE

CLIN

Description

CLIN

Type

0001 Preproduction Unit - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0002 Preproduction Unit - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0003 Production Unit - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0004 Production Unit - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0005 Tropical Rustproofing - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0006 Tropical Rustproofing - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0007 Finish Color - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0008 Finish Color - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0009 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0010 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0011 Single Operator Drive System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP

0012 Single Operator Drive System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0013 Variable Blending System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0014 Variable Blending System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0015 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0016 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0017 Product Familiarization Video - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0018 Product Familiarization Video - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0019 Export Packaging - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 0020 Export Packaging - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 0021 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone A FFP 0022 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone B FFP 0023 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone C FFP 0024 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone AA FFP 0025 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone BB FFP 0026 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone CC FFP 0027 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone DD FFP 0028 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone EE FFP 0029 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone FF FFP 0030 Contractor's Progress, Status, & Management Report: Monthly Status Report NSP 0031 Conference Agenda NSP 0032 Conference Minutes NSP 0033 System Safety Program Plan NSP 0034 System Safety Hazard Analysis Report NSP 0035 Test Procedure, First Article Test Procedure NSP 0036 Test/Inspection Report, First Article Test Report NSP 0037 Product Base Line Index, Configuration Management and Control NSP 0038 Engineering Change Proposal NSP 0039 Notice of Revision (NOR) NSP 0040 Request for Variance NSP 0041 Service Bulletins/Technical Review Data Package NSP 0042 Computer Software Product End Items NSP 0043 Computer Program Identification Number Catalog Information NSP 0044 Software Assurance Evaluation Report NSP 0045 Technical Manual Contract Requirements NSP 1001 Production Unit - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1002 Production Unit - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1003 Tropical Rustproofing - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1004 Tropical Rustproofing - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1005 Finish Color - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1006 Finish Color - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1007 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1008 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1009 Single Operator Drive System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1010 Single Operator Drive System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1011 Variable Blending System Class - A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP

1012 Variable Blending System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1013 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1014 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1015 Product Familiarization Video - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1016 Product Familiarization Video - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1017 Export Packaging - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 1018 Export Packaging - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 1019 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone A FFP 1020 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone B FFP 1021 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone C FFP 1022 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone AA FFP 1023 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone BB FFP 1024 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone CC FFP 1025 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone DD FFP 1026 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone EE FFP 1027 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone FF FFP 1028 Contractor's Progress, Status, & Management Report: Monthly Status Report NSP 1029 Product Base Line Index, Configuration Management and Control NSP 1030 Engineering Change Proposal NSP 1031 Notice of Revision NSP 1032 Request for Variance NSP 1033 Service Bulletins NSP 1034 Technical Manual Contract Requirements NSP 2001 Production Unit - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2002 Production Unit - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2003 Tropical Rustproofing - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2004 Tropical Rustproofing - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2005 Finish Color - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2006 Finish Color - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2007 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2008 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2009 Single Operator Drive System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2010 Single Operator Drive System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2011 Variable Blending System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2012 Variable Blending System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2013 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2014 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2015 Product Familiarization Video - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2016 Product Familiarization Video - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2017 Export Packaging - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 2018 Export Packaging - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 2019 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone A FFP 2020 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone B FFP 2021 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone C FFP 2022 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone AA FFP

2023 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone BB FFP 2024 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone CC FFP 2025 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone DD FFP 2026 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone EE FFP 2027 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone FF FFP 2028 Contractor's Progress, Status, & Management Report: Monthly Status Report NSP 2029 Product Base Line Index, Configuration Management and Control NSP 2030 Engineering Change Proposal NSP 2031 Notice of Revision NSP 2032 Request for Variance NSP 2033 Service Bulletins NSP 2034 Technical Manual Contract Requirements NSP 3001 Production Unit - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3002 Production Unit - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3003 Tropical Rustproofing - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3004 Tropical Rustproofing - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3005 Finish Color - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3006 Finish Color - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3007 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3008 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3009 Single Operator Drive System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3010 Single Operator Drive System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3011 Variable Blending System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3012 Variable Blending System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3013 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3014 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3015 Product Familiarization Video - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3016 Product Familiarization Video - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3017 Export Packaging - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 3018 Export Packaging - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 3019 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone A FFP 3020 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone B FFP 3021 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone C FFP 3022 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone AA FFP 3023 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone BB FFP 3024 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone CC FFP 3025 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone DD FFP 3026 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone EE FFP 3027 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone FF FFP 3028 Contractor's Progress, Status, & Management Report: Monthly Status Report NSP 3029 Product Base Line Index, Configuration Management and Control NSP 3030 Engineering Change Proposal NSP 3031 Notice of Revision NSP 3032 Request for Variance NSP 3033 Service Bulletins NSP

3034 Technical Manual Contract Requirements NSP 4001 Production Unit - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4002 Production Unit - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4003 Tropical Rustproofing - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4004 Tropical Rustproofing - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4005 Finish Color - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4006 Finish Color - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4007 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4008 Special Test Equipment and Software - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4009 Single Operator Drive System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4010 Single Operator Drive System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4011 Variable Blending System - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4012 Variable Blending System - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4013 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4014 Deicing Fluid Suction Fill - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4015 Product Familiarization Video - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4016 Product Familiarization Video - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4017 Export Packaging - Class A Truck Mounted Deicer Trucks FFP 4018 Export Packaging - Class B Extended Reach Deicer Trucks FFP 4019 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone A FFP 4020 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone B FFP 4021 Commissioning - CONUS, Zone C FFP 4022 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone AA FFP 4023 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone BB FFP 4024 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone CC FFP 4025 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone DD FFP 4026 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone EE FFP 4027 Commissioning - OCONUS, Zone FF FFP 4028 Contractor's Progress, Status, & Management Report: Monthly Status Report NSP 4029 Product Base Line Index, Configuration Management and Control NSP 4030 Engineering Change Proposal NSP 4031 Notice of Revision NSP 4032 Request for Variance NSP 4033 Service Bulletins NSP 4034 Technical Manual Contract Requirements NSP

a) First Article requirements will be waived for any Offerors currently in production of the same or similar item for an AF Contract, and who have received approval under the existing contract.

Offerors who believe they are exempt from completing FAT shall submit the contract number they are currently approved under. Offerors that meet the requirements to exempt FAT are permitted to not submit pricing for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0033, 0034, 0035, 0036 and 0037.

b) The sum of all CLIN’s evaluated prices (Basic Year and all Options) will represent the total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

c) Offerors are required to price all CLINS, unless designated Not Separately Priced (NSP). All unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award