ATTACH09_SectionLM_11182022_Rev02.pdf

L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. 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 RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors/Joint Ventures shall submit only one (1) proposal for the proposed effort. 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. No additional proposals (i.e., one offeror submitting two proposals based on differing approaches) shall be submitted. The Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes as set forth below:

VOLUME PAGE

LIMITS

NUMBER OF

COPIES

DESCRIPTION Format

I N/A 1 electronic* Completed RFP (excluding Section B of the Schedule) (Including RFP Attachment 1, Cross Reference Matrix

(CRM))

Microsoft Word

II 30 1 electronic* Written Technical Proposal

Microsoft Word

III Use attached template

1 electronic* Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet -

Section J, Attachment 3, Cost Price Proposal

Microsoft Excel

IV N/A 1 electronic* Past Performance Microsoft Word

*All proposal information shall be submitted in electronic form (1 copy) via PIEE (Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment) at https://piee.eb.mil/. Offerors will need to follow the instructions in RFP Attachment 4 – Instructions to register a PIEE account. Once the offeror has a registered PIEE account, please follow the instructions in RFP Attachment 5 – How to Post Offer on PIEE, to submit their proposal information. A video demonstration is also available to show offerors how to submit a proposal through PIEE at https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/Posting_Offer.html. CD-R, DVD-R, 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. PK will notify the offeror once the submission is received. The documents will be stored in a secure location to prevent exposure of proprietary information per FAR 2.101 and 3.104 and subsequent Supplements.

In addition to the page limitations set forth, proposals should comply with the following format:

(1) Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, 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 and should be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater 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, bindings, or color presentations are not desired or required.

(3) The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, is 30 pages. The page limitation includes any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover page, table of contents or list of acronyms (if utilized). 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 Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified limits for

EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the 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 (Controlled Unclassified Information)

Communications:

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist. Email may be used to transmit such information, only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If offerors 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). When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted. If an offeror’s computer system cannot support encryption technology, the offeror shall send the Contracting Officer correspondence at the time that they submit their proposal stating they accept the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail if they choose to utilize unencrypted e-mail as a channel of communication.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP and Clauses (Including all applicable RFP Attachments) Volume 1 will consist of the completed and signed RFP 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 unacceptable and therefore not considered 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. Proposed prices will be filled in at the RFP Attachment 3, Proposal Price Spreadsheet.

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. Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in FAR 52.215-1, unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation. Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/WNKF, Attention: Jacqueline Threat-Williams, via PIEE by the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP.

The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting office will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

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 [Performance Work Statement, 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. 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.

Use of Non-Government Advisors: Non-government advisors serving under the Engineering, Professional, and Administrative Support Services (EPASS) for Advisory & Assistance Services (A&AS) will be used. The release of proposal information to nongovernment advisors will be subject to the controls outlined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 1.4.6.2. Nongovernment advisors are not permitted access to offeror’s past performance information (FAR 42.1503(d)); however, in order to make technical judgments, they are permitted access to portions of an offerors proposal for which the advisor’s expertise is required in the evaluation.

The non-government advisors' expertise is required to support evaluation of technical requirements pertaining to Pocket J concepts relative to the acquisition. Individual and company names and company addresses of Non-government Advisors are identified at Attachment 15 of the Solicitation. Offerors shall review, fill out, and sign Attachment 15, providing a copy with their proposal.

C. Volume II – WRITTEN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than 30 pages. Submit original electronic copy.

1. 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. The following information shall be provided in the technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor One: Technical Requirements 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 Performance Work Statement paragraph requirements as follows:

i. How will you meet the technical requirements as defined in the following PWS paragraphs?

a) 4.3.5 Configuration Management (CM) –How will you implement Pocket-J CM?

Detail current internal processes for CM.

b) 4.5.1 Help Desk – Provide experience level of expected individual(s) on similar systems that will be performing the help desk function; also, state your plan for providing help desk services.

c) 4.5.2 Scheduled Maintenance - Detail how you plan to accomplish scheduled maintenance.

d) 4.5.3 Unscheduled Maintenance - Describe how you are going to meet the requirements of unscheduled maintenance for all Pocket J sites.

e) 4.7 Hardware, Inspection, Repair - What steps will you take to repair and what oversight mechanism will be used for subcontractors performing repairs on LRUs?

f) 4.10 Technical Data - How are you postured and experienced to write, develop, update, and/or complete Technical Orders and Engineering Drawings?

Subfactor Two: Cybersecurity Requirements documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting

i. How will you manage Cybersecurity requirements in the following PWS paragraphs?

a) 6.1 Contractor Documentation Support Responsibilities – How do you plan to provide input and updates to the System Security Plan (SSP), obtain and maintain system ATO or ATC with Risk Management Framework (RMF)?

b) 6.7 Out-of-Cycle Security Patching / Mitigation - Detail your plan to evaluate Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert (IAVAs).

c) 6.13 Continuous Monitoring - How are you postured to implement continuous monitoring processes? Detail your plan for accomplishing those activities.

d) 6.13.2 Vulnerability and Compliance Scans – How do you plan to assist the ISSM with Security Content Automation Protocol Compliance Checker (SCC) scans?

e) 6.14 Program Protection – How are you postured to implement program protection processes? Detail your plan for accomplishing those activities.

Subfactor Three: Block Cycle Upgrade Requirements documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting

i. How will you meet the block cycle upgrade (BCU) requirement as defined in the following PWS paragraphs?

a) 8.1 BCU/Tech Refresh/Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) Requirements -

Describe your plan to comply with all the requirements for modifications.

b) 8.1.3 Acceptance Criteria – How will you support AF testing?

c) 8.1.6 Test Environment Support - How are you postured to set up a test bed?

d) 8.1.8 Software Maintenance and Updates – Provide a detailed plan for how corrective software changes and updates will be implemented to ensure current capabilities will be met.

D. Volume III – COST PRICE PROPOSAL

1. Cost/Price Data

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed prices/rates, 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.

2. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

3. Rounding All dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest 2-decimal accounting format to prevent total price discrepancies due to rounding. Offerors shall check each cell to ensure that values entered contain two decimal places. If any dollar amounts do not meet the required rounding, the Government will round that dollar amount to the 2-decimal accounting format. The Government’s adjusted dollar amount will become the Offeror’s proposed dollar amount.

4. Cost/Price Proposal Spreadsheet Instructions:

The Cost Price Proposal will consist of the completed Section J, Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet, Attachment 3. Only “Yellow Highlighted” cells shall be filled out on the Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet. The “Yellow Highlighted” cells of the spreadsheet shall be filled out in their entirety with no changes to the already provided formulas. Any attempt to reformat or remove cells is unauthorized and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. The offeror’s information shall be complete and accurate. Incomplete pricing may result in an offeror’s proposal being deemed unsuitable for award. Offerors shall follow instructions in this section and notes in the Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet for the Basic and all Ordering Periods as follows:

a. FFP CLINs X001- CLINs X006, and CLINs X009: Offerors shall propose a firm-fixed unit price for all CLINs.

b. CPFF CLINs X007, X008 and X010: Offerors shall propose fully burdened composite labor rates (excluding fee) for all labor categories. Definitions of the labor categories are included on tab "Labor Category & Rate Descriptions" of the Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet, Attachment

3. For each labor category, an elemental cost breakout shall be provided within the worksheet to identify all elements utilized to develop the fully burdened rates. Elemental cost loadings such as indirect rates (Fringe, Overhead, G&A and Cost of Money) and escalation shall be identified separately. Formulas shall also be input to apply the indirect rates and escalation rates to the appropriate underlying base cost element(s) to generate the indirect/escalated cost. Prime Offerors shall also fill in the “Prime CLIN X007, X008 and CLIN X010 CPFF Rates” worksheet with its own rates, as well as a separate “Major Sub CLIN X007, X008 and CLIN X010 CPFF Rates” worksheet for each major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is one that will perform 25% or more of the contract scope based on the anticipated total cost of the Indefinite Delivery Requirements Contract. The worksheet may be duplicated and renamed as many times as needed to produce a submission for each major subcontractor. All major subcontractor worksheet(s) shall be renamed to identify the specific major subcontractor associated with each respective worksheet. All labor rates proposed will be Not to Exceed (NTE) rates. The Prime contractor is responsible for submission of fully burdened/loaded composite rates for all the members of the joint venture. Major Subcontractors must also submit fully burdened/loaded composite rates to the Prime for the purpose of the Prime's computation of composite rates. Major Subcontractors must identify their joint venture affiliation with the Prime and may submit Attachment 3, "Major SubK Burdened Rates" spreadsheet to the Prime or in separate correspondence to the Government in accordance with the RFP Section L instructions, but the Prime is ultimately responsible for ensuring timely submission by all members of a joint venture.

c. CPFF CLIN X007 and X010: Offerors shall propose a material add-on factor, incorporating material handling, G&A, and/or any other associated cost deemed allowable by the offeror's disclosure statement. An elemental cost breakout shall be provided to identify all elements utilized to develop the material add on factors for CLINs X007 and X010. Elemental cost loadings such as Fringe, Overhead, G&A and Cost of Money shall be separately identified. The elemental cost breakout shall be in .xls file format with live working formulas.

d. CRNF CLINs X011 – CLINs X012: Offerors shall NOT propose pricing for Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs X011 (Travel) and CLINs X012 (Contractor Furnished Material), as the Government will provide Government Estimates.

e. NSP CLINs X013: Offerors shall NOT propose pricing for CLINs X013, Data, as these CLINs are

Not Separately Priced (NSP).

5. FPRR/FPRA

Offerors shall submit current FPRA/FPRR for Prime, and all major subcontractors for CLIN(s) X007, X008 and X010. In support of the elemental cost breakouts, all offerors (Prime and major subcontractors) who have neither a FPRA nor a FPRR shall submit the following items/information as part of their proposal. If any of the items/information is not available for a particular offeror, it shall be noted in the offeror’s response to the RFP.

a. Previous three years’ actual historical rates for each individual cost element used in developing the proposed fully-burdened rates.

b. Breakout of actual expenses included in the indirect cost pools and respective bases, from the previous three years.

c. Breakout of the budgeted forecasts for the indirect pools and bases used in developing the proposed unit costs, covering the entire contract period (Basic and all Ordering Periods).

d. Certified payroll verification with current labor rates, cross-referenced to the respective proposed labor categories shall be provided in support of the proposed direct labor rates for year one. If year one proposed rates are not supported by current labor, offeror shall provide assumptions for hiring individuals, and labor rates that will be offered.

e. All information submitted in support of items a. – c. above shall be in .xls file format with live working formulas. Any other type of file format will not be accepted for items a.- c., but is acceptable for item d. It is the offeror’s/joint venture member’s responsibility to review all proposals submitted by any major subcontractor for accuracy and format. It is also the offeror’s/joint venture member’s responsibility to submit all major subcontractor proposed rates, major subcontractor elemental cost breakouts, and major subcontractor documentation in support of the elemental cost breakouts, as part of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s proposal. For any of the above referenced information that a major subcontractor may not be willing to provide directly to the offeror/joint venture member, the offeror/joint venture member shall instruct the major subcontractor to provide that information directly to the Government in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

All offerors and major subcontractors shall provide other than certified cost and pricing data with accompanying narratives to support the proposed rates and substantiate the cost realism for CLIN(s) X007, X008 and X010. The information should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the realism of the proposed rates.

6. DCMA/DCAA Contacts: Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of the Offeror’s

(and the Offeror’s subcontractors and teaming partners) cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administrative contracting officers (ACO) and cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) offices.

7. Synopsis of Current Estimating, Purchasing, Accounting Systems, and Adequacy Determination for the Prime Contractor: The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s standard estimating system or methods, current policies, and/or new policies. The Offeror shall state whether the estimating system and new policies have been reviewed by the Government and shall provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited estimating system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard estimating procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited estimating system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s purchasing system or methods. The Offeror shall state whether the purchasing system has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited purchasing system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard purchasing procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited purchasing system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a) (3) and 9.104-1(e), the Offeror shall utilize an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s accounting system and state whether it is compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Offeror shall also state whether the accounting system has been reviewed and approved by the Government and provide evidence of the review and approval by DCAA / DCMA. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited accounting system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal. For known/cited accounting system or methods non- compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

E. Volume IV– PAST PERFORMANCE

a. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, and evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table C-2.

Past performance should be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of proposals in the current procurement.

b. The past performance evaluation should determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

c. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member in accordance with the following paragraphs. While the evaluation of an offeror’s past performance will consider performance managed by the offeror but performed by another team member on that effort, the evaluation of present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), vendor(s), or/supplier(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. In considering past performance, the Government WILL NOT consider “Key Personnel” of the offeror.

d. The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate volume labeled "Volume IV - Past Performance". A summary page shall be provided for this acquisition, describing the proposed role of the offeror and any joint venture member (nature of work and percentage of overall work). Each offeror/joint venture member shall submit no more than three (3) active or completed contracts (with preferably at least one 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.

The offeror’s/joint venture member’s present and past performance information 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. Volume IV shall clearly indicate the division or corporate organization that performed the work or is presently performing the contract. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers.

e. If the contract offeror is 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, for details on how the Government will evaluate each submitted effort for recency and relevancy. In order to achieve optimal programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M-900, 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 these criteria. In this instance, only the single order demonstrating relevant technical scope should be submitted for evaluation.

When submitting an individual order (or series of orders) under an ordering type contractual vehicle, it is important that the offeror’s past performance information be accurate and complete.

See paragraph 5.1 for further information on how to submit series of orders.

(5.1) When submitting a series of orders for evaluation, the offeror shall list the orders under the basic ordering type contractual vehicle that demonstrate relevancy, as defined in the Relevancy Definitions in Section M-900.

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.

f. In addition to the information provided in Volume IV for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed teaming member(s) authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Joint Venture / Team Member Consent form is attached to this RFP (see RFP ATTACH02 Joint Venture Team Member Consent). The consent form shall be completed by the team member(s) identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume IV.

g. The offeror/joint venture member, if applicable, shall focus its Volume IV responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The Volume IV responses must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. (See Section M-900. Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on Volume IV. At least two of the following (in descending order of availability) should be identified as current POCs on the Volume IV response:

i. Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

ii. Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

iii. Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

iv. Other

If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, the offeror shall provide evidence of the ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the Volume IV response a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed in the Volume IV response, 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.

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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C.3 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

Sources are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

• Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award A. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 26 July 2021 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 26 Jul 21. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and has acceptable past performance then the award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

B. 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.

2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Each offeror’s written proposal shall be evaluated, based on the factors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, 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.

Factor 1: Technical (a)

Subfactor Two: Cybersecurity Requirements Subfactor Three: Block Cycle Upgrade Requirements

Factor 2: Cost/Price (b)

Factor 3: Past Performance (c)

a. Technical Factor

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Description: This factor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal adequately demonstrates that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Performance Specification and Performance Work Statement paragraph requirements as follows.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal specifies means/ methods to meet work requirements set forth in PWS.

a) 4.3.5 Configuration Management (CM) – The offeror's proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror's approach to successfully implement Pocket J CM. The approach adequately details current internal processes for effective CM.

b) 4.5.1 Help Desk – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the experience level of expected individual(s) on similar systems that will be performing the help desk function. The approach also adequately details processes for providing help desk services.

c) 4.5.2 Scheduled Maintenance – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to accomplish scheduled maintenance.

d) 4.5.3 Unscheduled Maintenance – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to meet the requirements of unscheduled maintenance for all Pocket J sites.

e) 4.7 Hardware, Inspection, Repair – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to repair on LRUs. The approach also adequately demonstrates the oversight mechanism the contractor will use for subcontractors performing repairs on LRUs.

f) 4.10 Technical Data – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to successfully write, develop, update, and/or complete Technical Orders and Engineering Drawings.

Subfactor Two: Cybersecurity Requirements

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s ability to manage Cybersecurity (formerly known as Information Assurance (IA) requirements for Pocket J.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal specifies means/ methods to meet

a) 6.1 Contractor Documentation Support Responsibilities – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to plan and provide input and updates to the System Security Plan (SSP) and obtain and maintain system ATO or ATC with Risk Management Framework (RMF).

b) 6.7 Out-of-Cycle Security Patching / Mitigation - The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to evaluate IAVAs.

c) 6.13 Continuous Monitoring – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to implement continuous monitoring processes. The approach adequately details current plans for accomplishing those activities.

d) 6.13.2 Vulnerability and Compliance Scans – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to assist the ISSM with Security Content Automation Protocol Compliance Checker (SCC) scans.

e) 6.14 Program Protection – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to implement program protection processes. The approach adequately details current plans for accomplishing those activities.

Subfactor Three: Block Cycle Upgrade Requirements Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s ability to meet block cycle upgrade requirements to sustain Pocket J.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal specifies means/ methods to meet

a) 8.1 BCU/Tech Refresh/Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) Requirements - The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to comply with all the requirements for modifications.

b) 8.1.3 Acceptance Criteria – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to support AF testing.

c) 8.1.6 Test Environment Support – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to set up a test bed.

d) 8.1.8 Software Maintenance and Updates – The offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach regarding corrective software changes and updates that will be implemented to ensure current capabilities will be met.

b. Cost/Price Factor Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate each offeror's proposed prices/rates submitted in Volume III, Section J, Attachment 3, Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism. The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposed prices/rates in accordance with paragraph (iv) below.

A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN), Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost Reimbursement Fixed Fee CLINs, and the aggregate total of Government supplied estimates for the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

The Offeror’s proposed FFP (CLINs X001-X006, and X009) and CPFF (CLINs X007, X008 & X010) amounts will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs i and ii below.

The Offeror’s (Prime and major subcontractor(s)) proposed CPFF rates for CLINs X007, X008 & X010 will also be evaluated for cost realism in accordance with paragraph iii below and the Most Probable Cost determined. The Offeror’s TEP will then be calculated IAW paragraph iv below and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

(i) Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained and/or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information on determining reasonableness see FAR 31.201-3. IAW FAR 15.4031(b), the Government may require submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support determination of a fair and reasonable price.

(ii) Balanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items including the Basic and Ordering Periods, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet, Section J, Attachment 3. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii) Realism: The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on CPFF CLINS X007, X008 and X010 (Prime and major subcontractor(s)) to determine a realistic cost for the proposed effort IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s Technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the Offeror. The results of the cost realism analysis will determine the Most Probable Cost (MPC) for the CPFF CLINs identified above. The MPC is based upon analysis of each Offeror’s unique proposal IAW FAR 15.404. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal.

(iv) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will utilize Section J, Attachment 3 Cost Price Proposal Spreadsheet to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes. Offerors are reminded that the evaluation of ordering periods shall not obligate the Government to execute orders during an ordering period. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

a. FFP CLINS X001-X006 and X009: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the Best Estimated

Quantity (BEQ) to derive the evaluated price for each respective CLIN.

b. CPFF CLINS X008: Offerors CPFF Rates will be evaluated for cost realism and adjustments may be made. Each Prime Offeror’s fully-burdened composite (including all subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners) labor rates (excluding fee) for all years will be evaluated. Fee will be evaluated at the Task Order (TO) level. The evaluated labor cost for each labor category will be derived by multiplying the evaluated Labor Category Rate by the Government Estimated Hours.

The evaluated CLIN price will be the summation of evaluated labor costs for all labor categories for the Basic and all Ordering Periods.

The Government provided total annual labor hours are for budgetary and estimating purposes; these hours are not guaranteed. The Government will assign hours to each applicable labor category based on the expected usage, to calculate the total price for CLINs X008. The Government’s allocation of hours will not be disclosed to the offeror.

CPFF CLINS X007 and X010: Offerors CPFF rates and material add on factors will be evaluated for cost realism and adjustments may be made. Each Prime Offeror’s fully-burdened composite (including all subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners) labor rates (excluding fee) for all years will be evaluated. Fee will be evaluated at the Task Order (TO) level. The evaluated labor cost for each labor category will be derived by multiplying the evaluated Labor Category Rate by the Government Estimated Hours. The Government provided total annual labor hours are for budgetary and estimating purposes; these hours are not guaranteed. The Government will assign hours to each applicable labor category based on the expected usage, to calculate the labor cost for CLINs X007 and X010. The evaluated material add on factors will also be applied to a Government-estimated value for direct material cost to derive an evaluated material cost. The evaluated CLIN price will be the summation of evaluated labor costs for all labor categories and evaluated material costs for the Basic and all Ordering Periods.

c. The government will multiply the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an extended price for each CLIN. The sum of all CLINs except for CLIN X013 (DATA NSP) will represent the total evaluated price for that contract period. The TEP will be determined by adding the price of the Basic Ordering Period to the price of each Ordering Period.

d. CRNF CLINS X011 and X012: The Government will provide estimated values for these CLINs.

Offerors shall not propose these CLINs.

e. NSP CLINS X013: Data CLINs are not separately priced. Offerors shall not propose these CLINs.

TABLE 2 – Indefinite Delivery Requirements Contract Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

CLIN

(A)

Title (B)

Price/Cost (C)

Best Estimated Quantity

(D) Total Price

X001- X006;

X009

FFP Offerors Proposed Price Quantity

Sum of Products of

(C) x (D) for all CLINs X007, X008 & X010

CPFF Government MPC Quantity Sum of

Products of

(C) x (D) for all CLINs

X011- X012

CRNF Gov Estimated Cost Quantity Sum of

Products of

(C) x (D) for all CLINs

c. Past Performance:

Evaluation Process: Based on the offeror’s/joint venture members performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror/joint venture will successfully perform the required effort. The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s/joint venture member’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including costs and schedule.