Atch_13_Section_M.pdf

FA8621-15-R-6338

Attachment 13 - Section M 27 May 2015

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

B-52 TRAINING SYSTEMS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL

1.1 This is a competitive best value tradeoff source selection set-aside for small business conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, to include DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 4 Mar 2011; AFFARS 5315.3, and Air Force Source Selection Procedures, dated 8 May 2011.

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best value offer based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price factors.

1.2 Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, and whose proposal substantially conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluated factors or subfactors, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on this solicitation, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.3 The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements of this solicitation. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offer, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the Technical and Past Performance assessments of the higher priced offer outweigh the price difference.

1.4 By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

1.5 It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Throughout the evaluation period, the Government will consider the "potential for correction" of any proposal. The judgment of such "potential for correction" is within the sole discretion of the Government Contracting Officer (CO). If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered to have “potential for correction,” the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors IAW FAR 15.306(a) (clarifications http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ other than Past Performance) will not constitute discussions. The SSA reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.6 While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.7 It is the Government’s intent to award one contract for the B-52 Training Systems (TS) support. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.8 Only U.S. companies may be considered for award. A foreign-owned or a foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service as a U.S. subsidiary and possesses a Facility Clearance will be considered as a U.S. prime on the B-52 TS contract.

Foreign-owned companies may participate as a subcontractor; however, the prime contractor is responsible for meeting all contract requirements.

1.9 Offerors must have a valid U.S. Facility Security Clearance of Top Secret (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1.a.) and storage capability at the Secret level (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1.b.) in order to be eligible for contract award. Offerors shall submit evidence of clearance levels at proposal submission. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of clearance levels by proposal submission may be deemed ineligible for award. The Government shall not be liable if the requested clearance is not obtained in a timely manner to submit by the proposal due date.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The evaluation factors for this competition are Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

Technical Capability has four subfactors: Program Management, Contractor Logistics Support (CLS), Training Systems Support Center (TSSC), and Trainer Modifications. All proposals will be evaluated for all factors and subfactors.

Factor 1(F1): Technical Capability Subfactor 1 (SF1): Program Management

Subfactor 2 (SF2): Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Subfactor 3 (SF3): Training Systems Support Center (TSSC)

Subfactor 4 (SF4): Trainer Modifications Factor 2 (F2): Past Performance Factor 3 (F3): Price

The factors and subfactors, and their order of importance to the overall evaluation, are shown in the figure below.

Table 1: Factor / Subfactor Evaluation Importance Hierarchy

* This Table is intended to show only the order of importance of the factors and subfactors. Should there be any discrepancy between the Table and the written explanation below, the written explanation takes precedence.

Higher Importance

Lower Importance

Technical Capability/Trainer Mods (SF4) Past Performance (F2)

Technical Capability/TSSC (SF3)

Technical Capability/Program Management (SF1) Technical Capability/CLS (SF2)

Price (F3)

The factors and subfactors will be evaluated as defined in Section 2.2. A Best Value trade-off decision will determine the successful offeror. The trade-off decision will consider:

a. That the Technical Capability/Trainer Modification subfactor (SF4) is as important as the Past Performance factor (F2), and that each is more important than the Technical Capability/TSSC subfactor (SF3);

b. That the Technical Capability/TSSC subfactor (SF3) is more important than either the Technical Capability/Program Management subfactor (SF1) or the Technical Capability/CLS subfactor (SF2);

c. That the Technical Capability/Program Management subfactor (SF1) and the Technical Capability/CLS subfactor (SF2) are of equal importance; and

d. That the Technical Capability/Program Management subfactor (SF1) and the Technical Capability/CLS subfactor (SF2) are each more important than Price (F3).

IAW FAR 15.304(e), all Technical Capability subfactors, and Past Performance (i.e., all non-price factors), when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, Price will contribute substantially to the decision.

2.2 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Factor 1, Technical Capability, has four (4) Subfactors as indicated in Paragraph 2.1. There are three ratings used for the Technical Capability subfactors: Technical Acceptability (Table 2), Technical Rating (Table 3), and Technical Risk (Table 4). Subfactors 1 and 2 will be evaluated for acceptability as defined in Table 2. Subfactors 3 and 4 will be evaluated as defined in Table 3.

All subfactors will be evaluated for risk as defined in Table 4.

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate technical proposals under Subfactors 1 and 2 with an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating and a Risk rating, as defined below in Tables 2 and 4 respectively, against the Measures of Merit described in Paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 respectively. No extra consideration will be given to an offeror that exceeds technical requirements for Subfactors 1 and 2.

Table 2: Technical Acceptability Ratings for Subfactors 1 and 2

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Rating Definition

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

For Subfactor 3 and Subfactor 4, the team will use Technical Ratings (Table 3) to evaluate the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate technical proposals under Subfactors 3 and 4 with a color/adjectival rating and a risk rating as defined below in Tables 3 and 4 respectively, against the Measures of Merit described in Paragraphs 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 respectively. The color/adjectival and risk ratings have equal importance in regard to the assessment of these Technical Capability Subfactors.

Table 3: Technical Ratings for Subfactors 3 and 4

Technical Risk Ratings (Table 4) for all subfactors focus on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and include an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased contractor emphasis or Government monitoring. For each identified risk, the assessment also addresses the offeror's

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

proposal for mitigating that risk and why that approach is or is not manageable. All Technical Capability subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings defined in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Technical Risk Ratings for All Subfactors

Weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency are defined in FAR 15.001.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Subfactors:

(Note: Performance Work Statement (PWS) references below are not all-inclusive of all applicable PWS sections. Refer to the Proposal Traceability Matrix, Appendix L-6, for applicable PWS sections.)

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

Description: This Subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to the Program Management requirements necessary to successfully accomplish the CLS, TSSC, and trainer modifications for the B-52 TS.

Measures of Merit(MoM): The Subfactor is met when the offeror:

2.2.1.1 MoM #1: Has an effective corporate organizational structure that grants the contractor program manager sufficient authority to execute all requirements and also provides timely and responsive support which corresponds with the IMP for execution of all CLS, TSSC, modifications, and studies under this solicitation.

(PWS 2.1)

2.2.1.2 MoM #2: Proposes a company process and timeline which efficiently and effectively attracts, recruits, and retains sufficiently trained and qualified personnel to perform all elements of this solicitation, including staffing levels, and personnel qualifications for CLS and TSSC. (PWS 2.1.1)

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.2.1.3 MoM #3: Proposes a transition methodology and timeline(s) which efficiently and effectively transitions B-52 TS Support from the incumbent contractor. (PWS 6.1.1)

2.2.1.4 MoM #4: Proposes sound and comprehensive arrangements the offeror maintains with subcontractors, teaming partners, or other entities by which the contractor ensures the subcontractors, teaming partners, or other entities provide quality and management. (PWS 2.1, 2.1.7, and 2.1.8)

A proposal evaluated by the Government to be UNACCEPTABLE for Technical Acceptability Rating, as defined in Table 2, will not be considered for award.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

Description: This Subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to meeting CLS requirements for the B-52 training systems.

Measures of Merit: The Subfactor is met when the offeror:

2.2.2.1 MoM #1: Proposes sound and comprehensive approaches, including an efficient and effective labor matrix plan for all CLS requirements, and ensuring a minimum 95% availability of the B-52 Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs) and individual stations. (PWS 3 and 3.3)

2.2.2.2 MoM #2: Proposes a sound and comprehensive obsolescence mitigation approach to maintain a minimum 95% availability of ATDs and individual stations, which addresses Diminishing Manufacturing Sources/Material Shortages, obsolescence, and failure rate tracking for the B-52 ATDs, spares and support equipment. (PWS 3.3, 3.1.20, and 2.2.6)

A proposal evaluated by the Government to be UNACCEPTABLE for Technical Acceptability Rating, as defined in Table 2, will not be considered for award.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Training Systems Support Center (TSSC)

Description: This Subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to meeting TSSC requirements for the B-52TS.

Measures of Merit: The Subfactor is met when the offeror:

2.2.3.1 MoM #1: Proposes a sound and comprehensive Baseline Management approach, including an efficient and effective labor matrix for all TSSC requirements which includes: maintaining and merging multiple concurrent software and hardware development efforts, configuration management functions, and mission planning.

(PWS 4.3)

2.2.3.2 MoM #2: Proposes a sound and comprehensive approach for the TSSC to accomplish Distributed Mission Operations Mission Package (DMO/MP) standards updates, including a detailed annual manpower staffing throughout the life of the contract and to ensure the completion of 2 DMO/MP standards per year, through MP15 within the TSSC’s base year and first 2 option years. (PWS 4.3.11)

2.2.3.3 MoM #3: Proposes a sound and comprehensive approach for the TSSC to accomplish B-52 Software Block updates to the trainer Offensive Avionics System. (PWS 4.3.12)

No strengths will be assessed for MoM #1. No extra consideration will be given to an offeror that exceeds technical requirements for MoM #1 for this subfactor.

MoM #2 may be exceeded (assessed to contain strength(s)), when the offeror proposes DMO/MP standards updates through MP15 to be accomplished in less time than the 3-year time period referenced in Section L, 4.2.3.3.2.

MoM #3 may be exceeded when the offeror identifies strong preemptive activities that provide B- 52 software block updates in a manner designed to meet the simulator ready for training objective of 60 days prior to first operational aircraft readiness date.

A proposal evaluated by the Government to be RED/UNACCEPTABLE for Technical Acceptability Rating, as defined in Table 3, will not be considered for award.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Trainer Modifications

Description: This Subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed systems engineering approach, as applied in designing, integrating and testing the Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT), Identification Friend / Foe (IFF) Mode S/5, and 1760 Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade (IWBU), Increment 1.1 upgrades into the B-52 TS.

Measures of Merit: The Subfactor is met when the offeror:

2.2.4.1 MoM #1: Proposes a sound and comprehensive understanding of each upgrade by proposing a realistic systems engineering approach for each in accordance with the

PWS. (PWS 4.1)

2.2.4.2 MoM #2: Proposes three separate, sound and comprehensive risk identification and mitigation plans for the three required upgrades. (PWS 2.1.9 and 4.1)

2.2.4.3 MoM #3: Proposes a single development schedule and a single production schedule for all CONECT required upgrades. (PWS 4.1.1)

2.2.4.4 MoM #4: Proposes a sound and comprehensive approach for removing the System

Integration Laboratory (SIL) from the current location, moving it to a new location, and completing install to operational readiness prior to being needed for development efforts. (PWS 6.1.2)

MoM #1 may be exceeded (assessed to contain strength(s)) when the offeror’s approach identifies innovative planning and scheduling which provides an overall exceptional approach to accomplishing testing for all three upgrades in a manner designed to minimize trainer downtime.

No strengths will be assessed for MoM #2 or #4. No extra consideration will be given to an offeror that exceeds technical requirements for MoM #2 or #4 for this subfactor.

MoM #3 may be exceeded (assessed to contain strength(s)) when the offeror proposes credible separate development and production schedules for CONECT that result in delivering capability to the field sooner than required. (PWS 4.1.1 and Appendix 6, Section 2)

A proposal evaluated by the Government to be RED/UNACCEPTABLE for Technical Acceptability Rating, as defined in Table 3, will not be considered for award.

2.3 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

2.3.1 Ratings: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Assessment Ratings described in Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

2.3.2 Evaluation Process: The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Rating Description

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.

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent Past Performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors. For the purpose of the Past Performance Evaluation, Technical Capability Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are considered of equal importance. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; interviews / questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency, and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be active or must have been completed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment: Consideration will be given to recent experience in dealing with aircraft training systems and simulators. Consideration will be given to contract scope and magnitude, similar technology, and complexity of effort.

2.3.2.2.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the work performed under contracts relates to the Technical Subfactors. For each recent Past Performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed against the Technical Subfactors.

2.3.2.2.2 A relevancy determination of the offeror’s Past Performance (including as joint venture member(s), as explained in Section 5.3 of Section L, and major and critical efforts performed by the offeror as a subcontractor(s)) will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations,. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Information Forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of Past Performance.

The Government will use the Relevancy Ratings defined in Table 6 below when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 6: Relevancy Ratings

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope or magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment: For each recent and relevant Past Performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed against the Technical Subfactors. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all Past Performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will be considered only when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use Table 7, Performance Quality Ratings, when assessing performance quality of recent, relevant efforts:

Table 7: Performance Quality Ratings

PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

E Exceptional/Blue

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

G Very Good/Purple

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

S Satisfactory/Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

M Marginal/Yellow

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

U Unsatisfactory/Red

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

N Neutral/White Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance Factor (see Paragraph 2.3.1 above). Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. However, a strong record of relevant Past Performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

2.3.3.1 More recent Past Performance efforts will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent Past Performance efforts. Likewise, more relevant Past Performance efforts will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant Past Performance efforts.

2.4 FACTOR 3: PRICE

The Government shall evaluate the price proposal and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. The price proposal and TEP will be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness. Cost Reimbursable CLINs also will be evaluated for cost realism. In the event that the CO determines discussions are to be conducted, the price proposal and TEP of any proposal determined to be in the competitive range will be evaluated.

2.4.1 Completeness: Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, Volume III. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete. Submission of an incomplete Price Matrix as set forth in Section L, Paragraph 6.0 or including pricing information/data elsewhere in the proposal will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

2.4.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. For device(s)/option(s) that require pricing for multiple levels of service, the Government, prior to issuing the solicitation, has determined a most probable level of service for each device/option. The proposed price for each predetermined level of service per device/option will be included in the TEP; the Government will not disclose these predetermined levels of service to the offerors in the solicitation. For the purposes of this solicitation, by way of example only, the Government-calculated TEP could use an offeror's proposed price for WST #6 at 8 hours per day/5 days per week in its calculations, along with the offeror's proposed price for WST #7 at 10 hours per day/5 days per week, along with the OSMT H1 at 12 hours per day/5 days per week price, and so forth. In addition to these most probable levels of service, the Government, prior to issuing the solicitation, selected the years for which specific line items will be evaluated. These pre-selected years also will not be disclosed to the offerors. Selected Firm Fixed Price (FFP) prices and a selected FPIF price will be included in the TEP at the proposed price (ceiling price for FPIF). The probable cost of each selected Cost Reimbursable CLIN (Travel and Material), as described below, will be included as part of the TEP. Instructions for completing the pricing matrix are in Section L, Subsection 6.0 (and its subparagraphs). Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The TEP will be computed as the sum of Government pre-determined levels of service of the following elements, as explained in paragraph 2.4.2, above:

• CLS – FFP, includes Trainer Availability support for each of the following devices:

o For On-Site CLS at Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), the selected levels of service for the TEP calculation include:

1 Weapon System Trainer (WST) #6

1 WST #7

1 Offensive Station Mission Trainer (OSMT) #1

1 OSMT #2

1 Electronic Warfare Simulator (AN/ALQ-T4(V)4) (T-4) #1 1 T-4 #2 1 T-4 #3 1 Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) o For On-Site CLS at Minot AFB, the selected levels of service for the TEP calculation include:

1 WST #1

1 T-4 #4

• TSSC Operations & TSSC DMO– FFP proposed amounts to include all option periods.

• Program Management – FFP proposed amounts to include all option periods.

• CLS Program Management – FFP proposed amounts to include all option periods.

• CLS & TSSC Materials – Cost CLINs with an estimated annual cost provided by the

Government with an offeror-proposed burden in order to determine an accurate overall price.

• CLS, TSSC, ECP/CCP/Other Travel – Cost CLINs with an estimated annual cost provided by the Government with an offeror-proposed burden in order to determine an accurate overall price.

• Initial Contract Transition – FFP proposed amount.

• Initial SIL Relocation – FFP proposed amount.

• Studies – to include Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) Study, Electronic Warfare

Simulator Study, WST Fidelity Upgrade Study and B-52 ATD Obsolescence Study - FFP proposed amount.

• 1760 IWBU Modification: the proposed FFP amount for development of the 1760 IWBU

Modification including the proposed cost of travel during the development effort.

• IFF Mode S/5 Modification: the FFP proposed amount for Development and Production including the proposed cost of travel during both phases of the effort.

• CONECT WST/OSMT Development: the FPIF proposed ceiling amount to include the proposed cost of travel during the development effort.

• CONECT WST Production: the FFP proposed amount to upgrade all WST devices including the proposed cost of travel and the FFP proposed price of providing each WST upgrade separately including the proposed cost of travel.

• CONECT OSMT Production: the FFP proposed amount to upgrade all OSMT devices including the proposed cost of travel during the effort and the FFP proposed price of providing each OSMT upgrade separately including the proposed cost of travel during the effort will be included in the TEP.

2.4.3 Price Reasonableness: The price evaluation will document reasonableness of all proposed prices in the price matrix. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing of all proposed prices in the price matrix and may determine a proposal to be unawardable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques, or there is an apparent artificial shifting of cost between the proposed CLINs. Offers are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to Government.

2.4.5 Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS): If applicable, Offerors will be evaluated to determine if they have identified employees exempted under the SCLS and who meet the criteria specified under Department of Labor Code of Federal Regulation 29 CFR Part 541, such as those performing computer system analysis, computer programming work, and executive, professional, and administrative personnel. Offerors will be evaluated to determine if any escalation is included for exempt employees and that offerors have addressed planned wage and benefit escalation for all exempted employees accordingly.

2.4.6 Cost Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors' burdened contractor rate (exclusive of fee) provided for the Materials and Travel CLINs (CLINs 0006 - 3006, 0010 - 7010, 0012 - 7012, 0013 – 7013, 0014 – 3014, 0015 – 7015). Cost realism shall be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government has provided a cost estimate for each of the identified CLINs as a way to apply the proposed rate to calculate a total price for each CLIN.

2.4.6.1 Most Probable Cost: The Government will compute the Most Probable Cost (MPC) for the Material and Travel CLINs. The offeror's proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. MPC shall be determined by adjusting each offeror's proposed burden rate(s), to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis

3. Pre-Award Survey (PAS)

The Government may conduct a PAS as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

GLOSSARY

AFB Air Force Base ATD Aircrew Training Device CFR Code of Federal Regulations CLIN Contract Line Item Number CLS Contractor Logistics Support CPT Cockpit Procedures Trainer CO Contracting Officer CONECT Combat Network Communications Technology DD Directives Division DMO/MP Distributed Mission Operations/Mission Package FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FFP Firm Fixed Price FPIF Fixed Price Incentive Firm FPR Final Proposal Revision IAW In Accordance With IFF Identification Friend or Foe IWBU Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade MoM Measure of Merit MP Mission Package MPC Most Probable Cost OSMT Offensive Station Mission Trainer PAS Pre-Award Survey PP Past Performance PTM Proposal Traceability Matrix PWS Performance Work Statement SCLS Service Contract Labor Standards SIL System Integration Laboratory SSA Source Selection Authority TC Technical Capability TEP Total Evaluated Price

TS Training Systems TSSC Training System Support Center WST Weapon System Trainer