Atchm_13_B-52_TS_Section_M_Draft8Apr15.pdf

FA8621-15-R-6338

Attachment 13 - Section M 30 March 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. 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 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 outweighs 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 (clarifications other than Past Performance) will not constitute discussions. The SSA reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. 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 lacking such a clearance may submit a proposal and be considered for award; however, they will not be eligible for award unless they hold a valid Top Secret Facility Clearance (Draft DD Form 254, Section 1a) at time of the B-52 TS contract award. The Government shall not be liable if the requested clearance is not obtained in a timely manner to allow for contract award.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management

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

Subfactor 4: Trainer Modifications Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

The relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor is as follows: If either Technical Capability Subfactor 1 or 2 are rated UNACCEPTABLE (as defined in Paragraph 2.2 below), the offeror will be ineligible for award. If both Technical Capability Subfactors 1 and 2 are rated ACCEPTABLE, then their respective risk ratings will be included in the best value tradeoff decision to determine the successful offeror, which will be made as follows:

Technical Capability (TC), Trainer Modifications Subfactor 4 (SF4) is equally important to Past Performance Factor 2 (PP), and more important than Price Factor 3 (Price)

TC, SF4 is more important than TC, TSSC Subfactor 3 (SF3) SF3 is more important than Price and less important than PP SF3 is more important than TC, Program Management Subfactor 1 (SF1) SF3 is more important than TC, CLS Subfactor 2 (SF2) SF1 is equally important to SF2 SF2 is more important than Price All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price

Pictorially, Table 1 illustrates the Factor / Subfactor evaluation importance hierarchy.

Higher Importance

Lower Importance

TC: Trainer Mods (Subfactor 4) Past Performance (Factor 2)

TC: TSSC (Subfactor 3)

TC: Program Mgmt (Subfactor 1) TC: CLS (Subfactor 2)

Price (Factor 3)

Table 1: Factor / Subfactor Evaluation Importance Hierarchy

IAW FAR 15.304(e), all Technical Capability subfactors, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, Price will be given meaningful consideration.

2.2 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Factor 1, Technical Capability, has four (4) Subfactors.

The Government will evaluate the technical proposals under Subfactors 1 and 2 on a pass/fail basis assigning ratings of ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE as defined below in Table 2, against the Measures of Merit (MoM) described in Paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 respectively. For Technical Capability Subfactors 1 and 2, failure to meet any single measure of merit will result in an UNACCEPTABLE rating for that Subfactor. If both Technical Capability Subfactors 1 and 2 are rated ACCEPTABLE, then their respective risk ratings, as defined in Table 4, will be included in the best value tradeoff decision to determine the successful offeror. No extra consideration will be given to an offeror that exceeds technical requirements 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

Table 2: Technical Acceptability Ratings

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 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.

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.

Table 3: Technical Ratings

Technical Risk Ratings for all Subfactors focus on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased contractor emphasis, and

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.

Government monitoring. For each identified risk, the assessment also addresses the offeror's proposal for mitigating that risk and why that approach is or is not manageable. Technical subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings defined in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Technical Risk Ratings

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

(Note: PWS references below are not all-inclusive of all applicable PWS sections. Refer to PTM, 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: 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 for execution of all CLS, TSSC, modifications, and studies under this solicitation. [Performance Work Statement

(PWS) 2.1]

2.2.1.2 MoM #2: Proposes a company process 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)

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

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.

2.2.1.4 MoM #4: Proposes sound and comprehensive arrangements with subcontractors, teaming partners or other entities which the contractor plans to utilize to meet the PWS requirements. (PWS 2.1, 2.1.7, and 2.1.8)

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 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 and 3.1.20)

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 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.

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

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 readinesss date.

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 technical 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 defined 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 defined 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 when the offeror’s approach identifies strong innovative planning and scheduling that 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.

MoM #3 may be exceeded 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)

No strengths will be assessed for MoM #4.

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 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, all Technical Capability Subfactors 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 ongoing or must have been performed 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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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.

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 relate 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 will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture member(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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:

RELEVANCY RATINGS

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

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.

Table 6: Relevancy Ratings

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 only be considered 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:

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.

Table 7: Performance Quality Ratings

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 may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant Past Performance efforts.

2.4 FACTOR 3: PRICE

The Government will rank all technically acceptable offers by Price, including option prices. In the event that the CO determines discussions are to be conducted, any offer which was originally rated as “Unacceptable” could become “Acceptable” following discussions and would then also be ranked by Price.

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 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 Price Evaluation: The completed Price Matrix (Section J, Attachment 3) will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The Government has pre-selected all the ranges for evaluation purposes and will not disclose these ranges to the offerors in the solicitation. The ranges to be used in the evaluation represent the most probable ranges to be selected during execution of the contract after award. In addition to the ranges, the Government has pre-selected the years in which specific line items will be evaluated. These pre-selected years are also not disclosed to the offerors. Price evaluation will utilize cost from the following Contract Line Items (CLIN):

Program Management CLS Program Management CLS options which could include different quantities of trainers with different hours of operation CLS Materials TSSC Labor TSSC DMO Labor TSSC Materials Option Prices o CONECT Modification Development and Production CLINs o IFF Mode S/5 Modification Development and Production CLINs o 1760 IWBU Increment 1.1 Modification

Studies Initial Contract Transition – Ramp-Up Initial SIL Relocation

Evaluation of Option Prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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 Act (SCA): If applicable, Offerors will be evaluated to determine if they have identified employees exempted under the SCA and who meet the criteria specified under Department of Labor 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 only conduct cost analysis on the fully burdened contractor rate 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).

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

ATD Aircrew Training Device CLIN Contract Line Item Number CLS Contractor Logistics Support CO Contracting Officer CONECT Combat Network Communications Technology DMO/MP Distributed Mission Operations/Mission Package FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 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 PAS Pre-Award Survey PP Past Performance PWS Performance Work Statement SCA Service Contract Act SIL System Integration Laboratory SSA Source Selection Authority TC Technical Capability TS Training Systems TSSC Training System Support Center