B-52_TS_RFP_Section_M_Draft_22JAN15.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

B-52 TRAINING SYSTEMS

Solicitation # FA8621-15-R-6338

21 January 2015

FA8621-15-R-6338

Section M

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

Technical Capability, Trainer Modifications (Subfactor 4) is more important than Technical Capability, TSSC (Subfactor 3)

Technical Capability, TSSC (Subfactor 3) is more important than Price (Factor 3) and less important than Past Performance (Factor 2)

Technical Capability, TSSC (Subfactor 3) is more important than Technical Capability, Program Management (Subfactor 1)

Technical Capability, TSSC (Subfactor 3) is more important than Technical Capability, CLS (Subfactor 2)

Technical Capability, Program Management (Subfactor 1) is equally important to Technical Capability, CLS (Subfactor 2)

All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price

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

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 1, against the Measures of Merit 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. 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 1: 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 2 and 3 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 2) to evaluate the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements of this solicitation.

Table 2: 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 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 3 below.

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.

Table 3: Technical Risk Ratings

The proposals will be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

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, trainer modifications, and new system requirements for the B-52 TS.

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

1. Has an effective home office organizational and support structure and provides convincing evidence that the contractor has an 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 new equipment work under this solicitation. [Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.1]

2. Proposes a company process which efficiently and effectively attracts, recruits, and retains sufficient trained and qualified personnel to perform all elements of this solicitation, including staffing levels, and personnel qualifications for CLS and TSSC.

(PWS 2.1)

3. Proposes a transition methodology which efficiently and effectively transitions B-52 TS Support from the incumbent contractor. (PWS 6.0)

4. Proposes sound and comprehensive teaming/subcontractor arrangements that will be utilized to execute all elements of work required under this solicitation. (PWS 2.1 and 2.1.7)

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.

2.2.2 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:

1. Proposes sound and comprehensive approaches for CLS to ensure a minimum 95% availability of the B-52 Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs) and individual stations. (PWS

3.0 and 3.2)

2. Proposes sound and comprehensive obsolescence mitigation plans to maintain a minimum 95% ATD and individual station availability for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources/Material Shortages, obsolescence, and failure rate tracking for the B-52 ATDs, spares, and support equipment. (PWS 2.2.6)

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-52 training systems.

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

1. Proposes a sound and comprehensive Baseline Management approach for maintaining and merging multiple, concurrent software and hardware development efforts, configuration management functions and mission planning. (PWS 4.3)

2. Proposes a sound and comprehensive approach for the TSSC to accomplish Distribution Mission Operations Mission Package (DMO/MP) standards updates throughout the life of the contract and to ensure the completion of all standards through MP15 within the TSSC’s 3 year base period. (PWS 4.3.9)

3. Proposes a sound and comprehensive approach for the TSSC to accomplish B-52 Software Block updates to the trainer Offensive Avionics System. (PWS 4.3.10)

No strengths will be assessed for Measure of Merit #1.

Measure of Merit #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 base period.

Measure of Merit #3 may be exceeded when the offeror identifies strong proactive 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 approach for designing, integrating and testing the Combat Network Communications Technology (CONECT), Identification Friend / Foe (IFF) Mode S/5, and Internal Weapons Bay Upgrade (IWBU) 1760 upgrades into the B-52 TS.

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

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. Proposes a single comprehensive risk identification and mitigation plan for the three defined upgrades. (PWS 2.1.9)

3. Proposes development and production schedules for all CONECT defined upgrades.

(PWS 4.1)

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 6.0)

Measure of Merit #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 Measure of Merit #2.

Measure of Merit #3 may be exceeded when the offeror proposes credible development and production schedules for CONECT that result in delivering capability to the field sooner than required. (PWS 4.1)

No strengths will be assessed for Measure of Merit #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 4, Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings.

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.

Table 4: 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.

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

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.

degree of relevancy of Past Performance. The Government will use the Relevancy Ratings defined in Table 5 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 5: 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 6, 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 6: 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 “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable” could become “Acceptable” following discussions and would then also be ranked by price.

The offeror will provide thorough documentation of Price information as described below. This evaluation will consider any risks associated with the offeror’s Reasonableness. This will consist of reviewing all the proposed Contract Line Item Number (CLINs) with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee CLINs. All the proposed pricing matrices will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Generally, Adequate Price Competition will satisfy the requirement for Price Reasonableness. 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.

Unrealistically low price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be developed and used for award purposes only.

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, Subsection 6.0 will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP 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. The TEP Summary worksheet contained within Section J, Attachment 3 is linked to all TEP elements within the other worksheets (green highlighted cells) and will automatically calculate the TEP (blue highlighted cells) for the offeror. This will allow the offeror to know what their calculated TEP is at proposal submission.

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs will be included in the TEP as the total firm-fixed price. The ceiling price of the Fixed Price Incentive (Firm) (FPIF) CLINs will be included in the TEP. Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs will be included as part of the TEP, however, the government will provide a value that every offeror will use for the CR CLINs. Instructions for completing the pricing matrix are in Section L, Subsection 6.0 (and its subparagraphs). The probable cost for each ordering period will include prices for CLS, TSSC, TSSC DMO Operations, 1760 IWBU Modification, IFF Mode S/5 Modification Development and Production CLINs, and the CONECT Modification options which could include different quantities of trainers with different hours of operation for the Base Year and Option Years, plus up to a 90-day but not less than 30-day transition. All prices shall be summed to arrive at one total representing the grand total for all option years. This could include seven years of total cost using various trainer quantities levels and hours of operation within the matrix for each CLIN. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements:

CLS – the contractor’s proposed FFP amounts for the selected ranges (CLINs 0002 & 0003 plus option year CLINs). For On-Site CLS at Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), the selected ranges for the TEP calculation include 1 Weapon System Trainer (WST) @ 8hrs/day 5 days/wk, 1 WST @ 16Hrs/Day 5 days/wk, 1 Offensive System Mission Trainer (OSMT) @ 8hrs/day 5 days/wk, 1 OSMT @ 12hrs/day 5 days/wk, 1 T4 @ 8hrs/day 5 days/wk, 1 Electronic Warfare Simulator (AN/ALQ-T4(V)4) (T-4) @ 10 hrs/day 5 days/wk, 1 T-4 @12 hrs/day 5 days/wk, and 1 Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT) @ 8hrs/day 5 days/wk. For On-Site CLS at Minot AFB, the selected ranges for the TEP calculation include 1 WST @ 10hrs/day 5 days/wk and 1 T-4 @ 8 hrs/day 5 days/wk.

TSSC Operations & TSSC DMO Operations– FFP proposed amounts to include all option periods (TSSC CLINs 0007- 7007 and TSSC DMO CLINs 0011 – 7011).

Program Management – FFP proposed amounts to include all option periods (CLINs

0001 – 7001) CLS & TSSC Materials – Cost CLINs with an estimated annual cost provided by the

Government will be included in the TEP in order to determine an accurate overall price.

Transition - Ramp-up 2015 - FFP proposed amount for CLIN 0015. This includes the prices for the successor contractor to prepare for and assume total responsibility of the contract to be ready to begin required services 1 January 2015.

Transition – Device Relocation 2015 – FFP proposed amount for CLIN 0016. This includes acceptance of the SIL from the incumbent contractor; assisting with the re-build of the SIL; and testing to ensure operability at the successor contractor’s facility.

1760 IWBU Modification: the FFP proposed price of CY16 Development of the 1760 IWBU Modification and the proposed cost of travel during the development effort during CY16 (CLINs 0017-0018).

IFF Mode S/5 Modification: the FFP proposed amount for CY16 Development and CY16 Production for the IFF Mode S/5 Modification. The contractor’s proposed amount for travel during both efforts will be included in the TEP (CLINs 0019 – 0022).

CONECT WST Development: FPIF proposed ceiling amount for CY16 (CLIN 1023) & and the proposed cost of travel during the development effort during (CLIN 1024)

CONECT WST Production Kits: the FFP proposed amount of providing the kits for all WST devices in CY18 (CLIN 1025) and the FFP proposed price of providing each WST kit separately in CY18 (CLINs 1026 -1028). The proposed cost of travel during the production kit stages (CY18) will be included in the TEP (CLIN 1029).

CONECT OSMT Development: FPIF proposed ceiling amount for CY17 (CLIN 0030) & and the proposed cost of travel during the development effort during (CLIN 0031)

CONECT OSMT Production Kits: the FFP proposed amount of providing the kits for all OSMT devices in CY18 (CLIN 0032) and the FFP proposed price of providing each OSMT kit separately in CY18 (CLINs 0033-0034). The proposed cost of travel during the production kit stages (CY18) will be included in the TEP (CLIN 0035)

2.4.3 Price Reasonableness: The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed TEP. 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 Balanced Pricing: The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing of all proposed prices 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 TEP, 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 Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to Government.

2.4.4 Service Contract Act (SCA): 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.

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 CLIN Contract Line Item Number CLS Contractor Logistics Support CPT Cockpit Procedures Trainer CONECT Combat Network Communications Technology CR Cost Reimbursable DMO/MP Distribution 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 OSMT Offensive System Mission Trainer PAS Pre-Award Survey CO Contracting Officer PWS Performance Work Statement SCA Service Contract Act SIL System Integration Laboratory SSA Source Selection Authority T-4 Electronic Warfare Simulator (AN/ALQ-T4(V)4) TEP Total Evaluated Price TS Training Systems TSSC Training System Support Center WST Weapon System Trainer