M001 M002 and M003 SOURCE SELECTION 10 FEB 12.pdf

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability with Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the

Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority

(SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract but reserves the right to award up to two (2) for a

Cost Plus Incentive Fee initial EMD acquisition which will conclude with the total delivery of up to six

(6) prototypes systems which will be operationally tested and evaluated prior to being considered for the production phase. Upon successful completion of developmental and operational testing, the

Government may exercise production options under Firm Fixed Price CLINs for up to 600 LOS-S units.

However, based on cost and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to make no contract award or not to exercise options.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award(s) will be made to the offeror(s) proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical with Technical Risk at Factor Level

Subfactor 1.1: Performance Requirements

Subfactor 1.2: Systems Engineering and Program Management

Subfactor 1.3: Product Support/Training

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of relative importance. Factor 1 (Technical) is more important than Factor 2 (Past

Performance), further Factor 1 and 2 when combined are significantly more important than

Factor 3 (Cost/Price). Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance, where subfactor 1.1 is more important than subfactor 1.2 and in-turn subfactor 1.2 is more important than subfactor 1.3.

(3) In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost /price

Technical Factor

The technical evaluation provides assessment first of the ability of the offeror’s solution for meeting the

Government’s threshold requirement and second for exceeding that threshold in attainment of the best value objective factor. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings focus on strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal exceeds, meets, or does not meet the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. A technical risk assessment, para.

M002 b of this document, will be included at the Technical factor.

While evaluating subfactor 1.1 under Factor 1 (Technical) to arrive at a best value assessment, the

Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e, assign a strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. No further positive consideration will be given for performance in excess of the objective requirements.

The Government may assign one or more proposal strengths only to the technical subfactor 1.1 requirements as specified in paragraph (1) below. Technical subfactor 1.1 Performance Requirements is distinguished from the remaining subfactors in that it is the only subfactor to which a strength or strengths may be assigned and which may receive a Blue (Outstanding) or Purple (Good) color rating.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304

(1) Subfactor 1: Performance Requirements.

Description: Under this subfactor the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to address the LOS-S system performance requirements.

This subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal:

a) Defines to the Government a System Specification which meets minimum threshold requirements which is complete, achievable, and consistent with the SRD. Only after these minimum thresholds are met, will the capability in Subfactor (1) b) below, be assessed for strengths.

b) Clearly substantiates a reasonable and achievable methodology to attain capability approaching the objective level.

(i) For the SRD paragraphs outlined below as having objectives performance targets

(**), the offeror may be granted strengths for exceeding the thresholds to a substantive degree of benefit to the Government up to meeting objectives.

(ii) The technical evaluation shall first review and assess the specification sheet document in meeting the SRD ―Threshold‖ levels, all of which must be met as specified below to receive a color rating of Green (Acceptable). The SRD

Requirements listed in para. (iv.) below are included in this threshold assessment.

(iii)In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign strength or multiple strengths, for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. Proposal strength(s) may be awarded for the 6 (six) requirements listed below in para. (iv.)

which are noted with a double asterisk (**) only when the offeror’s proposed LOS-

S offer clearly exceeds the minimum threshold requirements and moves closer to achieving the objective requirements. Any strength(s) noted by the offeror must be supported by the offeror’s systems engineering proposal. No proposal strength(s) will be awarded for any other SRD paragraph other than those requirements noted below. Performance in excess of the objective requirement for the remaining SRD paragraphs are encouraged and may be proposed, but no further positive consideration will be given for performance in excess of the objective

Blue

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The 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.

requirements. This is the only subfactor to which a strength or strengths may be assigned and which may receive a Blue (Outstanding) or Purple (Good) color rating.

(iv) SRD evaluation items:

(a) 3.2.1 LOS-S Geo-Location (KPP)**

(b) 3.2.2 LOS-S Force Protection and Survivability (KPP - Mandatory)

(c) 3.2.3 LOS-S Materiel Availability (KPP - Mandatory)

(d) 3.2.4 LOS-S Net-Ready (KPP - Mandatory)

(e) 3.2.5 LOS-S Materiel Reliability (KSA – Mandatory)

(f) 3.2.6 LOS-S Volume (KSA – Level 1)**

(g) 3.2.7 LOS-S Weight (KSA – Level 1)**

(h) 3.2.8 LOS-S Durability (KSA – Level 1).

(i) 3.2.9 LOS-S Environment/Operating Conditions (KSA – Level 1).

(j) 3.2.10 LOS-S Human Factors (KSA – Level 1).

(k) 3.2.11 LOS-S Range-Finding (Addt’l Performance Attributes

(APA) – Level 1)**

(l) 3.2.12 LOS-S Power Requirements (APA – Level 1)**

(m) 3.2.13 LOS-S Remote Operation (APA – Level 1)

(n) 3.2.14 LOS-S Field Maintenance and Supportability (APA – Level 1)

(o) 3.2.15 LOS-S Laser Spot Pointing/Tracking/Recognition

(APA –Level 1)**

(p) 3.2.16 LOS-S Target Recognition (APA – Level 1)

(q) 3.2.17 LOS-S Rescue/Recovery Sensor (APA – Level 1)

(r) 3.2.20 LOS-S Modularity(APA – Level 2)

(v) If the offer does not meet the stated SRD threshold levels, through assessment of the specification sheet and logical solution under the technical approach, the offer may receive a Red (Unacceptable) rating and may be removed from competition and the offeror debriefed upon request.

(2) Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering and Program Management

The Government will evaluate the proposed Systems Engineering and Program Management approach to determine the offeror's understanding, capability and ability to implement an effective product support program necessary to support and sustain the LOS-S system.

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal:

a. Design review process is logical and complete and correlates/aligns with the IMP.

b. Demonstrates a sound understanding of the system integration requirements and is consistent with the ICD.

c. Includes an understandable, logical and realistic subcontracting plan to meet expectations outlined in FAR 52-219-8, 52-219-9 Alt II, DFARS 252.219-7003 and AFFARS 5319.704

d. The offeror provides a realistic and executable IMS to meet the EMD and production effort and has a sound schedule risk mitigation consistent with the IMP, SOO, SOW and CWBS.

(3) Subfactor 3: Product Support/Training.

The Government will evaluate the proposed Product Support/Training approach to determine the offeror's understanding, capability and ability to implement an effective product support program necessary to support and sustain the LOS-S system.

The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal:

i. Describes and demonstrates the types and quantity initial spares required for the system. The offeror shall clearly spell out the methodology to support the initial

Spares package.

ii. Describes a well-defines plan for implementing and achieving your two level maintenance concept and articulate how the system will be maintained in the field and at the OEM depot; identify the sub-systems and components that will be maintained at both levels of maintenance. The contractor describes and the processes required to provide and deliver an Operator’s Manual for the system that describes the operational capability of the system as well as field repair procedures.

iii. Clearly articulates an understandable process to implement a training plan for the system, based on the LOS-S SRD, and include the training requirements in the

LOS-S system specification. The offeror shall be required to develop and deliver a

Type-1 (train the trainer) training course for the system. The training plan shall include the type and quantity of training to be offered, necessary facilities, etc. The offeror shall provide and deliver a training manual for the LOS-S.

b. Technical Risk Rating.

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Factors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source

Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

c. Past Performance Factor

There are two aspects of the Past Performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the current LOS-S effort.

Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts and establishes confidence. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past

TABLE 3 – 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.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.000.doc%23p5512 performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

(1) Relevancy Ratings. The relevancy factor will receive one of the ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, excerpted below.

(2) The Past Performance factor will further receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance

Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

(3) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the

TABLE 4 -- PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23p5522 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23p5522 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 and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance.

(i.) 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 three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii.) Relevancy Assessment. In conjunction with the Recency assessment, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price

Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts involving the same or similar hardware, technology, and manufacturing processes; similar effort performed by the same division; contracts with equivalent dollar values, contract type, and complexity;

and similar systems integration efforts. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(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 (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance

(iii.) Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts).

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor.

(However, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.)

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation

Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 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.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.000.doc%23b15305 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b5221925 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23P123_5649 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b522198 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23b522199

(4) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the

Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, 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.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown

Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

(5) In addition to offeror submissions, past performance information will be obtained through the

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and through similar systems of other

Government departments and agencies. The Air Force provides past performance information to the PPIRS through the use of Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS).

Additional past performance information will be obtained using questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the

Government, including commercial sources.

Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. The Government may consider the offeror's past performance in the aggregate rather than on a contract by contract basis. The Government may also give consideration to previous joint ventures or teaming arrangements in which one or more of the proposed partners participated, either with each other or with other entities in performing work similar to that which is being proposed to support the Battlefield Airman program.

d. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated at the Total Proposed Price (TPP), based upon the CLIN structure reflected below. The TPP is the sum of the offeror’s CPIF CLIN at ceiling price and FFP CLINs. The production FFP CLINs with a variable pricing matrix will be included in the TPP at most probable quantity. Cost CLINs shall not be included in the

TPP.

(i.) Cost Plus Incentive Fee CLIN shall be priced to include:

EMD (CLIN 0001)

CPIF CLIN will be evaluated on the basis of realism, reasonableness and affordability of the costs as reflected in Attachment 9 to Section L.

(ii.) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs shall be priced to include:

Production option (CLIN 0002)

FY14 Production option (CLIN 0002AA)

FY15 Production option (CLIN 0002AB)

FY16 Production option (CLIN 0002AC)

FY17 Production option (CLIN 0002AD)

Under Section J, attachment 1 to the model contract offerors shall complete the variable pricing matrix. The TPP will include the sum of CLIN 0002AA, 0002AB, 0002AC, and

0002AD as if exercised at the most probable quantity of 150 units for each year. The entire variable pricing matrix will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and affordability.

Training (CLIN 0003)

Sustainment (CLIN 0004)

Interim Contractor Support option (CLIN 0004AA)

Interim Contractor Support option (CLIN 0004AB)

Interim Contractor Support option (CLIN 0004AC)

EMD Data (CLIN 0005)

Production Non-OMIT Data Option (CLIN 0006)

Production OMIT Data Option (CLIN 0007)

(iii) Cost CLIN shall be priced to include:

Travel option (CLIN 0008)

The FFP CLINS will be evaluated on the basis of realism, reasonableness and affordability of the prices offered.

(2) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(3) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable, realistic and affordable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(4) The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed costs. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-

1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical risk rating, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor.

(5) The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation in at Section L paragraph 1.2 Funding and Budget Estimates. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#b312013 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b154041 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b154041 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23T2101 between the total price (or proposed maximum contract Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

e. Discussions

In accordance with the provision 52.215-1 (f)(4), entitled, Instructions to offerors - Competitive

Acquisition (Jan 2004), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO later determines them to be necessary. If the CO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

In the event that discussions with offerors are conducted, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices

(ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any proposal changes or exceptions that introduces risk by an offeror with submittal of the FPR may render proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offerors are hereby advised that only those proposals determined to have a reasonable chance for award of a contract will be included in the competitive range. While every effort will be made to maintain strong competition, the CO will also look to eliminate time consuming and unnecessary discussions with those offerors whose proposals have no reasonable chance for award. This procedure is considered beneficial to both the Air Force and the offerors involved since, in addition to saving further expenditure of resources, acquisition lead time should be reduced.

NOTE: Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or resolve minor or clerical errors. Such exchanges or responses will not constitute discussions (see FAR 15.306).

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.