DLE_IDIQ_Section_L__4-25-2017.docx

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

DATA LINK ENTERPRISE (DLE)

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/ INDEFINITE QUANTITY (ID/IQ)

25 April 2017

Prepared By:

CDL Program Office

AFLCMC/HNAG

5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Section L

Section L

[Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

Table of Contents

iii

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

L-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

L-II – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

D. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

L-III INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) and INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

1.0 Program Structure and Objectives

(a) The Data Link Enterprise (DLE) contract is a multiple award, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)/ Operations & Maintenance (O&M) contract intended to support the U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Command Control Communications Intelligence & Networks (C3I&N) Directorate, and Space, Aerial & Nuclear Networks Division (HNA). Data Links represent DoD's existing and emerging communication architecture. The DLE ID/IQ contract will provide a pool of contractors, a.k.a. the “awardee pool,” ready to respond to orders as required to satisfy warfighter requirements.

(b) The DLE ID/IQ contract is intended to support acquisition programs within AFLCMC’s Gateways and Tactical Data Links Branch (HNAG). The Gateways and Tactical Data Links Branch focuses on developing existing and emerging communication architecture to accommodate Command and Control (C2) data and wireless extension to the Global Information Grid (GIG).

(c) The scope of the DLE ID/IQ contract is stated in the ID/IQ Statement of Work (SOW). The DLE ID/IQ contract ordering period is five (5) years, with five (5) (one year) options that may extend the cumulative ordering period for a total ordering period to ten (10) years in accordance with FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contact, if exercised.

The period of performance for each Delivery Order (DO) awarded under the DLE ID/IQ contract shall be specified in each individual Delivery Order. Delivery Order(s) must be solicited and awarded prior to the DLE ID/IQ contract expiring and may extend up to five (5) years after the DLE ID/IQ contract ordering period expires.

After the DLE ID/IQ contract expires, the DLE ID/IQ contract shall govern the terms and conditions with respect to active Delivery Order(s) to the same extent as if it were completed during the DLE ID/IQ period of performance.

Accordingly, the cumulative term of the DLE ID/IQ contract may span up to ten (10) years and the cumulative term of all Delivery Order(s) placed under the DLE ID/IQ contract may span up to 15 years.

(d) The contract ceiling for the DLE ID/IQ contract including options (if exercised) is $496 million.

(e) The DLE ID/IQ contract utilizes Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Fixed-Price-Incentive-Fee (FPIF), Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF), and Cost Reimbursable (CR) contract types. DLE ID/IQ orders will be issued in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1) Fair Opportunity.

(f) Anticipated DLE ID/IQ Deliverables

· Hardware (HW) and Software (SW) Engineering Development Models/Prototypes

· Research, Analysis, Designs, Demonstrations

· Technical Reports, Studies, Engineering Drawings

· Data Rights

· Program Management and Financial Milestone Event and Reporting

(g) Source Selection Procedures This source selection will be conducted in two parts. The first part is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315 and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are current as of the date of this solicitation and available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

This will result in the award of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) and the Post Award Conference (PAC) Delivery Order as described below.

Following this source selection decision, the second part will consist of the award of the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration Delivery Order (HCB DO) to one (1) or more DLE ID/IQ awardees which will be conducted as a Fair Opportunity Competition subject to FAR Subpart 16.5.as supplemented.

(h) Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award approximately five (5) to seven (7) contracts for the DLE ID/IQ contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make any number of awards, or no award, if considered to be in the Government's best interest to do so.

The Government intends to award to each ID/IQ awardee a Delivery Order for a FFP Post Award Conference (PAC) in the amount of $5,000. This Delivery Order will be against Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0001. This Post Award Conference satisfies the minimum order requirement of the DLE ID/IQ contract (if awarded).

Additionally, the Government intends to award the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration Delivery Order (HCB DO) to one (1) or more DLE ID/IQ awardees. The cost/price evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s cost proposal for the HCB DO.

2.0 General Instructions

This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal.

(a) Unless otherwise stated, the term “Offeror” includes the prime contractor, subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners. “Prime Contractor” is the specific company division and legal entity with which the Government creates contractual privity by entering into a contract. Only the prime Offeror will be awarded a DLE ID/IQ contract. “Subcontractor”, “teaming partner”, and “joint venture partners” mean any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner.

(b) The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the Instructions to Offeror (ITO) and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. To be compliant with the ITO, the Offeror’s proposal shall address and be compliant with the DLE ID/IQ Solicitation as detailed in the DLE ID/IQ Model Contract, Statement of Work (SOW) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and HCB DO SOW and CDRL. The Offeror(s) shall submit the proposal as one (1) document and the Offeror(s) is only required to address each subfactor and its associated criteria once. Non-conformance with these instructions shall result in a determination that the proposal is non-responsive.

(c) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

(d) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(e) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through the end of that period.

(f) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one (1) copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1. Point of Contact

The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the PCO at the following address:

EDNA C. ALONIS

Space, Aerial, & Nuclear Networks Division 5 Eglin Street, Building 1624 Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100

PH: (781) 225-4070

Email: edna.alonis@us.af.mil

2.1.2. Debriefings

The PCO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one (1) debriefing for each proposal.

The PCO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must submit all request(s) in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.1.3. Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the PCO to consider, as related to the omission or error. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to conduct discussions, but reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

2.1.4. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation. The Government, while trying to ensure document applicability and currency, does not warrant the accuracy or compliance of the information contained in the website documents. All documents are subject to revisions and changes without further notice.

2.1.5 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the PCO. Email may be used to transmit such information to Offerors only if the email can be sent and received in an encrypted manner and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via AMRDEC Safe https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 1- Proposal Organization. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits, and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1- Proposal Organization. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in Table 1- Proposal Organization. In addition, one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy shall be delivered to the Offeror’s cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office.

Table 1- Proposal Organization - Proposal Organization

2x CD/DVD Cover Letter: 1 page Narrative Summary: 4 pages TOC/MCRM: No page limit

2x CD/DVD Technical: 50 pages IMS: No page limit Certification Docs: No page limit Demonstration: 25 charts

3x paper 2x CD/DVD

PPI Tool Questionnaire IAW Section L Paragraph 5.2 Paper copy and CD/DVD as follows:

Summary: 3 pages Business Relationships: No page limit Past Performance Information Sheets IAW Section L Paragraph 5.1 Limit 5 pages per referenced contract Consent Letters: No page limit Organizational Structure Change History: No page limit

2x CD/DVD No page limit

2x CD/DVD No page limit

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the Offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, tables of contents, tabs and glossaries.

2.2.2 Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two (2) pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be one (1) single spaced typed with 1.5 line spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and each 8.5 x 11 surface of a foldout shall be counted as a separate page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(c) For all documents, indicate on the top of each document page the company name, volume number, title, date and page number.

(d) Line spacing, font size (etc.) restrictions do not apply to the electronic Past Performance Questionnaire pages that are generated by the PPI tool.

2.2.3 Cost or Pricing Related Data

All cost or pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Cost tradeoff information, work hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and tradeoff decisions.

2.2.4 Classified Information

The proposal volumes listed in Table 1- Proposal Organization shall be unclassified.

2.2.5 Cross-Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

The Offeror shall provide a Master Cross Reference Matrix (MCRM) (Attachment L-5). The matrix will clearly indicate by ITO, SOW, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item. The Government may assume that incorrectly cross referenced items have been omitted from the proposal.

2.2.6 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the paragraphs and subparagraphs within that volume. The table of contents does not count against the page limitations. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.2.7 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used and an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for the Offeror’s respective volumes.

2.2.8 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked with volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than yellow, orange, red or blue (security designation colors). Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.3 Electronic Offers

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. All electronic documents shall comply with Paragraph 2.2.2 and indicate on each document page the company name, volume number, title, date and page number. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD/DVD the volume number(s), title(s) and date. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including factors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The Offeror shall submit volumes I through V in electronic format, using recordable CDs/DVDs. If multiple volumes are included on a CD/DVD, each volume shall be in a different directory/folder on the CD/DVD. Special file decompression and decryption software shall not be required. Basis of Estimate(s) (BOE) information submitted in accordance with section 6.2.3 shall be provided in a stand-alone file(s). The documents identified in sections 7.4 and 7.5 will be incorporated in any contract awarded and shall be submitted in single, stand-alone files.

The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, MS Office Project 2010, MS Office Access 2010, and MS Office PowerPoint 2010, as applicable. The Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) shall be provided in native MS Office Project file format (mpp) readable by Project 2010. The Business Relationships and Past Performance Information Sheets in the Past Performance volume shall be provided in the PPI Tool database file (Paragraph 5.1). All electronic files shall be fully searchable by keyword.

In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation. The Offeror shall ensure that all electronic files are readable and not encrypted.

2.4 Distribution

The Offeror shall submit one (1) original proposal and additional copies as identified in Table 1- Proposal Organization. The “original” shall be identified and labeled as such. Proposals shall be addressed to the Procurement Contracting Officer and must be received on the date specified in the RFP to: AFLCMC/HNAK, 5 Eglin Street, Bldg 1624, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100, Attn: Ms. Edna C. Alonis, Procurement Contracting Officer and Ms. Molly A. Vance, Contract Specialist. Directions to Hanscom AFB may be obtained at: http://www.hanscom.af.mil.

Be sure to advise the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for prime and subcontractors that the proposal is "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104".

2.5 Notification to Offerors/Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA): Offerors are advised that Non-Government personnel employed by the firms identified below may serve as advisor(s) in the source selection process. Non-government personnel are excluded from determining ratings and rankings of Offeror proposals. The Offeror shall enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements with the companies employing Non-Government advisors (see FAR 9.505-4(b)). The Offerors are required to enter into a NDA with each Non-Government company that may be used to support the evaluation of proposals submitted. Copies of these NDAs must be submitted as part of this proposal for Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) review. The Offeror shall identify all actual and potential OCI issues obstructing consent of the Offerors to provide access to its proprietary information to the company which employs the Non-Government advisor(s).

BTAS, INC

3572 Dayton-Xenia Rd.

Beavercreek, OH 45432

(937) 431-9431

Abacus Technology Corporation 5404 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1100 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (800)225-2135

Bevilacqua Research Corporation (BRC) 4901 Corporate Drive, Suite B Huntsville, AL 35805

(256) 882-6229

The following Federally Funded Research Development Corporations may support the Source Selection:

The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730

(781) 271-2000

3.0 Volume I Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1 Cover Letter

A letter of transmittal or executive cover letter shall be included within the proposal submission. This letter shall not exceed one (1) page in length. The cover letter shall state that the enclosed proposal is valid for the period stated in Section A of the Model Contract.

3.2 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise while addressing the significant risks and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features of the summary should tie in with Section M evaluation factors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

The Summary shall identify all major subcontractors and joint/or venture partners (hereafter defined as performing 20% or more of the proposal price) and provide a brief description of each major subcontractor(s) and/or joint venture partner(s) planned roles in the effort. A list of all participating divisions and locations (prime and major subcontractors and joint venture partners) shall be furnished and it shall be indicated whether teaming agreements have been executed for HCB DO or not. An organization chart of the proposed subcontractors, and joint venture partners shall be provided to show all key personnel (Offeror, subcontractors, joint venture partners, etc.) and to depict how the Offeror’s team fits within the specific business unit(s) responding to the DLE solicitation, Phone numbers for points of contact including the Division’s Vice President (VP), Program Manager (PM) and Contracting Manager shall be provided. The contact list shall also identify those personnel authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror’s company. Furthermore, the list shall indicate the person to contact in the event the Offeror is awarded a contract by providing, at a minimum, the contact’s title, phone number, email, fax number, and mailing address.

3.3 Table of Contents and Master Cross Reference Matrix (MCRM) Volume I shall include a table of contents and MCRM (Attachment L-5), based on paragraph numbering. The MCRM shall show how the proposal tracks to the solicitation.

4.0 Volume II – Factor 1: Technical

4.1 General

The Technical factor is comprised of three subfactors. The Offeror’s responses shall include Technical subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible, the actual methodology the Offeror will use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. The Offeror’s proposal submission represents acknowledgement that the Offeror will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. The Offeror shall not simply reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

The Offeror shall submit the proposal for the ID/IQ contract and for the HCB DO as one (1) document and shall address each subfactor and its associated criteria once.

The Technical Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Factor 1: Technical

a. Subfactor 1

b. Subfactor 2

c. Subfactor 3

(2) Glossary

4.3 Technical

In the Technical Volume, the Offeror(s) shall include an updated DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) OV-1 and SV-1 for the HCB DO SOW. The proposal shall clearly track the proposal paragraphs to each SOW paragraph through use of the MCRM (Attachment L-5).

The Offeror(s) shall provide a MCRM tracking the Offeror(s) technical proposal(s) to the subfactors/criteria listed in Section M002 EVALUATION FACTORS Paragraph 2.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design and Paragraph 2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM).

4.4 Technical Subfactor 1 - System Architecture and Design

4.4.1. Technical Approach

The Offeror shall document the technical approach in narrative format, with supporting figures and tables, and include a functional block diagram with subsystem interfaces for the HCB DO SOW.

4.4.2 Component or Design Risks

The Offeror shall describe the risks associated with the proposed design for the HCB DO SOW. The Offeror shall provide a Risk Matrix and mitigation strategy, with a focus on, but not limited to:

· Proposed BE-CDL Rev B terminal solution and implementation of the proposed waveform mode(s)

· Antenna pointing design for air to air communication, to include maintaining a link in a dynamic environment

· Ability to execute a flight demonstration of the proposed system

4.4.3 Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) Documentation

The Offeror shall identify all Critical Technology Elements (CTEs) for the proposed demonstration, and provide evidence that the CTEs have been demonstrated in a relevant environment. The Offeror shall provide empirical, lab demonstration, flight test or operational data to support values for all proposed TRLs of the system for the HCB DO SOW only.

The Offeror shall identify Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) as defined in the “Department of Defense (DoD) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance”, dated April 2011.

4.4.4 System Architecture and Interface

The Offeror shall identify the capabilities of the proposed system to include use of industry standards with non-proprietary solutions for the HCB DO SOW only:

· Provide a link budget analysis

· Provide an analysis supporting the proposed estimate of data link availability

4.5 Technical Subfactor 2 - Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM)

4.5.1 Overall Technical and Management Approach

The Offeror shall describe the following for the HCB DO SOW only:

· The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart and a narrative that describes the program management organization including dedicated program resources, teaming arrangements and subcontract management approach

· The Offeror shall provide Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) in accordance with the “DoD Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule Preparation and Use Guide”, Version 0.9, dated 21 Oct 2005. The IMS shall provide a summary of key program events and a set of detailed tasks and activities that are structured according to the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). All tasks/activities in the IMS shall be logically linked together showing predecessor/successor relationships. The IMS tasks/activities shall be directly traceable to the CWBS, SOW and CDRL. The IMS shall include a critical path analysis. The tasks identified in the IMS shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the entire program being proposed is executable within the resources and schedule proposed.

The Offeror shall describe the proposed cybersecurity risk management approach to identify changing threats and the system’s threat exposure, integrate cybersecurity risk management, appropriately mitigate threats and obtain cybersecurity certification for the ID/IQ SOW.

4.5.2 Certification and Accreditation

The Offeror shall describe the Offeror’s process for identifying and attaining any required certifications, assessment, and authorization for the ID/IQ SOW only.

· Cryptographic Type 1 certification

· Cybersecurity including vulnerability assessments/test, Interim Authority to Test (IATT) and Authority to Operate (ATO)

· Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) certification to verify compliance with the CDL family of specifications to include BE-CDL Rev. B.

5.0 Volume III – Factor 2: Past Performance

5.1 Past Performance Volume:

1. Summary

2. Business Relationships

3. Past Performance Information Sheets

4. Consent Letters

5. Organization Structure Change History

6. Client Authorization Letter

5.2 General

Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partners (as defined in Paragraph 2 (a) above)shall submit the Past Performance Information (PPI) in accordance with Attachment 6 L-1, L-2, L-3 and the page count(s) specified in Table 1- Proposal Organization for each relevant contract. Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partner shall complete the Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors IAW Attachment L-1. Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partner shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Information Questionnaire for the DLE ID/IQ Contract (Attachment L-2) to the relevant program (first priority), contracting (second priority), or administrative contracting (third priority) office for the efforts identified, with requests for the completed forms to be returned to the Government at the address identified.

Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partners shall submit past performance information on no more than seven (7) recent (within five (5) years) contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating ability to perform the proposed effort. Individual orders under the same ID/IQ contract may be cited separately if they are relevant.

The Offeror shall submit, along with the data required in this paragraph, a Consent Letter (Attachment L-3), executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting the release of their past performance information, including adverse information, to the Offeror so the Offeror can address any questions or issues regarding such information.

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter (Attachment L-4), authorizing release to the Government of requested data on the Offeror’s performance.

*Note: Consent Letters (Attachment L-3) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner authorizing release of adverse past performance data shall not be included in the page count for the Past Performance Volume.

The Offeror shall demonstrate recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements for the HCB DO SOW.

5.3 Recency Assessment

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.

5.4 Relevancy Assessment

For past performance to be considered relevant, the Offeror shall submit past performance performed by the same division proposing to the HCB DO SOW. Past Performance must be relevant to communication systems.

The Offeror shall provide a MCRM matrix tracking the narrative for the following relevant Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) experience. The following list of Past Performance Evaluation will be used in determining relevancy:

5.5 Quality of Products or Services

(This section intentionally left blank)

5.6 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

(This section intentionally left blank)

5.7 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

(This section intentionally left blank)

5.8 Organizational Structure Change History

The Offeror shall include in Volume III, a description of recent changes in the specific business unit(s) responding to the DLE RFP (limit to past five (5) years). A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts the Offeror identifies for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), the description should be both specifically applicable to the efforts the Offeror identifies and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6.0 Volume IV – Factor 3: Cost/Price

6.1 General Instructions

These instructions are to assist the Offeror in preparing and submitting Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3. The Government needs this information in order to properly evaluate the reasonableness, and balance of the Offeror's proposed Cost/Price. Additionally, this information will be used to properly evaluate the realism of the Cost Type CLINs. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to do so could result in the rejection of the proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness, realism, and balance. The burden of proof for credibility rests with the Offeror. Information beyond that required by these instructions shall not be submitted, unless the Offeror considers it essential to support their proposed Cost/Price.

All information regarding cost or pricing documentation must be included in the Cost/Price Volume and/or the Contract Documentation Volume. Under no circumstances shall any cost or pricing documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

6.1.1 Preliminary Determination of Adequate Price Competition The PCO has made a preliminary determination of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review this determination. If, in the PCO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; Offerors may be required to submit Certified Cost or Pricing Data in accordance with FAR 15.4.

6.1.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions

The Offeror shall include a general discussion of the ground rules and assumptions (e.g., contract type, contract items, delivery schedule, GFI/GFE/GFP, etc.) used to develop the proposed prices. All assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the cost/price proposal shall be addressed and explained. The Offeror shall list each exception to the instructions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the Cost/Price Volumes, if any. The Offeror shall provide complete rationale for any exceptions. Other ground rules and assumptions of the prospective contract should be provided in the appropriate sections of the proposal.

6.1.3 Estimating Techniques and Methods

When responding to the Cost/Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and major Subcontractors/IDTs (Interdivisional Transfers) may use any generally accepted estimating technique, including contemporary estimating methods (such as Cost-to-Cost and Cost-to-Non-Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs), commercially available parametric cost models, in-house developed parametric cost models, etc.), to develop their estimates. Estimating techniques/methods must be in accordance with their Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement, if applicable. If necessary, reasonable and supportable allocation techniques may be used to spread hours and/or cost.

6.1.4 Subcontractor/Interdivisional Transfer (IDT) Cost Proposals Any Subcontractor/IDT that will be responsible for 10% or more of the Cost Type effort shall be referred to as a “major Subcontractor/IDT” and must submit separate Cost/Price Volumes in accordance with the guidelines given to the Offeror. All other Subcontractor/IDT proposals should be integrated into the overall proposal by CLIN. If a Subcontractor/IDT considers any portion of cost documentation “proprietary”, preventing that portion from being fully integrated, that documentation shall be submitted under separate cover directly to the PCO. This documentation must be submitted by the same date and time the Offeror’s proposal is due to the PCO. This shall include a complete separate Cost/Price Volume, to include Cost Formats. The Offeror is responsible for the consistency of the cost data between the Offeror’s submission and the Subcontractor/IDT submission. Note: If the BOEs for an IDT or Subcontractor over the 10% threshold are included in the Offeror’s consolidated BOEs, the Subcontractor/IDT’s proposal is not required to include a separate BOE submission as long as there is a one-to-one match between BOEs and the Subcontractor/IDT’s proposal.

6.1.5 Delivery of Cost Proposals

In addition to submitting the cost proposal to the PCO, the Prime and major Subcontractors/IDTs shall deliver copies of each proposal to the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency/Contract Administrative Office (DCMA/CAO) and the cognizant Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA) office by the date and time specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation.

6.1.6 Rounding

All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar, except that all labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

6.1.7 Cost/Price using Fiscal Years

Proposals shall be based on the Contractor Fiscal Year (CFY). The Contractors shall identify their Contractor Fiscal Year.

6.2 Cost/Price Volume(s)

The Cost/Price volume(s) shall be prefaced by a table of contents and shall specify, by page number, where each cost format and each piece of narrative data is located. The Cost/Price Volumes shall provide comprehensive narrative support for the cost/price proposal(s). In addition, the Offeror shall provide a CLIN summary. The Cost/Price Volume(s) shall consist of the following sections:

SECTION A: N/A to IDIQ

SECTION B: DO

(a) Introduction (see paragraph 6.2.1)

(b) Subcontract/IDT Summary (see paragraph 6.2.2)

(c) Basis of Estimate (BOE) (see paragraph 6.2.3)

(d) Other Information (see paragraph 6.2.4)

(e) Cost Format Instructions – Submission of Cost Formats (see paragraph 6.2.5)

6.2.1 Introduction

The Offeror shall prepare a proposal summary that includes an introduction, overview, index, summary descriptions of estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems, and, if applicable, changes to approved/disclosed purchasing, estimating, accounting systems or Cost Accounting Standards Disclosure Statement.

6.2.1.1 Estimating System Summary

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of its standard Estimating System and methods. The summary description shall cover separately each major cost element (e.g., Direct Material, Engineering Labor, Manufacturing Labor, Indirect Costs, Other Direct Costs, Overhead, G&A, etc.). The Offeror shall identify any deviations from its standard estimating procedures in preparing this Cost/Price Volume. The Offeror shall indicate whether the Government has approved the system and, if so, provide evidence of such approval.

6.2.1.2 Purchasing System Summary

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of its Purchasing System and methods (e.g., how material requirements are determined, how sources are selected, when firm quotes are obtained, what provision is made to ensure quantity and other discounts). The Offeror shall identify any deviations from its standard procedures in preparing this proposal. The Offeror shall indicate whether the Government has approved the system and, if so, provide evidence of such approval.

6.2.1.3 Accounting System Summary

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of its Accounting System and methods. The Offeror shall identify any deviations from its standard procedures in preparing this proposal. The Offeror shall indicate whether the Government has approved the system and, if so, provide evidence of such approval.

6.2.1.4 Approved System for Performing Cost Type

The Offeror shall provide a current (within 12 months from date of proposal submittal) audit report, finding, or letter from the Offeror’s cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or DCAA office stating that the Offeror’s Accounting System has been approved and/or is adequate for Cost Type and FPIF contracts. If it has been over 12 months since the Accounting System was reviewed, the Offeror shall provide a statement that the Accounting System has not changed since being reviewed. If the Accounting System has changed, a certification shall be provided indicating that the changes have not impacted the approval or adequacy of the Accounting System. A Cost Type contract may only be awarded if the limitations in FAR 16.301-3 are met. This reference establishes limitations that the Contractor’s Accounting System must be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. Also, in accordance with FAR 16.403, no FPIF contract may be awarded unless the limitations in FAR 16.403-1(c)(1) are met. This reference establishes limitations that the Contractor’s Accounting System must be adequate for providing data to support negotiation of final cost and incentive price revision.

Therefore, no award can be made to an Offeror who’s Accounting System has not been determined to be adequate for Cost Type and FPIF contracts. This impacts all team members/Subcontractors/IDTs if the Prime anticipates awarding Cost Type and/or FPIF contracts to them. If no Cost Type and/or FPIF contracts are to be awarded, the Offeror shall so state. If Cost Type and/or FPIF contracts for team members/subcontracts/IDTs are to be awarded, the Offeror shall provide the necessary information from them.

6.2.1.5 Adequate Disclosure Statements

The Offeror shall provide a current (within 12 months from date of proposal submittal) audit report, finding, or letter from the Offeror’s cognizant DCMA ACO or DCAA office stating that the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement is adequate. If it has been over 12 months since the Disclosure Statement has been reviewed, the Offeror shall provide a statement that the Disclosure Statement has not changed since being reviewed. If the Disclosure Statement has changed, a certification shall be provided indicating that the changes have not impacted the approval or adequacy of the Disclosure Statement. In accordance with FAR 30.202-6, a contracting officer shall not award a CAS covered contract until the Cognizant Federal Agency Official (CFAO) has made a written determination that a required Disclosure Statement is adequate.