DLE_IDIQ_-_Section_L_Rev22__3-27-2017.docx

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

DATA LINK ENTERPRISE (DLE)

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/ INDEFINITE QUANTITY (ID/IQ)

27 March 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

i

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 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 is a Best Value Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with the 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.

(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. For the Best Value Tradeoff award determination, the evaluation for Factor 1: Technical will be based on the Offeror’s proposal(s) for both the DLE ID/IQ contract and the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration (FA8726-17-F-0009). For Factor 2: Past Performance the Best Value Tradeoff award evaluation will be based on Past Performance Information submitted by the Offeror(s) and/or obtained from Government databases. For Factor 3: Cost/Price the Best Value Tradeoff award evaluation will be limited to the cost/price proposal for the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration (FA8726-17-F-0009).

The Government intends to award to each ID/IQ awardee a Delivery Order for a FFP Post Award Conference (FA8726-17-F-0008) 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 (FA8726-17-F-0009) to one (1) or more DLE ID/IQ awardees. For the Best Value Tradeoff award determination, the cost/price evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s cost proposal for FA8726-17-F-0009.

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 FA8726-17-F-0009, SOW and CDRL. The Offeror(s) may submit each proposal as stand-alone documents or consolidate them into one (1) document. 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 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 Factor: 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 “original” proposal shall be identified. 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: Edna C. Alonis, Procurement Contracting Officer. 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 Offeror and each of its subcontractors/teaming partners 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). The Offeror shall submit all NDAs under Volume V. The Offeror shall contact the following POCs:

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 FA8726-17-F-0009 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 Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. The Offeror’s responses will be evaluated against the 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. It is not necessary or desirable to tell us so in the proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

The Offeror shall describe the technical and management approach to Data Link Enterprise.

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

(1) List of Table and Drawings

(2) Glossary

(3) MCRM

(4) Factor 1: Technical

a. Subfactor 1

i. Risk Matrix

b. Subfactor 2

i. Risk Matrix

c. Subfactor 3

4.3 Technical

In the Technical Volume, address the technical processes and solution for meeting the Government’s requirements of each technical subfactor for both the ID/IQ SOW and FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW. The proposal shall clearly track the proposal paragraphs to each SOW through use of the MCRM (Attachment L-5).

Within the technical factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for the ID/IQ contract concurrently with the Offeror’s proposal for FA8726-17-F-0009. The Offeror(s) may submit each proposal as stand-alone documents or consolidate them into one (1) document. The Offeror(s) are only required to address each subfactor and its associated criteria once.

The Offeror(s) shall provide a matrix 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 and provide a complete technical approach, technical processes and solution, that demonstrates an understanding and satisfies the requirements of both the ID/IQ SOW and FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW. The Offeror shall provide any performance analysis that supports the discussion of how the Offeror’s proposed solution satisfies the FA8726-17-F-0009 requirements. The proposal shall clearly track the proposal paragraphs to each SOW through use of the MCRM (Attachment 5).

4.4.2 Hardware and Software (HW and SW) Development

The Offeror shall describe the design approach for:

· The proposed processor types, algorithms, firmware, and buses

· The security attributes of the proposed design

· The incorporation of modularity and open systems design

· The proposed HW and SW development environment to include ensuring all relevant personnel are properly cleared and trained in hardware and/or software information assurance

· The proposed HW and SW vulnerability analyses (including tools and training)

· Reuse, changed or modified software and firmware

4.4.3 Component or Design Risks

The Offeror shall describe the risks associated with the proposed design with a focus on:

· Proposed BE-CDL Rev B terminal solution and the risks associated with implementing the proposed waveform mode(s) on that terminal

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

· Offeror’s ability to execute a flight demonstration of the proposed system

· Reuse, changed or modified software and firmware to include a description of where the code was previously used, if applicable

4.4.4 Critical Technology Elements (CTE)

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

4.4.5 System Architecture and Interface

The Offeror shall identify the capability of proposed system architecture and interfaces to:

· Allow data sharing among networked components

· Implement industry standards with non-proprietary solutions

The Offeror shall describe the maturity of the technical solution/ approach and how the technical solution/ approach meets the DLE requirements. Positive consideration will be awarded to proposals that meet or exceed the following Objective requirements in FA8726-17-F-0009:

· SOW paragraph 3.3.4 for availability measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold value for range and data rate as specified in FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW paragraph 3.3.5

· SOW paragraph 3.3.5 for data rates measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold and Objective range as specified in FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW paragraph 3.3.5

· SOW paragraph 3.3.5 for ranges measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold and Objective data rate as specified in FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW paragraph 3.3.5

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

4.5.1 Overall Technical and Management Approach

The Offeror shall provide a description of the Offeror’s technical capabilities and management structure that demonstrates the capacity to meet the range and scope of the DLE ID/IQ SOW.

The Offeror shall provide a description of the Offeror’s approach to conduct FA8726-17-F-0009 that meets all capabilities, functions, integration, performance and environmental requirements.

The Offeror shall describe engineering processes for SE & PM. In describing the proposed SE & PM approach, the Offeror shall specifically:

· Document and provide the program management organization including dedicated program resources, teaming arrangements and subcontract management approach

· Document and provide the reasonableness, adequacy, and completeness of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) to reflect an adequate understanding of the program requirements and demonstrate a sound approach to meeting those requirements: identify program tasks, major events, identify appropriate criteria (including technical review entry and exit criteria) to achieve those accomplishments, and identify the critical path; reflect an integrated system engineering and program management approach for developing and delivering products; and, provide an efficient path leading to readiness for production

· The proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) shall be in accordance with the “DoD Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule Preparation and Use Guide”, Version 0.9, dated 21 Oct 2005 for the proposed contract effort and the Integrated Program Management Report Data Item Description DI-MGMT-81861. IMS tasks shall be directly traceable to the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), SOW(s), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and IMP. The IMS shall include a critical path analysis and a near-critical path analysis. The IMS shall include subcontracted activities and address dependencies with other external organizations. It shall include technical reviews in accordance with the requirements of the Government SOW. The IMS information shall be a separate section of the Technical Capability Volume

· Document and provide the proposed Risk Management approach to include analysis of the top technical, schedule, and cost risks associated with the proposed design solutions as well as the mitigation strategies for the top risks In describing system engineering processes and technical approach to execute the development, production and system-platform integration efforts the Offeror shall specifically include the following:

· The proposed method in which the Offeror’s HSI and safety approach will result in an intuitive, simple (HMI) design that ensures easy user accessibility, assures access for remove and replace maintenance actions, and minimizes the need for training

· The proposed processes to address CDL design standardization, logistics efficiencies and minimal impact on the support infrastructure

· 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

· The proposed security procedures/processes for establishing and maintaining a secure environment and personnel for development effort(s), including storing and transmitting classified information up to appropriate security levels

· The proposed Data Management approach

· The proposed Configuration Management approach

· The proposed Quality Assessment approach

· The proposed Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) procedures and processes approach

· The proposed software to be outsourced as well as the specific organization to which it will be outsourced

4.5.2 Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) Documentation

The Offeror shall provide empirical, lab demonstration, flight test or operational data to support values for all proposed TRLs of the system.

The Offeror shall provide a suitable, sound and efficient approach to conduct and support testing, to ensure the system is mature (meets TRL 4), stable, and will pass Government testing, including information assurance, software assurance, and interoperability.

4.5.3 Certification and Accreditation

Describe the process for identifying and attaining any required certifications, assessment, and authorization. Include a discussion on the events, technical reviews, milestone activities, planned risk reduction activities, dependencies, planned deliverables, and any other associated relevant items associated with certification activities, including but not limited to:

· Cryptographic Type 1 certification

· Cybersecurity including vulnerability assessments/test, Interim Authority to Test (IATT), Interim Authority to Operate (IATO) for 90 days 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.

4.5.4 Asset Protection

The Offeror shall describe the Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) and Anti Tamper (AT) processes. The Offeror shall identify Critical Program Information (CPI) and Critical Technologies (CTs) and describe how CPI and CTs will be protected.

4.5.5 Data Rights

All data rights to be delivered under this contract shall be considered “Unlimited” unless the contractor asserts restrictions on these rights. All technical data, software and firmware deliverables, including required development tools, for which the Offeror asserts less than “Unlimited Rights”, shall be listed in a Data Rights Assertions List IAW DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

Describe the number and type of proposed restrictions on the data rights (including evaluation of data rights in key components and interfaces) to be delivered under this contract and the risks imposed to future sustainment and modification of systems/end items to be delivered under this contract. Describe how the data rights will facilitate the future sustainment and modification of DLE by the Government or a third party.

4.5.6 Licenses

All licenses pertaining to technical data for commercial items or noncommercial items; or commercial and non-commercial computer software; and firmware shall be identified and mapped to associated CDRLs, CLINs, SOW paragraphs and system architecture components.

4.6 Technical Subfactor 3 - Small Business

4.6.1 Small Business Plan

All proposals will be evaluated as to the extent of participation of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns. The targets submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-24, and Section L paragraph 7.4.4 will be incorporated into and become part of the contract.

The Contracting Office (CO) will review the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for compliance with the requirements identified in FAR 19.704. If the Offeror fails to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the CO, the Offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award.

4.6.2 Small Business Participation

Provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with paragraph 7.4.4. Small business participation is applicable to and will be evaluated for “other than small business” proposals only.

The Government will evaluate and rate the Offeror’s small business participation based on the rating the Offeror received on the most recent Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Review of Contractor’s Subcontracting Program, DCMA Form 640 or equivalent. The Government will assign a Technical Rating of “Acceptable” for any DCMA Form 640 rating above “Unsatisfactory”. The Government will assign a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” for any DCMA Form 640 rating of “Unsatisfactory”. For Offerors that do not have a DCMA Form 640 review, the Government will base the evaluation and rating on the most recent rating the Offeror received according to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DCMA and the U.S. Small Business Administration, dated November 12, 2009. “Acceptable” is defined as anything other than an “Unsatisfactory” rating according to Attachment 1 to the MOU. For any Offeror that does not have a DCMA Form 640 or equivalent, the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” for this subfactor.

For Offerors that have a Defense Contract Management Agency (DMCA) Review of Contractor’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Program (DCMA Form 640), submit the cognizant DCMA office Point of Contact (POC), email, phone number, and address.

For those Offerors, other than small businesses, that do not have a DCMA Form 640 Review, submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, addressing the extent to which the Offeror identifies and commits to the participation of Small Businesses (SB), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), and Minority Institutions (MI) whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. Failure to submit such a plan will render the Offeror ineligible for award.

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) is requested to 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 is requested to complete the Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors IAW Attachment L-1. Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partner is also requested to 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 ten (10) 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, authorizing release of adverse past performance data to the Offeror so that the Offeror can respond to such data.

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.

Evaluation of past performance will assess the probability of the Offeror’s proposal(s) meeting the solicitation requirements, including cost and schedule. The Past Performance Evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements for FA8726-17-F-0009. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. Each Offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4- Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Offerors must demonstrate positive control over business units that performed on such submitted contracts. 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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, DCMA, and commercial sources.

There are three aspects to the Past Performance Evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

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

5.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror(s) is to FA8726-17-F-0009. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. For past performance to be considered relevant, it must have been performed by the same division proposing to perform on FA8726-17-F-0009. Past performance relevancy will be assessed as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4- Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

The following list of Past…