FA8818-12-R-0025 RSLP AS RFP.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

FA8818-12-R-0025

Attachment 5 Section L Appendix B

Part 3: Past Performance Information Form

ATTACHMENT 5

SECTION L APPENDIX B

PART 5

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM

Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program (citation) being described.

Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Provide a separate completed form for each contract/program submitted. Limit the number of citations submitted and the length of each submission to the limitations set forth in Sec L paragraph 2.8, Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation, of this solicitation.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division):____________________

CAGE Code:____________________

DUNS Number:____________________

B. Program Title:____________________

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer _____________________________________________

2. Contract Number__________________________________________________________

3. Contract Type __________________________

4. Period of Performance __________________________

5. Original Contract $ Value _________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

6. Current Contract $ Value _________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

7. If Amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason

D. Brief Description of Effort as __Prime or __Subcontractor (Please indicate whether it was development and/or production, or other acquisition phase (or Service) and highlight portions considered most relevant to current acquisition)

E. Completion Date:

1. Original date: ____________________

2. Current Schedule: ____________________

3. Estimate at Completion: ____________________

4. How Many Times Changed: ____________________

5. Primary Causes of Change: _______________________________________________________

F. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles).

1. Program Manager and/or Site Manager:

Name ____________________

Office ____________________

Address________________________________________

Telephone__________________

FAX Number_______________

2. Contracting Officer:

3. Administrative Contracting Officer:

G. Unique Capabilities: Address any technical (or other) area about this contract/program considered unique.

H. Subfactor Capabilities: For each of the applicable sub-factors under the Technical factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that sub-factor.

I. Key Personnel: Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.

J. Small Business Participation: Include relevant information concerning your compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, on the contract you are submitting.

K. Subcontracting Plan: Identify whether a subcontracting plan was required by the contract you are submitting. If one was required, identify, in percentage terms, the planned versus achieved goals during contract performance. If goals were not met, please explain.

L. Subcontract Participation: Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also, estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor, or a corporate division related to the prime (define relationship).

SECTION M -

Attachment 6

Section M

Section M Evaluation Criteria 30 May 2012

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1. 0 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), and as supplemented, modified herein, and current as of the date of release of this RFP. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price contract with a provision for Cost Plus Fixed Fee studies. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance, Technical Capability/Technical Risk, and Cost/Price.

The Contract 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 past performance and/or technical and/or overall business approach 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.

The Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussions. If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, then offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection.

2.0 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP) Aging Surveillance (AS) and Disposal Programs.

3.0 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is 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.

4.0 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 not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

5.0 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP).

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP by making all items in GFP List Attachment 3 available to all offerors.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 General Information

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: AS Testing & Analysis Subfactor 2: Engineering Support Subfactor 3: Motor/Component Disposal

Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Factors are listed above by relative order of importance, with Past performance being more important than Technical Capability, and Technical Capability being more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical Capability Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

2.0 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

In accordance with FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on paste performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorable on past performance.

2.2 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 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 Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 1.1. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

NO

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

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.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past six (6) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3 Relevancy 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 Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (paragraph 1.1). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. 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. The Government will use the following relevancy criteria when assessing whether contracts are recent or relevant:

Rating Criteria

VERY RELEVANT Performed aging surveillance of Peacekeeper (PK)/Minuteman (MM) motors and components identified in PWS Annex1: RSLP Test Matrix.

Performed disposal of RSLP specific motors.

RELEVANT Performed aging surveillance of Peacekeeper (PK)/Minuteman (MM) motors and some components identified in PWS Annex1: RSLP Test Matrix.

Performed disposal of ICBM class motors

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Performed aging surveillance of ICBM class motors and components. Capable of disposing ICBM class motors.

NOT RELEVANT No experience with aging surveillance of ICBM class motors. Additionally identifies actual capability to dispose of ICBM class motors.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions from Table 4 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures:

Rating Definition

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.

2.4 Performance Quality 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 Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. 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.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.5 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 Capability 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.

The Government will not make a contract award to any offeror receiving a rating of “No Confidence” in the Past Performance factor regardless of their rating on other factors.

3.0 Factor 2, Technical Capability Factor

The Technical Capability Factor will be evaluated against requirements in the PWS. The technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Capability Rating and the Technical Risk Rating, which have equal impact for the rating of each subfactor.

3.1 Technical Factor

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

3.2 Positive Consideration

Positive consideration may be given through a strength for aspects of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3.3 Definition of Rating Terms:

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

“Strength” is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. See DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 5.21.

“Significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

“Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001

3.1 Technical Capability Rating

The Technical Capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Capability subfactor requirements.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of requirements.

3.2 Technical Risk Rating

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

The Technical Capability subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpt below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement(s).

For any weakness(es) identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

3.3 Evaluation Criteria for Subfactor 1: Aging Surveillance (AS) Testing & Analysis

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

3.3.1 the offeror demonstrates sufficient ability to meet the AS testing requirements detailed in the PWS section three and the sustainment of critical capabilities and resources over the life of the contract. The offeror demonstrates reasonableness of the proposed Reliability of Flight Periods of Performance.

understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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.

3.3.2. the offeror also demonstrates a clear understanding of and sound approach for accomplishing trend analysis and for identifying when motors/components will need to be replaced or refurbished.

3.3.3 the offeror demonstrates how their proposed procedures meet the intent of the provided test plans. Clear and detailed risks demonstrate a thorough understanding of the AS testing process.

3.3.4 the offeror demonstrates full understanding of the representative study with emphasis on a logical approach to meeting the Special Study requirements, and adequate process metrics. The offeror’s labor breakdown ensures the right mix of personnel working the problem which demonstrates that the offeror understands the study requirements. The offeror demonstrates consideration for a balance between cost and timeliness under a framework of accuracy for all Special Study work.

3.4 Evaluation Criteria for Subfactor 2: Engineering Support

3.4.1 the offeror demonstrates adequate phasing of activities to meet the three work requirements listed in Sec L, paragraph 5.2.2.3. The offeror proposes a reasonable schedule for RoF testing, disposal and the Special Study. The offeror’s approach to meeting the PK SR119 requirements for the LADEE mission emphasizes early risk identification and mitigation and includes innovative approaches to ensuring no unexpected mission slip.

3.4.2 the offeror demonstrates clear understanding of the risks and mitigation strategies in accomplishing their Transition Plan and how it minimizes testing bias and schedule impacts.

Any additional testing and material that the offeror proposes as part of the Transition Plan are reasonable and justified. Particular evaluation focus will be placed on minimizing risk and keeping schedule as outlined in the proposed IMS.

3.4.3 the offeror demonstrates an effective Integrate Master Plan (IMP). The IMP demonstrates an effective process for IA compliance and how discrepancies are documented, tracked and closed. The IMP demonstrates an effective process for the reporting requirements for the conduct of contractually-imposed tasks, projects, or programs. The IMP demonstrates an effective implementation of the policies and responsibilities of the organization in how they are utilized to meet the requirements laid out in PWS section three. The government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e. assign a strength, to offerors that are ISO 9001 or AS9100 certified.

3.5 Evaluation Criteria for Subfactor 3: Motor/Component Disposal

3.5.1 the offeror demonstrates adequate facilities and infrastructure necessary to dispose of motors and components by the proposed method. The offeror demonstrates a sound and executable disposal method(s) necessary to meet the advertised annual throughput. The government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e. assign a strength, to methods deemed environmentally friendly, provided the offeror details how and to what extent it is more environmentally friendly than traditional methods.

3.5.2 the offeror demonstrates disposal methods that will successfully culminate in an annual throughput that, at a minimum, meets the requirements spelled out in PWS Annex 2. The government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e. assign a strength, to an approach which treats the annual throughput number as conservative in nature to ensure the number can be met with low risk.

3.5.3 the offeror demonstrates compliance with applicable environmental law associated with engine disposal per paragraph 3.1.2 of the PWS.

4.0 Factor 3:Cost/Price

The Government will evaluate the realism and reasonableness of each offerors' proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness.

4.1 Reasonableness of an offeror’s proposed cost/price will be evaluated using one or more of the cost and price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. 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 (reference FAR 31.201-3(a)).

4.2 Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low will be quantified by the Government evaluators. 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 determine that the offeror does not understand the technical requirements and is not able to meet the corresponding subfactors.

4.3 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the total of the following:

SoS prices, detailed on page two of the VSPT and Section B, CLINs 0001-0010.

RoF prices, needs to be priced in the VSPT and will be evaluated as if exercising every test each year to include the six months covered by Option to Extend Services.

Special Studies, price will be the estimated number of the hours (110,000), see Sec B002 a., times the weighted wrap rate calculated from the representative Special Study.

4.4 The Government will evaluate the disposal costs for reasonableness, but the cost for disposal will not be added into the Total Evaluated Price.

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

Attachment 7

OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist

SMC Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan Checklist

1 May 2007 Contractor Contract/RFP Number:

The contractor shall enter the page and line numbers from their OCI Mitigation Plan corresponding to each requirement listed on this form, and submit the completed form to the Contracting Officer (CO) along with each new and revised OCI Mitigation Plan. If subcontractor or other teammate OCI Mitigation Plan(s) is submitted, each Plan shall include a completed checklist. Mark items that are not applicable “N/A.”

1.0 General Considerations Page/Line

1.1 Clear statement of corporate commitment and sensitivity of OCI for this acquisition.

1.2 Plan signed by senior corporate official Vice President of above.

1.3 Corporate commitment to certify annual compliance with OCI Plan.

1.4 Description of business unit performing contract effort position within corporate structure clearly explained.

1.5 Parent organization chart is included in the Plan.

1.6 Performing business unit (division, sector, subsidiary, affiliate, etc) organization chart is included in the Plan.

2.0 Definitions

2.1 Definitions of all terms used are included in the Plan.

2.2 Identification of any definitions, from solicitation/contract Section H OCI Provision, altered, added or deleted is described in the Plan with rationale for deviation.

2.3 Definitions of all acronyms used in the Plan are included.

3.0 Description of the OCI Situation

3.1 Description of OCI situation(s)/role(s) included in Plan.

3.2 All actual or potential OCI described in the Plan.

3.3 OCI situations are identified by contract number and customer.

3.4 Plan contains detailed explanation of the factors that place the contractor in an OCI situation.

3.5 Plan identifies if subcontractors or other teammates have OCI situation.

3.6 Plan identifies subcontractor or other teammate OCI Mitigation Plans.

3.7 Subcontractor or other teammate OCI Mitigation Plans are attached to prime Plan.

4.0 Management of OCI Mitigation Plan

4.1 Individual responsible for oversight and administration of the Plan is identified by name and place in company/business unit organizational structure.

4.2 Individual responsible for maintaining documentation related to Plan is identified by name and place in company/business unit organizational structure.

4.3 Plan identifies location where Plan documentation is maintained and the location is easily accessible by the Government Contracting Officer or auditor.

4.4 Corporate OCI-related policies and procedures are identified.

4.5 Any corporate policies and procedures referenced in the instant Plan are in writing and attached to the Plan.

4.6 Processes and procedures to execute the Plan are in place to effectively execute the Plan.

4.7 Processes and procedures to execute the Plan are clearly described in the Plan.

4.7.1 Process for advance notification to Government PCO of addition, deletion, or change to Plan team members is described and complies with contract Section H OCI provision.

4.7.2 Process for timely notification to Government PCO of OCI Plan violation or appearance of violation is described and complies with contract Section H OCI provision.

4.7.3 If OCI is one of bias or impaired objectivity, plan includes more than firewalls or methods for protection of data. Process for de-conflicting contract data submittals to mitigate impaired objectivity or bias is described and complies with contract Section H OCI provision or methods are described. For example: assignment of work to non-conflicted subcontractors (along with how such subcontractors are to be managed); or independent review of work product to insure it is free from bias or impaired objectivity.

4.8 Plan describes how organizational separation will be used as an OCI mitigation tool.

4.9 Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statements are in place.

4.10 Cost estimating systems and cost collection systems are in place.

4.11 The business unit for this contract action has provisional billing rates and separate labor rate structures in place.

4.12 Plan describes how physical/geographic separation will be used as an OCI mitigation tool.

4.13 Physical workspace separation with controlled access areas is used in addition to separation provided within the program areas where sensitive information is involved.

4.14 Badge accesses are used for separation and control.

4.15 Data separation and protection processes and procedures are in place.

4.16 Separate computers and networks are maintained with adequate firewalls to preclude data from being accessed outside program/project channels.

4.17 Government-approved electronic isolation is used (e.g. restricted access on shared drives)

4.18 Electronic data is sufficiently password-protected among all personnel to preclude inadvertent release of sensitive information.

4.19 Plan requires obtaining consent from other contractors prior to releasing their proprietary information for legitimate program purposes.

4.20 Access lists are used to document those with restricted access to potential OCI material and information.

4.21 Plan describes the process for ensuring access lists are current and accurate.

4.22 Release and approval procedures are in place to preclude release of either hardcopy or softcopy information (including email) without prior approval and screening.

4.23 Plan describes the person to approve release of hardcopy or softcopy information and their placement in the program/contract organization.

4.24 Document marking procedures are clearly described to control program/project reports and products, as well as sensitive information of the Government or other contractors.

4.25 Storage containers and procedures are described for safeguarding program/project material and sensitive information of the Government or other contractors.

5.0 Management of Personnel

5.1 Plan meets the minimum employment restrictions contained in the solicitation/contract

Section H OCI provision.

5.2 Employment restrictions apply, as a minimum, to classes of employees as described in the solicitation/contract Section H OCI provision.

5.3 Any deviation from the employment restrictions described in the solicitation/contract is clearly indicated in the Plan with rationale and alternative mitigation techniques.

5.4 Personnel policies mitigate rotation of personnel on new tasks to avoid biased judgment or impaired objectivity.

5.5 Corporate policies on assignment of personnel to mitigate OCI are described in the Plan and attached to the Plan.

5.6 Employee transfers are limited to preclude the inadvertent flow of sensitive information to competing part of the company where inside information could be used inappropriately.

5.7 OCI training and awareness briefings of all personnel working on the program/project are identified in the Plan.

5.8 Persons or classes of persons working on the program/project not subject to OCI training and awareness briefings is identified in the Plan with rationale and description of alternate OCI mitigation techniques.

5.9 Plan describes frequency of training and awareness briefings (not less than annually).

5.10 Plan describes how training completion is documented and where maintained.

5.11 Plan describes requirements for program/project personnel to execute Non-Disclosure

Agreements (NDA) to protect proprietary and other sensitive information.

Plan describes process for determining personal conflicts of interest of individuals.

5.12 Plan describes requirements for debriefing personnel who executed NDAs upon transfer, reassignment, change of employers, or retirement.

5.13 NDAs require protection of information in perpetuity or for some designated period.

NDA remains in effect from the date of signature until two years after completion of participation on the developmental effort.

5.14 Plan describes how personnel involvement in Government source selection activities is restricted when parts of the parent company are competing in OCI-impacted efforts.

5.15 Plan describes how personnel are disciplined for non-compliance with the Plan.

5.16 Plan description of discipline for non-compliance with the Plan is sufficient to clarify the stratification in discipline commensurate with the severity of the offense.

5.17 Plan specifies how and where disciplinary actions are documented.

6.0 OCI Mitigation Plan Reviews

6.1 Plan provides for corporation oversight and audit of OCI processes and procedures.

6.2 Plan specifies frequency of corporate audits.

6.3 Plan requires annual certification of compliance with the terms of the Plan, signed by a senior corporate official Vice President or above.

6.4 Plan specifies where Plan certification documentation is maintained.

DRAFT

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD 1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 350)

RATING

DO-A2

PAGE OF PAGES

1 22

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. SOLICITATION NO. 4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

5. DATE ISSUED

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.

7. ISSUED BY SD/PKTE CODE FA8818 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If other than Item 7)

SD/PKT

CONTRACTING DIVISION

3548 ABERDEEN AVE SE

KIRTLAND AFB, NM 87117-5778

SUSAN L. ALLEY (505) 853-4273

SUSAN.ALLEY@KIRTLAND.AF.MIL

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations “offer” and “offeror” mean “bid” and “bidder”.

SOLICITATION

9. Request for Proposal (RFP) and Model Contract for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal Offers will be received at the issuing office until (time) TBD pm on (date) TBD.

Late offers are subject to Late Proposal provisions incorporated herein. All offers are subject to such provisions, representations, certifications, and specifications as are attached or incorporated by reference.

10. FOR

INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME

See Block 7

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code)

(NO COLLECT CALLS)

C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

() SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) () SEC DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM 1 I CONTRACT CLAUSES 15

B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS 2 PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, AND OTHER ATTACH.

C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT 8 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 22

D PACKAGING AND MARKING 9 PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 10 K REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, K - 1

F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 11 AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 12 L INSTRS, CONDS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS L - 1

H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 13 M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD M - 1

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within ____ ____ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date of receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

10 CALENDAR DAYS

20 CALENDAR DAYS

30 CALENDAR DAYS

CALENDAR DAYS

14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amend-

AMENDMENT NO. DATE AMENDMENT NO. DATE

ments to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated:

15A. NAME

AND

CODE FACILITY 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

ADDRESS

OF

OFFEROR

15B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

17. SIGNATURE 18. OFFER DATE

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETI-

TION: 23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

ITEM

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( )

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

28. AWARD DATE

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA ConWrite Version 6.13.1 FAR (48 CFR) 53.21(c) Created 30 May 2012 10:46 AM

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

SECTION B FA8818-12-R-0025

Qty Unit Price ITEM SUPPLIES OR SERVICES Purch Unit Total Item Amount

Basic: Core Effort Safety of Storage (SoS) FY13 0001 $__________ Noun: BASIC: CORE EFFORT SAFETY OF STORAGE (SoS) FY13 DD1423 is Exhibit: A Contract type: J - FIRM FIXED PRICE Start Date: *15 NOV 2012 Completion Date: *14 NOV 2013 Descriptive Data:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in accordance with Attachment 2 Variable Service Pricing Table (VSPT) The contractor shall provide Safety of Storage (SoS) Engineering Support, Safety of Storage Annual Summary Report, Aging Surveillance (AS) Related Storage and Handling, Igniter Dissections, Gas Generator (GG) Dissections, Nozzle/RC Gas Generator Dissections, Motor Dissect/Plugging, Propellant Properties Testing and Analysis and Propellant Hazards Testing in accordance with Attachment 1 entitled "Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS) for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal" dated 30 May 2012 paragraphs 3.2.1.1 - 3.2.1.8.

*Start and end dates of Performance Schedule for CLIN will be adjusted accordingly, if necessary, to accomodate actual contract award date and a one-year performance period.

Basic: FFP Data FY13 - NSP

0002 NSP

Noun: BASIC: FFP DATA FY13 - NSP DD1423 is Exhibit: A Contract type: J - FIRM FIXED PRICE Start Date: ASREQ Completion Date: ASREQ Descriptive Data:

The contractor shall provide Data in accordance with Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) for all FFP CLINs exercised for FY13. Not Separately Priced (NSP) - included in CLIN 0001 Core Effort

CPFF Data - NSP

0003 NSP

Noun: CPFF DATA - NSP

ACRN: U

DD1423 is Exhibit: A Contract type: U - COST PLUS FIXED FEE Start Date: ASREQ Completion Date: ASREQ Descriptive Data:

The contractor shall provide Data in accordance with Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) for all CPFF CLINs. Not Separately Priced (NSP) - included in Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Special Studies Option

Option 1: Core Effort Safety of Storage (SoS) FY14 1001 OPTION CLIN (service) $__________ Noun: OPTION 1: CORE EFFORT SAFETY OF STORAGE (SOS) FY14 DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in accordance with Attachment 2 Variable Service Pricing Table (VSPT) The contractor shall provide Safety of Storage (SoS) Engineering Support, Safety of Storage Annual Summary Report, Aging Surveillance (AS) Related Storage and Handling, Igniter Dissections, Motor Dissect/Plugging, Propellant Properties Testing and Analysis Testing in accordance with Attachment 1 entitled "Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS) for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal" dated 30 May 2012 paragraphs 3.2.2.1 - 3.2.2.6.

*Performance Schedule: 15 November 2013 - 14 November 2014

Option 1: FFP Data FY14 - NSP 1002 OPTION CLIN (service) NSP Noun: OPTION 1: FFP DATA FY14 - NSP DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

The contractor shall provide Data in accordance with Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) for all FFP CLINs exercised for FY14. Not Separately Priced (NSP) - included in CLIN 1001 Core Effort

Option 2: Core Effort Safety of Storage (SoS) FY15 2001 OPTION CLIN (service) $__________ Noun: OPTION 2: CORE EFFORT SAFETY OF STORAGE (SOS) FY15 DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in accordance with Attachment 2 Variable Service Pricing Table (VSPT) The contractor shall provide Safety of Storage (SoS) Engineering Support, Safety of Storage Annual Summary Report, Aging Surveillance (AS) Related Storage and Handling, Igniter Dissections, Gas Generator (GG) Dissections, Nozzle/RC Gas Generator Dissections, Motor Dissect/Plugging, Propellant Properties Testing and Analysis and Propellant Hazards Testing Testing in accordance with Attachment 1 entitled "Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS) for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal" dated 30 May 2012 paragraphs 3.2.1.1 - 3.2.1.8.

*Performance Schedule: 15 November 2014 - 14 November 2015

Option 2: FFP Data FY15 - NSP 2002 OPTION CLIN (service) NSP Noun: OPTION 2: FFP DATA FY15 - NSP DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

The contractor shall provide Data in accordance with Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) for all FFP CLINs exercised for FY15. Not Separately Priced (NSP) - included in CLIN 2001 Core Effort

Option 3: Core Effort Safety of Storage (SoS) FY16 3001 OPTION CLIN (service) $__________ Noun: OPTION 3: CORE EFFORT SAFETY OF STORAGE (SoS) FY16 DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in accordance with Attachment 2 Variable Service Pricing Table (VSPT) The contractor shall provide Safety of Storage (SoS) Engineering Support, Safety of Storage Annual Summary Report, Aging Surveillance (AS) Related Storage and Handling, Igniter Dissections, Motor Dissect/Plugging, Propellant Properties Testing and Analysis Testing in accordance with Attachment 1 entitled "Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS) for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal" dated 30 May 2012 paragraphs 3.2.2.1 - 3.2.2.6.

*Performance Schedule: 15 November 2015 - 14 November 2016

OPTION 3: FFP Data FY16 - NSP 3002 OPTION CLIN (service) NSP Noun: OPTION 3: FFP DATA FY16 - NSP DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

The contractor shall provide Data in accordance with Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) for all FFP CLINs exercised for FY16. Not Separately Priced (NSP) - included in CLIN 3001 Core Effort

Option 4: Core Effort Safety of Storage (SoS) FY17 4001 OPTION CLIN (service) $__________ Noun: OPTION 4: CORE EFFORT SAFETY OF STORAGE (SoS) FY17 DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) in accordance with Attachment 2 Variable Service Pricing Table (VSPT) The contractor shall provide Safety of Storage (SoS) Engineering Support, Safety of Storage Annual Summary Report, Aging Surveillance (AS) Related Storage and Handling, Igniter Dissections, Gas Generator (GG) Dissections, Nozzle/RC Gas Generator Dissections, Motor Dissect/Plugging, Propellant Properties Testing and Analysis and Propellant Hazards Testing Testing in accordance with Attachment 1 entitled "Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS) for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal" dated 30 May 2012 paragraphs 3.2.1.1 - 3.2.1.8.

*Performance Schedule: 15 November 2016 - 14 November 2017

OPTION 4: FFP Data FY17 - NSP 4002 OPTION CLIN (service) NSP Noun: OPTION 4: FFP DATA FY17 - NSP DD1423 is Exhibit: A Descriptive Data:

The contractor shall provide Data in accordance with Exhibit A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) for all FFP CLINs exercised for FY17. Not Separately Priced (NSP) - included in CLIN 4002 Core Effort

NOTICE: The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated in full text:

SD/PKT-B001 FIRM FIXED PRICE (FFP) OPTIONS (MAY 2012)

a. At any time during the contract period of performance the Government has the right to unilaterally exercise Options listed in Attachment 2 "Peacekeeper (PK) and Minuteman II (MM II) Rocket Motors Aging Surveillance (AS) and Motor Disposal Variable Services Pricing Table (VSPT)" in the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) amount for which the Option Service is exercised. Any Pre-Priced Option Service purchased under this provision must be completed within the performance schedule specified in the VSPT.

b. The "Reliability of Flight Engineering Support" Service Option No. 11 in Attachment 2 VSPT for the applicable motor/period must be exercised if any of the “Reliability of Flight” Pre-Priced Option Services, including “Motor Disposal”, listed in Attachment 2 VSPT are to be exercised.

c. When exercised, Option Service Nos. 1 - 15 listed in Attachment 2 VSPT shall be established in Section B as CLINs 0004 - 0999 for FY13 Options; CLINs 1000 - 1999 for FY14 Options; CLINs 2000 - 2999 for FY15 Options; CLINs 3000 - 3999 for FY16 Options; CLINs 4000 - 4999 for FY17 Options; and CLINs 5000 - 5999 for the six month Option Extension.

SD/PKT-B002 COST-PLUS FIXED FEE (CPFF) SPECIAL STUDIES OPTIONS (MAY 2012)

a. At any time during the contract period of performance the Government has the right to unilaterally exercise this Option to acquire Special Studies in accordance with paragraph 3.5 "Special Studies" of Attachment 1 "Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS) for Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) Peacekeeper…