Attachment_3_-_Section_L.pdf

Compressor Rotor Blades

FA9101-17-R-1000

Attachment 3

SECTION L

AEDC-L001, INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) – Initial Source Selection for Phase I, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Design

L-1.0. Introduction and Overview

This acquisition will be a source selection comprised of a two-phase procurement approach. The Initial Source Selection for Phase I may yield contracts to three offerors with a Final Downselect for Phase II to one contractor following Technical Design Review (TDR). The Initial Source Selection for Phase I will result in the award for the compressor rotor blade design and analysis.

In the Initial Source Selection for Phase I, the Government will conduct a full and open competition to narrow the competitive field down to no more than three contractors that will execute the compressor rotor blade design and analysis and proceed to the Final Downselect for Phase II. The Initial Source Selection for Phase I instructions and evaluation criteria can be found in Section L001, Instructions to Offerors - Initial Source Selection for Phase I, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Design, and Section M001, Evaluation Basis for Award - Initial Source Selection for Phase I, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Design. The contracts will contain options for the execution of the program beyond the basic contract. The Final Downselect for Phase II source selection will determine which contract may be modified by exercising the option for contract line item numbers (CLINs) 0003-0004. The Government plans to exercise any subsequent options to a single contractor but may exercise options to more than one. The determination of whether or not to exercise options will be based on evaluation criteria spelled out in the Section M002, Evaluation Basis for Award - Final Downselect for Phase II, Manufacture of Wind Tunnel Compressor Blades, and the information requested by Section L002, Instructions to Offerors, Final Downselect for Phase II, Manufacture of Wind Tunnel Compressor Blades. The successful offeror(s) for Phase II may complete the design, build prototypes, perform full scale testing, build Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) blades and then may proceed to manufacture of the blades. After the downselect determination for Phase II is made, the Government does not plan to exercise any additional contract options for the unsuccessful offerors.

The Government will conduct an initial evaluation of all proposal volumes upon receipt and develop Evaluation Notices (ENs) that will be forwarded to offerors immediately after the PCO makes a competitive range determination and opens discussions with the offerors. Once discussions are complete, Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested. Contract awards will take place after FPRs have been received / evaluated and final clearances / approvals to award the contracts are granted.

L-1.1. Program Structure and Objectives

The Wind Tunnel Compressor Rotor Blade Program is for the design and manufacture of compressor rotor blades for AEDC’s Tunnel 16T wind tunnel. Tunnel 16T is the largest transonic tunnel in the U.S. and provides critical aerodynamic test and evaluation (T&E) data

Atch 3 necessary for flight vehicle development. A single main compressor, designated Compressor C1, provides the primary air flow in Tunnel 16T. Compressor C1 has an inlet diameter of 30.2-

ft. and has three rotor stages containing a total of 97 compressor blades. The compressor also has variable-pitch stators located at the compressor inlet, between each rotor (stage), and at the exit. The rotor blade rows (stages) differ by the number of blades and the blade-to-rotor attachment angle. The rotor blades differ only by the geometry of the blade cuff (a different cuff is used for each rotor stage). The rotor blades are cambered, twisted, and tapered. The rotor blades are a composite fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) construction with metal reinforced blade-roots and pin-bushings at the blade-to-adaptor interface. The rotor blades are ~7.0-ft. tall.

The AEDC mission is to provide developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) to Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), other Air Force Major Commands (AF MAJCOMs), Department of Defense (DoD), and other users. AEDC also performs tests for foreign governments and companies when so required. AEDC is a test facility of the DoD Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) managed by the Air Force as outlined in DoD Directive 3200.11.

L-2.0. General Instructions

(a) The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for the Initial Source Selection for Phase I, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Design solicitation. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW) for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blade Structural Design / Analysis, Tooling, Test Units, and Manufacturing; and Equipment / Service Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blade Structural Design / Analysis, Tooling, Testing Units, and Manufacturing., Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and solicitation. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) 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 their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

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

(d) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the contract documentation volume that the proposal is valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from release of the Request for Proposal (RFP). This period may be extended upon the mutual agreement of the Offeror and the Contracting Officer.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the

Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

L-2.1. General Information

L-2.1.1. Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer, Mr. Vincent “Kelly” Pitts, is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contracting Officer at vincent.pitts@us.af.mil.

L-2.1.2. Debriefings

The Contracting Officer 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 debriefing for each proposal. The Contracting Officer 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 make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

L-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 Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the Contracting Officer to consider as related to the omission or error.

L-2.1.4. Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

L-2.1.5. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website at https://www.fbo.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

http://www.fbo.gov/

L-2.1.6. Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the Subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via other means as appropriate such as the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE).

L-2.2. Organization / Number of Copies / Page Limits

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table

2.2 below). 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 2.2. The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

Volume Paragraph Number

Volume Title Copies (Electronic

/ Paper)

Page Limit / Goal

I 3.0 Technical (2 / 4) 75 / NA II 4.0 Past Performance (2 / 4) NA III 5.0 Cost / Price (2 / 1) NA / NA IV 6.0 Contract Documentation (2 / 2) NA / NA

L-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, glossaries, tabs, and cross-reference matrix.

L-2.2.1.1. 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 pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be typed with single line spacing.

Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12-point Times New Roman font. 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 also 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 uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page (i.e., information shall only be on one side of the 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 8 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

L-2.2.2. Cost or Pricing Related Data

L-2.2.2.1. Cost Information

All cost or pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost / Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Cost trade-off 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 trade-off decisions.

L-2.2.2.2. Cost or Pricing Information Requirements

Provide a sufficiently detailed proposal to demonstrate reasonableness, realism, and balance.

Submit cost or pricing information in accordance with Attachment L-9, Cost Model, following the instructions within the attachment. If the Contracting Officer determines there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, then the Offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data. The burden of proof for the credibility of proposed cost / prices rests with the Offeror. Offerors may add worksheets to the cost model to ensure all cost data is included and that formulas can be interlinked. Offerors may modify the provided formulas, when required, for consistency with disclosed accounting practices. Changes to provided formulas must be noted on the cost model.

Offerors are required to submit their detailed cost buildup within the cost model which shows direct linkage between proposed labor rates, skill mix, burdens, hours (regular and overtime), location, and company to the price shown in the roll-up forms.

L-2.2.3. Classified Information

The Government does not desire that any classified information be included as part of your proposal. If it is absolutely necessary to provide classified information, it shall be submitted in a classified addendum to the appropriate proposal volume. Addendum pages will be included in the page count and shall conform to all proposal preparation instructions.

L-2.2.4. Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. 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 complete the Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) at Attachment L-7, which assures all requirements are addressed and easily accessible to the evaluators. The CRM shall be included in Offeror’s proposed Technical volume (see L-3.2.1) but will not be included in page count. The CRM must provide a single integrated index for the entire proposal. This index shall cross reference the itemized Section L, Section M, specification, and the SOW to the Offeror’s proposal.

Offerors for the Downselect Phase II evaluation will be required to submit Attachment L-8, CRM for Phase II, to address the Technical Data Review submittals.

L-2.2.5. Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

L-2.2.6. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

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

L-2.2.7. 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 as to 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 red or other applicable 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.

L-2.3. Electronic Offers

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any.

The Offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format, using virus-free CD-R. The Offerors shall not use CD-RW. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable and searchable by Adobe Acrobat (Version 9.0 or later), Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, MS Office Project 2010, and MS Office Power Point 2010, as applicable. In the event there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

L-2.4. Distribution

The "original" proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer and mailed or hand carried to:

AFTC/PZI (Arnold) Attn: Mr. Kelly Pitts 100 Kindel Drive, Suite A327 Arnold AFB TN 37389-1327

L-3.0. Volume I - Technical Volume

L-3.1. General

The Technical Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Offeror 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 you would use for accomplishing / satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal.

Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

L-3.2. Format and Specific Content

L-3.2.1. Volume Organization

The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline

Table of Contents List of Table and Drawings Glossary Cross Reference Matrix Subfactor 1: Design and Analysis Capability

- Design Requirements

- Analysis Requirements

- Technical Resources

Subfactor 2: Testing Approach

- Testing Capabilities

- Testing Methodology

Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Capability Subfactor 4: Program Management

- Integrated Master Schedule

- Configuration Management

- Risk Management

- Quality Control

L-3.2.2. Technical

In this volume, address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

L-3.2.3. Technical Risk

Address the Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 3, Technical Risk Rating. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "work-around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

L-3.2.4. Subfactor 1: Design and Analysis Capability

Discuss the offeror’s approach to meet the Design and Analysis Capability requirements outlined in the Measures of Merit identified in Section M.

L-3.2.4.1. Design Requirements

L-3.2.4.1.1. Describe the offeror’s methodology and design concept / technical approach that thoroughly demonstrates how the Offeror will design the blades addressing as a minimum, manufacturability, inspectability, repairability, and structural suitability.

L-3.2.4.1.2. Provide a listing of the design tools and software that will be used for the blade design.

L-3.2.4.1.3. Provide a description of how the blades and surrounding components fit together and how they interact with each other as a system. This narrative shall include at the minimum, how the blade Center of Gravity (CG) affects the loads on interfacing parts, what types of loads would be transferred to the blade adapter and blade spacers, what types of dynamic loading/deformation might be expected based on the information given with the RFP package. Provide screenshots from Computer Aided Design (CAD) software to illustrate the relationships in the assembly.

L-3.2.4.2. Analysis Requirements

L-3.2.4.2.1. Describe a methodology that thoroughly demonstrates how the Offeror will analyze the blades addressing as a minimum, manufacturability, inspectability, repairability, and structural suitability.

L-3.2.4.2.2. Provide a listing of the analysis tools and software that will be used for the blade design.

L-3.2.4.3. Technical Resources

L-3.2.4.3.1. Provide a list of the technical facilities and equipment available for the design and analysis of the blades and tooling.

L-3.2.4.3.2. Provide a list of the types of technical personnel, individual years of experience, and certifications, if applicable, in the design and analysis of composite structures.

L-3.2.5. Subfactor 2: Testing Approach

Discuss the offeror’s approach to meet the Testing Approach requirements outlined in the Measures of Merit identified in Section M.

L-3.2.5.1. Testing Capabilities

L-3.2.5.1.1. Describe a methodology to simulate the loading and environmental conditions described in the specification and SOW.

L-3.2.5.1.2. Describe a methodology for instrumenting the blade for testing.

L-3.2.5.2. Testing Methodology

L-3.2.5.2.1. Describe a testing methodology for material characterization.

L-3.2.5.2.2. Describe a methodology for analyzing the blade test results addressing, as a minimum, damage tolerance, repair verification, inspectability, material characterization, and structural suitability.

L-3.2.6. Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Capability

L-3.2.6.1. Describe the offeror’s equipment and facilities.

L-3.2.6.2. Describe the offeror’s capabilities and certifications for the conceptual manufacturing methods. Include a copy of AS9100 certification for offeror and any subcontractors that will be involved in the composite manufacturing process. Tooling is considered part of the composite manufacturing process.

L-3.2.6.3. Describe material procurement procedures, estimated material lead times, and storage capabilities.

L-3.2.7. Subfactor 4: Program Management

Discuss the offeror’s approach to meet the Program Management requirements outlined in the Measures of Merit identified in Section M.

L-3.2.7.1. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

The offeror shall build, using guidance in DoD Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule Preparation and User Guide, Ver 0.9, 21 October 2005, an integrated, time-phased schedule of program / project tasks for the Compressor Rotor Blade Program that meets requirements for Technical Design Review, prototypes and LRIPs, testing, and manufacture of the blades. The information submitted will be used as the basis for assessing the proposed schedule for meeting the offeror’s proposed date.

L-3.2.7.1.1. Focus primarily on the key milestones of the program. The activities and tasks included in the IMS should be sufficient to demonstrate succinctly the successful execution of the Compressor Rotor Blade Program. The IMS shall reflect key task events.

L-3.2.7.1.2. The IMS content and format shall be in accordance with DI-MGMT-81650. The offeror shall provide an electronic IMS network schedule with a start date of the contract award.

L-3.2.7.2. Configuration Management

Provide a configuration management plan which, at a minimum, ensures control of manufacturing processes, design revisions, test plan, process revisions, and analysis revisions.

L-3.2.7.3. Risk Management

L-3.2.7.3.1. Provide the offeror’s initial assessment of risk for the project.

L-3.2.7.3.2. Provide a risk management approach which includes, at a minimum, plans to identify, eliminate or reduce significant risk identified by the offeror.

L-3.2.7.4. Quality Control

Provide a quality control plan to at a minimum, identify, document, and prevent deficiencies to ensure blade and tooling conformance with the requirements in Atch X, SOW. In addition this plan shall address geometric and non-destructive inspection techniques.

L-4.0. Volume II – Past Performance

L-4.1. Volume Organization

The Past Performance volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Table of Contents

Summary (Not to exceed two pages. See Para L-4.2)

Past Performance References (See Para L-4.3.1)

PPI Submission (See Para L-4.3.2)

Relevant and Recency Determination (See Para L-4.3.3)

Relevancy Matrix (See Para L-4.3.4)

Organizational Structure Change History (Not to exceed five pages. See Para L-4.3.5)

Consent Letters. Consent letters executed by each joint venture partner and major subcontractor authorizing release of adverse past performance information so the Offeror can respond to such information. A sample consent letter is provided as Attachment L-5.

Client Authorization Letters. Client authorization letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance.

List of Questionnaire Recipients (Not to exceed three pages. See Para L-4.3.2)

L-4.2. Summary. Describe roles of offerors and all subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners requiring past performance information IAW Para L-5.3.1

L-4.3 Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheets (See Attachment L-1).

L-4.3.1. Number of PPI References. Offerors shall submit information in the Past Performance Tool, Relevancy Matrix, Consent Letters, Authorization Letters, and List of Questionnaire Recipients on contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform technical operations. This information is required on offerors, subcontractors, or joint venture partners considered relevant to overall successful performance. Offerors may submit not more than five recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor and not more than three for each major subcontractor. If the prime is a joint venture, Offerors may submit not more than three references per joint venture partner. This information is required for the Offeror and all major subcontractors who are to perform 10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

L-4.3.2. PPI Submission. Offerors must use the past performance information tool, which they shall download from the Compressor Rotor Blade RFP posting to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) at https:www.fbo.gov for their electronic proposal submittal of relevant past performance contract information. Offerors shall provide hard copies of the pages generated from this tool as part of their Past Performance volume. Offerors shall save the PPI database file as Offeror name-volume name (PPI)-Blade.mdb (e.g., XYZ Company-Past Performance Volume (PPI)-Blade.mdb) to submit as part of the electronic copy of the Past Performance Volume. Once complete, PPI sheets and past performance questionnaires (PPQs) will be treated as source selection information in accordance with FAR Part 3.104.

Offerors shall send PPQs on each identified contract to the points of contact for that contract. If the identified contract was a Government effort, send to the Program Manager and Contracting Officer. This questionnaire is contained at Attachment L-2, Past / Present Performance Questionnaire. Provide a list of questionnaire recipients to include POCs and phone numbers. The Past Performance Volume is to be provided directly to the Contracting Officer not later than 27 April 2017. Responses to questionnaires are to be provided directly to the Contracting Officer on the date for submission of the proposals.

PPI concerning subcontractor and teaming / joint venture partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming / joint venture partner’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor / teaming / joint venture partner to the prime during exchanges. Therefore, the Offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each teaming / joint venture partner and major subcontractor authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the Offeror, so the Offeror can respond to such information. For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the Offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance.

L-4.3.3. Relevant Contracts and Recency Determination

Offerors shall submit information in the PPI Tool under the Program Details Tab on up to five recent contracts deemed relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the full range of capabilities IAW Compressor Rotor Blade SOW requirements and explain how / why the referenced contracts are relevant. Prime contractors may submit up to five recent contracts, and joint venture partners may submit up to three recent contracts per partner. Also provide Past Performance Information on up to three recent contracts for each of your major subcontractors that meet the 10-percent threshold as stated in L-5.3.1. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing http://www.fbo.gov/ or must have been performed during the past 20 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see Section M, provisions M-2.3.2.1 and M-2.3.2.2.

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or neutral confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific Technical subfactors and Cost / Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

L-4.3.4. Relevancy Matrix

The offeror shall provide a completed relevancy matrix (see Attachment L-6). Provide not more than five recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor (including joint venture partners) and not more than three for each major subcontractor. For purposes of proposal only, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the offeror itself, that will perform 10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost. The relevancy matrix will be used to establish the relevance of present and past efforts.

L-4.3.5 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, have been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant current or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company, or joint venture partner and proposed major subcontractors. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation / performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

L-4.4. No Applicable Past Performance Information

If an Offeror has no recent or relevant past performance information, they should so state that in this volume. However, the Government reserves the right to determine whether any relevant past performance information exists and is relevant.

L-5.0. Volume III – Cost / Price

L-5.1. General Instructions

L-5.1.1. Cost / Price Reasonableness, Realism, and Balance

This section is to assist you in submitting data other than certified cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness, realism, and balance of your proposed cost / price.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness, realism, and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs / prices rests with the offeror. The Cost / Price Proposal volume is not subject to page limitation.

All cost or pricing data shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost / Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Cost trade-off 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 trade-off decisions.

L-5.1.2. Estimating Techniques and Methods

When responding to the Cost / Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and associated subcontractors may use any generally accepted estimating technique, including contemporary estimating methods (such as Cost-to-Cost and Cost-to-Non-Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs), commercially available parametric cost models, in-house developed parametric cost models, etc.), to develop their estimates.

L-5.1.3. Accounting System

Indicate whether you have Government approval of your accounting system and if so, provide evidence of such approval. Also, identify any deviations from your standard procedures in preparing this proposal.

L-5.1.4. Explanation of Estimating Methods Used

Explain the methodology used to estimate each cost element. As a minimum, provide the following information for each cost element. If a portion of the required information is not applicable for a particular cost element, so state. At a minimum offerors shall describe the approaches for providing products and services. The result will be a narrative basis of estimates.

Each of these narratives shall explain the proposed Labor and Materials, including the methodology for developing the basis of estimates (BOEs) generally developed using:

• Analogies

• Cost estimating relationships

• Commercial models or company bidding system

• Sub-tier vendor estimates

• Material quotes

• Engineering judgment; including software estimates

• Ground rules and assumptions

• Escalation rates used

• Learning curve

• Past experience

L-5.1.5. Estimating System Summary. Provide a summary description of your standard estimating system or methods. The summary description shall cover separately each major cost element (e.g., labor, indirect costs, other direct costs, G&A). Identify any deviations from your standard estimating procedures in preparing this proposal volume. Indicate whether you have Government approval of your system and, if so, provide evidence of such approval.

L-5.1.6. Cost or Pricing Data. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price or cost reasonableness and cost realism. Data shall be provided in accordance with paragraph 5.2 below.

If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

L-5.1.7. Rounding. All displayed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. All displayed labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

L-5.1.8. Submission of Cost Models

Submit Attachment L-9, Cost Model, in support of the proposed price. The cost / price model submitted must be consistent with your approved estimating system and must duplicate the logic and mathematical formulas reflected in the paper copy of your proposal. Cost / price models submitted must comply with the following format requirements:

L-5.1.8.1. Data file should be submitted in accordance with paragraph L-2.3.

L-5.1.8.2. Data file should be .XLSX file format (MS Office Excel 2013) compatible format.

The electronic copy of this volume shall be in Microsoft Excel to aid in the evaluation. PDF or other format is NOT acceptable. All formulas used in the worksheets shall be clearly visible in the individual cells and verifiable. The use of external links (to source data not provided to the Program) of any kind is prohibited. This submission shall not contain macros, locked or hidden cells / tabs.

https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b154031 https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b154033 https://cs.eis.af.mil/airforcecontracting/knowledge_center/Documents/AFFARS_Library/5315/templates/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b154031

L-5.2. Cost / Price Volume Organization

The Cost / Price Proposal Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline

Section 1, Table of Contents

Section 2, Data

Section 3, Other Information

Section 4, Cost Model Excel Spreadsheet (see Atch L-9)

L-5.2.1. Section 1, Table of Contents; summary descriptions of estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems; changes to estimating, accounting practices, or Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement.

L-5.2.2. Section 2 – Data other than certified cost or pricing data, to include estimating methodology.

L-5.2.3. Other information such as Government Furnished Property, base support, long lead costs, termination costs, development / production schedule, inflation rate summary and explanation, life cycle cost, and special tooling / test equipment, if applicable. List each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation and each qualification of the Cost / Price volume, if any. Provide complete rationale for any exceptions.

L-6.0. Volume IV - Contract Documentation

L-6.1. Solicitation / Representations and Certifications

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The offeror's proposal shall include a signed copy of the Standard Form 33, and Sections A through K (unless indicated this information is contained in the System for Award Management (SAM). This includes:

L-6.1.1. Section A – Solicitation / Contract Form

Complete in its entirety the “Offeror” portion of the Standard Form (SF) 33. An official having the authority to contractually bind your company shall sign the SF33 IAW FAR 4.102. The "original" copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.

L-6.1.2. Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs / Prices

Complete pricing information in Section B of the model contract.

L-6.1.3. Sections G - I.

Complete fill-ins as applicable.

L-6.1.4. Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors

Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements or indicate if information is contained in the SAM.

L-6.2. Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 6.2. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Table 6.2 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion Rationale

SOO, SOW, SPEC,

Model Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

L-6.3. Other Information Required

L-6.3.1. Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company / division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

Finally, provide the name, title, and telephone number of the CEO, Division President, or Vice President of the Offeror.

L-6.3.2. Government Offices

Provide the mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, DCAA, and Government Paying Office. Also, provide the name and telephone and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

L-6.3.3. Company / Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

Provide company / division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code;

TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

Attachments

L-1 PPI Tool Instructions L-2 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) L-3 PPQ Cover Letter L-4 Client Authorization Letter L-5 Subcontractor Consent Letter L-6 Relevancy Matrix L-7 Cross-Reference Matrix L-8 Cross-Reference Matrix for Phase II L-9 Cost Model