FOPR MUOS SATCOM signed.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request

FOPR# FA8552-20-R-0007

Modification Upgrade of the

Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) Capable Satellite Communications (SATCOM) System

POOL B - ROTARY ONLY

and POOL A (FIXED WING) and POOL B (ROTARY WING)

Instructions to Offerors / Basis of Award 02 September 2020

1. Proposal Submission.

A. This is a competitive selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 16.505(b) (1). Orders placed under FAR 16.505 Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts are not source selections and are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, issuance of an order under this Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR), should an award be made, shall follow the ordering procedures outlined in FAR 16.505, as supplemented.

B. The proposal submitted in response to this FOPR for the Modification Upgrade of the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) Capable Satellite Communications (SATCOM) System must be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Special Operation Forces Personnel Recovery (SOF/PR) & Rotary Division Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) IDIQ contracts, requirements as stated in the FOPR and attachments, MACM Statement of Work (SOW), and the MUOS SATCOM Order Description. Unless otherwise asserted, the applicable terms and conditions of the MACM contracts are in full force and effect. All claimed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government.

Non- conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal, an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award.

C. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions are unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the table below within the Offerors proposal cover letter. If no exceptions are taken, include a statement stating so within the proposal cover letter.

FOPR Exceptions

FOPR

Document

Page / Paragraph Requirement/ Portion Rationale

Performance Work Statement, Instruction To Offerors (ITO), Evaluation Factor, 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

D. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall 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 the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

E. Discrepancies – If an Offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (CO) in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

F. The Period of Performance (PoP) will consist of one basic year period of 20 months and one option year period of 11 months. The validity period of the delivery order is anticipated to extend from a projected award date of 15 December 2020 through 14 August 2022. This contracting action will establish a delivery order composed of Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) for the development and integration a permanent modification upgrade of the MUOS SATCOM Systems, as stated in the attached Solicitation FA8552-20-R-0007.

G. Proposal Submission – Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically via email in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2010, Adobe Acrobat DC, and MS Excel 2010, as applicable to Point Of Contact and email address.

The Offeror shall submit proposals for consideration no later than 4:30 pm Eastern Standard Time, 09 October 2020. Only one proposal shall be submitted, per company, in response to this requirement. Proposals received after the date/time specified will not be evaluated.

Proposals shall be emailed or delivered via the DoD SAFE site (https://safe.apps.mil) to AFLCMC/WIUKB, Deborah L. Ross (Deborah.Ross.5@us.af.mil) and Monica Miller (Monica.Miller.3@us.af.mil). If the Department of Defense Secure Access File Exchange site is utilized, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to contact Ms. Ross and Ms. Miller prior to the submittal date to request a drop-off link to ensure it can meet the deadline for proposals. Vendors may also mail a hard copy of the proposal if they desire: Attention: Monica Miller and Deborah Ross, 235 Byron St, Suite 19A, Robins AFB, GA 31098.

Past Performance questionnaires must also be received by AFLCMC/WIUKB no later than the same date and time. Early submissions are acceptable. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, 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.

H. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this FOPR shall submit a Cover Letter /

Requirements volume, Technical volume, and Price volume subject to the following guidelines:

Text shall be single-spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet with a minimum one-inch margin all around, excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets, etc.

Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater than 11” x 17”.

Font shall be no less than Times New Roman (or Arial) 12 pt.

Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. The page limits prescribed are maximum page limits for each volume. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits.

Pages submitted in excess of these limits will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation of the proposal.

All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF format except for Pricing information (Volume III). Pricing information shall be submitted in an unlocked MS Excel format showing any linked values, cells, formulas, etc.

Offerors must ensure Pricing information is only included in Volume III. Do NOT include any Pricing information in Volume II.

Offerors shall submit proposals electronically in accordance with the table below. All electronic submissions shall reference the complete FOPR number in the subject line.

https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:Deborah.Ross.5@us.af.mil mailto:Monica.Miller.3@us.af.mil

VOLUME

TITLE

NUMBER OF

COPIES

MAXIMUM NUMBER

OF PAGES

I

Cover Letter / Requirements Technical Proposal

1 No page limit

Completed RFP 1 No page limit

I Written Technical Proposal (submitted in a searchable format)

1* 40

III Cost / Price Proposal - (in Excel format matching Vol I)

2* No page limit

*Technical and Cost/Price proposal information shall be submitted in written form (1 copy) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the Offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

(1) The Cover Letter/Requirements Technical Proposal Sheet (Appendix B of the MACM Ordering Guide) shall include the following:

Offerors’ contract number, Address, proposal number, this solicitation number, program name, Pool (A or B) this effort falls under, total dollar value proposed, Company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company, Commercial And Government Entity (CAGE) Code, Small business status/categories, A Statement that the company understands the requirements specified and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein, and A Statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this order.

(2) The Technical Proposal shall be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Responses will be evaluated against the Technical sub-factors defined in this document. Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the sub-factors. Address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical sub-factor.

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.

(3) The Offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs within the TEP. The pricing information submitted should fully support the SOW / Order Description requirements for each major technical element specified in the SOW / Order Description. A breakdown should be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

2. Basis of Award.

A. Award will be made in accordance with the basic contract ordering procedures, the procedures specified in the FOPR and on the basis of a tradeoff selection procedure in accordance with FAR 16.5 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. A decision will be made on the technical acceptability and past performance of each Offeror’s proposal, followed by an analysis of their TEP to verify reasonableness and completeness. An order may be awarded to the Contractor who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the FOPR’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the FOPR instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the best value to the Government based on the results of the technical evaluation.

B. The Government intends to make selection for award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the CO and the Contractors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges using Interchange Notices (IN). Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some or all Offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Contractors responding to this FOPR.

3. Evaluation Factors. Responses to this FOPR will be evaluated against the following factors and sub-factors:

A. Factor 1: Technical – The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the sub-factors, as they apply to the MUOS SATCOM Order Description. The Technical proposal shall demonstrate the Contractor’s knowledge and understanding of the requirements as well as the ability to perform the technical requirements.

Sub-Factor 1.1 – Radio Integration: This technical factor is met when the Offeror provides a detailed narrative clearly demonstrating their understanding of the requirement by describing the required steps for replacing and integrating a new SATCOM radio onto a UH-1N legacy aircraft. The detailed narrative of the proposed technical solution shall include, but is not limited to:

(a) Overall Design: Assumptions and engineering approaches / methodologies used

(MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13);

(b) Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8);

(c) Technical Risk Identification (MACM SOW 3.29);

(d) Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.25);

(e) Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9);

(f) Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9);

(g) Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5) and;

(h) Joint Interoperability Test Command (JTIC) (MACM SOW 3.16)

Sub-Factor 1.2 – Co-Site Analysis: This technical factor shall be met when the Offeror provides a detailed narrative/graph showing the calculations for the new SATCOM antennae and any additional proposed antennae modifications.

Sub-Factor 1.3 – Structural Analysis: This technical factor shall be met when the

Offeror provides a detailed narrative showing the calculations for the material effects of stress and weight and balance. Other items might be a finite element analysis.

Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every factor.

The following Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings will be utilized:

Sub-Factor 1.1: Radio Integration

Rating Description Acceptable Provided a sufficiently detailed narrative to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete this modification.

Mostly Acceptable Provided a sufficiently detailed narrative to indicate understanding of most of the tasks involved to successfully complete this modification.

Partially Acceptable Provided a sufficiently detailed narrative to indicate understanding of some of the tasks involved to successfully complete this modification, Unacceptable Did not provide sufficiently detailed narrative to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete this modification.

Sub-Factor 1.2: Co-Site Analysis:

Acceptable Provided a sufficiently detailed narrative and correct calculations to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete Co-Site Analysis for this modification

Unacceptable Did not provide a sufficiently detailed narrative nor correct calculations to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete Co-Site Analysis for this modification

Sub-Factor 1.3: Structural Analysis:

Acceptable Provided a sufficiently detailed narrative to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete structural analysis for this modification

Unacceptable Did not provide a sufficiently detailed narrative to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete structural analysis for this modification

B. Factor 2: Past Performance – The Offeror’s past performance will be based on data available to the Government through systems such as JAM/SPM/CORT and through questionnaires completed by individuals/companies of the vendors choosing.

The Government may review information obtained from other sources available to the Government such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System which will be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own.

Questionnaire: Please have three point of contacts (POCs) from previous contracts complete and forward the attached questionnaires to AFLCMC/WIUKB via email or DoD/SAFE no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP. Vendors may also mail hard copies of the questionnaires if they desire: Attention: Monica Miller or Deborah Ross, 235 Byron St, Suite 19A, Robins AFB, GA 31098. Early submissions are acceptable.

The past performance will receive a relevance rating and a confidence rating as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

C. Factor 3: Cost / Price – Cost / Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for (1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), (2) cost realism, (3) completeness, (4) reasonableness, and (5) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

(1) The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the contractor’s proposed prices for the CLINs extended prices including the base period and all option CLINs, except the Cost Reimbursement No Fee CLIN(s). Each Offeror’s technical solution/approach will define the level of effort for each of the CRNF CLINs; thus proposing adequate level of effort to suite the technical solution/approach. Evaluation of option CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option CLINs.

(2) Cost Realism. For the cost reimbursable CLINs, the proposal will be evaluated by utilizing cost realism analysis to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the work and the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

(3) Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the FOPR requirements.

(4) Reasonableness. 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.

The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

(5) Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Ombudsman. IAW Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 5352.201-9101, Ombudsman (JUN 2016), an Ombudsman has been appointed to hear and facilitate the resolution of concerns from Offerors, potential Offerors, and others for this acquisition. If resolution cannot be made by the CO, concerned parties may contact the ombudsman, Timothy R. Inman at (478) 222- 4097 or via email at timothy.inman@us.af.mil.

5. Attachments/Exhibits. The attachments/exhibits applicable to this FOPR and resultant order shown are shown below.

1) Solicitation FA8552-20-R-0007

2) MACM Statement of Work Revision A – by Reference

3) MUOS SATCOM Order Description

4) DD Form 1653, Transportation Requirements

5) AFMC Form 158, Packaging Requirements

6) AFMC Form 807 Quality Assurance

7) Exhibit A DD Form 1423-1, Contract Data Requirements List

8) Government Furnished Property Attachment

9) Past/Present Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

10) Offeror Questions and Answers – Prior to Final Fair Opportunity Proposal Request

6. Contact for Proposals and Inquiries. Proposals and all inquiries must be submitted electronically to Monica Miller at Monica.Miller.3@us.af.mil and the undersigned at Deborah.Ross.5@us.af.mil.

Deborah L. Ross Lead Contracting Officer SOF/PR Rotary Wing Contracting Branch

AFLCMC/WIUKB

mailto:timothy.inman@us.af.mil mailto:Monica.Miller.3@us.af.mil mailto:Deborah.Ross.5@us.af.mil