H2 Demo - Request for Prototype Proposal.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE TEST

CENTER (AFMC) EDWARDS AIR FORCE

BASE CALIFORNIA

20 July 2025

MEMORANDUM FOR INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: AFMC/AFTC/PZIA (Arnold)

SUBJECT: OTP Execution Step 5 – Request for Prototype Proposal – H2 Heater Demolition

10 U.S.C. 4022 – Authority of the DoD to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects -

Establishment of Other Transaction Prototype (OTP) Project(s) with Potential for

Follow-on Production Capability

Request for Prototype Proposal Overview

Objective: The objective for utilizing 10 U.S.C. 4022 is to award up to two (2) Other

Transaction Prototype (OTP) Projects. After OTP award, and if determined to be in the best interest of the Government, one (1) follow-on production agreement will be awarded to the vendor whose OTP is determined to be successful. A successful OTP will validate the vendor’s capability to demolish the H2 Heater and associated equipment at Arnold Air Force

Base, TN.

The prototype in its entirety will include all areas of the Business Process detailed in the

Successful Prototype Definition Section of this Request for Prototype Proposal.

In response to this request for prototype proposal, the vendor will address each Factor listed below and in the Instructions to Prototype Offerors section. The Government will evaluate the vendor’s responses in accordance with the Evaluation Process under the Basis for Award section. After evaluations are complete, the Government will then select up to two (2) vendors for award.

- Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation - Submit past or present performance information that demonstrates how the company has structured and implemented business process(es), and how it has executed demolition plans which will give the Government a level of expectation on the vendor’s capability to execute this project.

- In Factor 2: Business Process - Provide information pertaining to how the company plans to utilize subcontractor(s), how it plans to execute prime in- house operations in both prototype and follow-on production phases, the technical approach is plans to utilize and a schedule for delivering the finalized prototype.

- In Factor 3: Price - Provide a price for the prototype in its entirety.

Vendor responses to Factors 1 – 3 will allow the Government to evaluate prototype proposals in accordance with the Basis for Award criteria and down select by making up to two (2) OTP awards, if proposals are found to be awardable.

Once the OTP award(s) is/are made, the vendor will work to develop their finalized Prototype

Business Process.

Finally, the Government will determine if the vendor’s Prototype Business Process is successful based on how the vendor addresses each variable detailed in the Successful Prototype Definition

Section; however, the Government, at any point after OTP award, has the authority to move into follow-on production if the vendor accomplishes a particularly favorable or unexpected result that justifies the transition to production.

For the OTP that is determined to be successful by the Government, the Government anticipates awarding one (1) follow-on production other transaction agreement or FAR-based contract to that vendor to complete demolition of the H2 Heater.

At this time, the statement of objectives for this project are defined; however, after award specifications and/or quantity changes could occur if determined to be in the best interest of the

Government.

Agreement Type: Firm Fixed Price for both Prototype Agreement and potential Follow-on

Production Contract or Agreement.

Delivery:

Digital Items – Agreements Officer: Haley M. K. Smith haley.smith.10@us.af.mil/

Agreements Specialist: Bailey B. Deason bailey.deason@us.af.mil

Physical Items - 1476 N Hap Arnold Dr, Arnold AFB, TN 37389-8000

Number of OTP Award(s): Up to two (2) prototype awards may be made.

Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) and Assigned Rating: DO-C2

Proposal Validity: Vendor’s proposal shall be valid for 60 days after submission due date.

mailto:bailey.deason@us.af.mil

Government Anticipated Payable Milestones (MS)

Prototype Milestones:

- Payments for MS 1 - 2 will be received after the prototype award has been made as follows:

o Payment 1 will be received after the Kickoff Meeting has occurred.

o Payment 2 will be received after the vendor submits their finalized Business

Process to the Government.

- MSs for the follow-on production may be negotiated if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to enter into a follow-on production contract or transaction.

Inspect / Accept / Reject / Payment for Each MS

- Each delivered MS will be inspected by the appointed Air Force Project Manager, and each

MS shall pass inspection, prior to accepting the invoice in WAWF.

- If a MS does not meet the specification(s) causing it not to pass inspection, the invoice will be rejected. The vendor shall be liable for shipping the defective MS(s) back to their facility at their expense, and the vendor shall expedite, at their expense, the replacement MS(s) to keep project schedule.

- For prototype MS 1 - 2, the unit of measure is “each”; therefore, the vendor can submit invoice(s) in WAWF as quantities are completed.

Funding Data

- TBD

MS Option Description Quantity

(Each)

Unit

Price

Total

Milestone

Price

Proposed Delivery

Funded

By

ACRN

Funding Amount

1 N/A Kickoff Meeting 1 TBD TBD

2 N/A Business Process 1 TBD TBD

Prototype Award: Payable Milestones (MS)

TITLE: H2 Heater Demolition CUSTOMER: AEDC AO: Haley M. K. Smith

Total Evaluated Price

Instructions to Prototype Offerors

The Government requests the vendor to submit a proposal addressing the Mandatory Statutory

Criteria, Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, Factor 2: Business Process and Factor 3 Price.

Proposals must be structured to clearly demonstrate how the information provided addresses each of these mandatory criteria. Vendors shall directly reference the following throughout their proposals to ensure evaluations are streamlined:

o Factor 1 Vendor Risk Mitigation Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance o Factor 1 Vendor Risk Mitigation Subfactor 2: Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime In- House Execution Plan o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 3: Technical Approach o Factor 2 Business Process Subfactor 4: Prototype Schedule o Factor 3 Price

Mandatory Statutory Criteria

Before the Agreements Officer considers the vendor eligible for proposal evaluations, the vendor shall satisfy the following statutory requirement:

1. The vendor shall specify and provide supporting documentation justifying how their company plans to satisfy 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1)(A)-(C) – Appropriate Use of Authority by elaborating on one of the following:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal

Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors.

(C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

NOTE 1: Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) = An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards (CAS) prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section (see 10 U.S.C. §3014). The phrase “the solicitation of sources” refers to the initial agreement solicitation only. A nontraditional defense contractor is considered a nontraditional defense contractor for the duration of the prototype project/agreement’s period of performance, or for any in-scope work modified under the same agreement.

NOTE 2: Non-profit research institution is validated by reviewing the vendor’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, which is required by the Internal Revenue Service.

NOTE 3: “Significant extent” and “significant participants” may be defined by the vendor providing rationale to one or more of the following variables:

a. Has a significant role / level of involvement in the development, production, or delivery of a product or service.

b. Has a significant impact on the design, development, or production of the product or service.

c. Has significant level of material interest in the success of the product or service.

d. Has significant level of company's financial interest in the success of the product or service.

e. Has Significant level of control over the development, production, or delivery of the product or service.

f. Other significant rationale provided by the vendor.

NOTE 4: Failure to provide supporting documentation may eliminate a company from being considered for an award and the proposal will not be evaluated further.

Evaluation Factors for Award

Proposal evaluations will be conducted using the following factors: Factor 1: Vendor Risk

Mitigation, Factor 2: Business Process, and Factor 3: Price.

Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation

The vendor shall submit performance information for only Subfactor 1:

1. Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present Performance

a. The vendor shall provide recent details on up to two (2) contracts or agreements completed or ongoing within the past five (5) years that best demonstrate the vendor’s experience in:

i. Structuring and implementing complex business process(es)

ii. Executing work related to the business process(es)

b. The referenced projects should be relevant to this project’s statement of objectives in terms of:

i. Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or specialty disciplines involved (Asbestos Remediation, Environmental, Health and Safety, etc.)

ii. Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration).

iii. Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required.

c. For each contract/agreement provided, provide the following:

i. Contract/Agreement Number: Procurement Instrument Identifier only

ii. Performance Dates: Start, end, ongoing dates within the last 5 years

iii. Dollar Value: Total value of the contract/agreement

iv. Relevance: Clearly and concisely explain how this project demonstrates your capabilities in both business process structuring and development of a demolition plan. Be specific about the similarities to this project and the successful outcomes achieved.

v. Safety record: OSHA recordable incidents or other comparable data.

2. Subfactor 2: Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score

a. For Subfactor 2, no action is required by the vendor since the AO will pull the vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score from Procurement Integrated Enterprise

Environment (PIEE) within five (5) business days after receipt of proposal.

Factor 2: Business Process The vendor shall thoroughly address the following business process Subfactors in their submission:

1. Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan:

a. Subcontracting Plan:

i. Identification & Expertise:

a. Clearly identify subcontractor(s) (Name, CAGE code, etc.), their expertise, and how their capabilities align with project objectives.

ii. Evidence:

a. Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

iii. Plan and Schedule Integration:

a. Provide detailed plan and integration schedule that demonstrates how:

i. Prime will integrate work functions with subcontractor(s)

ii. Prime will clearly communicate work functions with subcontractor(s)

iii. Prime will manage subcontractor(s)’quality of performance

iv. Prime will manage subcontractor executable milestones

iv. Risk Mitigation:

a. Provide proactive risk mitigation plan to ensure subcontractors have the capability to perform project objectives on schedule and within cost.

b. Prime In-House Execution Plan

i. Details & Alignment:

a. Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the prime will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

b. Identify details on internal capabilities and resources and identify how capabilities align with project objectives.

ii. Evidence:

a. Provide quantifiable evidence that substantiates the vendor’s capability to achieve project objectives on schedule and within cost.

iii. Advantage:

a. Substantiate advantages of in-house execution for projected milestones to be executed by the prime.

iv. Continuous Improvement:

a. Detail continuous improvement plan on the prime’s strategy to improve processes and performance throughout execution of project objectives.

2. Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan:

a. Subcontracting Plan:

i. Identification & Expertise:

a. Detail required subcontracted functions and specific expertise required.

ii. Evidence:

a. Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

iii. Plan and Schedule Integration:

a. Provide detailed plan and integration schedule that demonstrates how:

i. Prime will integrate work functions with subcontractor(s)

ii. Prime will clearly communicate work functions with subcontractor(s)

iii. Prime will manage subcontractor(s)’quality of performance

iv. Prime will manage subcontractor executable milestones

iv. Risk Mitigation:

a. Provide proactive risk mitigation plan to ensure subcontractors have the capability to perform project objectives on schedule and within cost.

b. Prime In-House Execution Plan:

i. Details & Alignment:

a. Provide compelling evidence of what function(s), extent of involvement, and projected percentage of amount of work the prime will specifically perform to meet project objectives.

b. Identify details on internal capabilities and resources and identify how capabilities align with project objectives.

ii. Evidence:

a. Provide quantifiable evidence that substantiates the vendor’s capability to achieve project objectives on schedule and within cost.

iii. Advantages:

a. Substantiate advantages of in-house execution for projected milestones to be executed by the prime.

iv. Continuous Improvement:

a. Detail continuous improvement plan on the prime’s strategy to improve processes and performance throughout execution of project objectives.

3. Subfactor 3: Technical Approach

a. Demolition Management Plan:

i. Provide a detailed description of the proposed demolition method, explaining why it was chosen based on site conditions, safety considerations, and environmental factors.

ii. Provide a clear explanation of the demolition phasing, including the order in which different sections of the structure will be removed.

iii. Provides a detailed list of the equipment and resources required.

iv. Describe safety and environmental controls that will be implemented to minimize the impact of demolition on air quality, water quality, and soil.

v. Provide a comprehensive list of potential hazards based on historical information and data provided and site assessments as needed.

vi. Provide a narrative demonstrating understanding of relevant environmental procedures (e.g. abatement, hazardous materials, etc.) and how they may be implemented.

b. Risk Management Plan:

i. Provide a narrative describing methodology for risk management in detail, including steps involved, the tools and techniques used, and the rationale behind the chosen approach demonstrating a clear understanding of the relevant environmental procedures required for this effort

ii. Provide a prioritized list of the top risks, based on their likelihood and impact.

iii. Provide a clear explanation of the chosen response strategies, considering cost, effectiveness, and feasibility.

4. Subfactor 4: Prototype Schedule

The vendor shall provide the number of calendar days after an award is made, should one be made, it will take the company to deliver its finalized Business

Process prototype.

Factor 3: Price The vendor shall provide a detailed firm fixed prototype price:

1. Prototype pricing consists of:

a. Kickoff Meeting

b. Finalized Business Process

2. Refer to Successful Prototype Definition Section for all areas that shall be factored to establish a firm-fixed prototype price.

Basis for Award

The Government anticipates awarding up to two (2) firm-fixed price prototype agreements and one follow-on production firm-fixed price agreement resulting from this request for prototype proposal to the responsible vendor whose proposal conforms to the requirements, and whose proposal is deemed most advantageous and provides the best value to the Government; however, the Government reserves the right to cancel, revise or reissue this request for prototype proposal if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Evaluation Process:

Proposal evaluations will progress through a gated approach, as detailed below:

1. Gate 1 Evaluation – Mandatory Statutory Criteria: First, the Government will evaluate the proposal for compliance with the Mandatory Statutory Criteria. In this gate, proposals will be assigned an adjectival rating of either “Pass” or “Fail”, as defined in Atch 3 – Prototype Proposal Methodology.

Vendors that do not receive an adjectival rating of “Pass” in this gate will not progress to the next gate in the evaluation process and therefore will be considered ineligible for further award consideration.

2. Gate 2 Evaluation – Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation: Proposals that receive an adjectival rating of “Pass” in the Gate 1 Evaluation will be included in the Gate 2

Evaluation.

In the Gate 2 Evaluation, the Government will evaluate the vendor’s proposal for

Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, using a scoring matrix.

There is a maximum of 5-points a proposal can receive in this Factor. There are two subfactors the Government will assess individually to arrive at an overall score for

Factor 1: Vendor Risk Mitigation, Subfactor 1: Vendor Provided Past and/or Present

Performance, and Subfactor 2: Vendor Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS)

Supplier Risk Score.

First, the Government will assess Factor 1 Subfactor 1. Subfactor 1 evaluates the vendor’s submitted past/present performance information in terms of recency and relevancy, which will give the Government a level of expectation of vendor’s capability to execute this project.

The Agreements Officer will assign a numeric score ranging from 1-to-5, as defined in

Atch 3 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

o Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Assigned Weight & Calculation

▪ Assigned Weight: Subfactor 1 shall have a 75% weight assigned.

▪ Calculation: Subfactor 1 score * .75 = Subfactor 1 Weighted Score o Factor 1 Subfactor 1 Definitions:

▪ Recent:

o Contract or agreement is within the last five (5) years from

Request for Prototype Proposal issue date.

▪ Relevant:

o Example contract(s) / agreements(s) provided shall demonstrate vendor's capabilities in business process structuring and project execution that are similar in technical nature, size, and complexity that correlates to this project's Statement of Objectives (Atch 1) and

Statement of Objectives Performance Parameters (Atch 2).

o Technical Nature: The technologies, methodologies, or scientific disciplines involved o Size: The scale and scope of the work (e.g., budget, team size, duration).

o Complexity: The level of difficulty, integration, or innovation required.

NOTE: For vendor’s that do not have past or present performance information, the

Government will assign an overall score of 3, as the vendor will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for this subfactor.

Next, the Government will assess Factor 1 Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 evaluates the vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score by determining the percentage above or below the average SPRS Supplier Risk Score; the average Supplier Risk Score will be determined once the score is pulled from PIEE, within (5) business days, after receipt of proposal.

The Agreements Officer will score the vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score based on the data pulled from PIEE, within five (5) business days, after receipt of proposal. The following calculation will be used to determine the vendor’s score percentage delta above or below the average SPRS Supplier Risk Score using the following calculation:

o Step 1: Vendor’s SPRS Supplier Risk Score – SPRS Average Supplier Risk Score =

Vendor’s Delta Score Above or Below SPRS Supplier Risk Average o Step 2: Vendor’s Delta Score Above or Below SPRS Supplier Risk Average / SPRS

Average Supplier Risk Score = % Above or Below Average SPRS Supplier Risk Score

Using the calculated percentage explained above, the Government will assign a numerical score to Subfactor 2: Vendor Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS)

Supplier Risk Score. The score assigned to this area denotes the degree to which there is supplier risk, with 5 being lowest risk and 1 being highest risk. Scores will be assigned as shown in Atch 3 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

o Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Assigned Weight & Calculation

▪ Assigned Weight: Subfactor 2 shall have a 25% weight assigned.

▪ Calculation: Subfactor 2 score * .25 = Subfactor 2 Weighted Score o Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Definition

▪ Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) Supplier Risk Score: Provides the Agreements Officer a score for the overall assessment of Agreements

Officers can identify “riskier” suppliers and assess the likelihood of the non-fulfillment of terms of agreement, unsuccessful performance, or delivery delays.

▪ SPRS Supplier Risk Score uses 10 factors of performance information to calculate Supplier Risk Scores. These factors are individually weighted

(based on age and relative importance) and summed to produce a numerical and color score for every company which has performance data.

NOTE: For vendor’s that do not have a score in SPRS Supplier Risk Score, the Government will assume the vendor falls within the Average SPRS Supplier Risk Score, thus a deviation of 0%. As such, the vendor will be assigned a score of 3 for this area.

Finally, the Government will combine the Subfactor 1 score with the Subfactor 2 score to arrive at a final score for Factor 2: Vendor Risk.

o Factor 1 Final Score = (Subfactor 1 Score * 0.75) + (Subfactor 2 Score * 0.25)

The score assigned to this factor represents the degree of expectation and confidence the Government has in the vendor’s capability to successfully perform the requirement.

NOTE: Subfactor 1 Vendor Risk Mitigation – If the vendor does not have recent and relevant past performance for Subfactor 1 and/or does not have a SPRS Supplier Risk

Score available in PIEE for Subfactor 2, the lack of scores for either subfactor will not be taken into consideration for Gate 2.

Proposals that do not receive a minimum score of 2.5 for Factor 1: Vendor Risk

Mitigation in Gate 2 Evaluation will not progress to the next gate in the evaluation process and therefore will be considered ineligible for further award consideration.

3. Gate 3 Evaluation – Factor 2: Business Process: Proposals that receive a score of 2.5 points or more in the Gate 2 Evaluation will be included in the Gate 3 Evaluation.

In the Gate 3 Evaluation, the Government will evaluate the vendor’s proposed solutions for Factor 2: Business Process, using a scoring matrix.

There is a maximum of 20-points a proposal can receive for Factor 2: Business Process.

Factor 2 consists of the following Subfactors:

▪ Subfactor 1: Prototype Subcontracting & Prime In-House Execution Plan

▪ Subfactor 2: Follow-on Production Subcontracting & Prime Inhouse Execution

Plan

▪ Subfactor 3: Technical Narrative

▪ Subfactor 4: Prototype Schedule

Each subfactor will be assigned a numeric score of 1 – 5.

A numeric score for each subfactor within this factor will be assigned using the descriptions provided in Atch 3 - Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

Proposals that do not receive a minimum score of 13 for Factor 2: Business Process in the

Gate 3 Evaluation will not progress to the next gate in the evaluation process and will be considered ineligible for further award consideration.

4. Gate 4 Evaluation: Proposals that receive a score of 13 or more in the Gate 3 Evaluation will be included in the Gate 4 Evaluation. In the Gate 4 Evaluation, the Government will evaluate but not score Factor 3: Price.

Price will be taken into consideration with all other evaluation factors discussed above to determine best value.

First, the Government will combine the scores received for each proposal in Gates 2

(Factor 1) and 3 (Factor 2) to arrive at a Value Rating for each proposal.

As a reminder, vendors could earn a maximum of 5-points in Gate 2 and maximum of

20-points in Gate 3; thus, the maximum total points a vendor can be assigned in the Gate

4 calculation for Value Rating is 2-points.

The proposal with the highest Value Rating will be considered the best solution, and the proposal with the next highest Value Rating will be considered the next best solution.

Next, to evaluate price in relation to value, the Government will perform the calculations shown in Atch 3 - Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology.

If the highest rated solution cannot be supported by a fair and reasonable price, the vendor’s proposal will be determined unawardable, and the next highest rated solution’s price will be become the best solution and evaluated as described above to determine price in relation to value.

5. Evaluation Notes:

NOTE: At any point during proposal evaluations, the Agreements Officer may give one, some, or all vendor’s the ability to correct any aspect of their proposal submission, if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Successful Prototype Definition— Business Process o Project Management Plan: The vendor shall provide acceptable details on:

o Project management structure o Plan to track and manage cost, schedule, and performance o Deliverable submission procedures o Systems Engineering Approach o Technical Reviews planned and the entry/exit criteria for each o Estimated integrated master schedule, including a detailed list of demolition tasks from pre-demolition to site cleanup and closeout o Subcontracting Plan:

o Follow-on Production Phase

▪ Provide subcontracting plan

▪ Provide what function(s) the subcontractor(s) will specifically perform.

▪ Provide plan to ensure subcontractor(s)’ capability to perform those functions.

▪ If the vendor does not plan to subcontract any function of the production phase, the vendor shall specify their functions and capabilities.

o Vendor Risk Management Plan o The vendor shall provide an acceptable overview of any major risks to the cost, schedule, technical or performance of the project, and provide an overview on how the company plans to mitigate the likelihood and/or consequence of each risk.

o Demolition Plan: The vendor shall provide acceptable details for the following variables

IAW with the SOO and Performance Parameters.

o Site layout plan showing demolition zones, staging areas, access routes, etc.

o Description of demolition and salvage methods planned o Sequence of demolition activities o Equipment to be used o Demolition Schedule o Infrastructure Protection Plan o Environmental Protection Plan o Waste Management Plan o Safety Plan o Site Security Plan o Traffic Management Plan o Maintenance and Reliability Documents o Hazardous Material Abatement Plan o Design Drawings o Programmatic Documentation o Demolition Plan Presentation o Demolition Cost Estimate: The vendor shall provide acceptable details for the following variables IAW with the SOO and Performance Parameters.

o Initial demolition cost estimate based on the prototype demolition plan o Explanation of how the price of salvaged materials will be applied to the overall cost estimate.

or, o The vendor accomplished a particularly favorable or unexpected result that justifies the transition to production.

Prototype Proposal Submission Details

1. Prototype Proposal Due Date: 18 August 2025, 12:00PM Central Time (CT)

2. Prototype Proposal Formatting:

a. Vendors shall directly reference submitted content with each factor and subfactor throughout their proposal to ensure evaluations are streamlined.

b. Word or PDF with any schedules also provided in their native file format

c. Font Size: 11 or 12

d. Font: Times New Roman, Calibri, or another font that is easily readable.

e. No more than 10 pages of content, excluding title page

3. Prototype proposals shall be emailed to Haley Smith and Bailey Deason

a. Agreements Officer: haley.smith.10@us.af.mil

b. Agreements Specialists: bailey.deason @us.af.mil

If prototype proposal documents cannot be submitted via email due to size or sensitivity, request a DoD Safe Link.

4. It is the vendor’s responsibility to ensure the Agreements Officer receives the submitted proposal. It is recommended the vendor:

a. Embeds a read receipt with submission of proposal.

b. Follow up with the Agreements Officer to ensure the submitted proposal was received.

Notice of Follow-on Production

If one or more prototype award(s) is/are made, and one prototype project is deemed successfully completed and meets the needs of the Air Force, the Government may negotiate and award one follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures. A follow-on production contract or transaction may be awarded to one participant in this transaction without the use of competitive procedures, so long as competitive procedures are used for the selection of parties for participation in the transaction and the participants in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the transaction.

Haley M. K. Smith, DAF

Agreements Officer

Attachments:

1. Atch 1 – Statement of Objectives (SOO)

2. Atch 2 – Performance Parameters

3. Atch 3 – Prototype Proposal Evaluation Methodology

4. Atch 4 – Prototype & Follow-on Production Articles mailto:haley.smith.10@us.af.mil mailto:erica.anglin@us.af.mil