amendment_0004.docx

H92241-13-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Apr-2013 12:00 PM to 22-May-2013 04:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

DESCRIPTION

B-1 CONTRACT DESCRIPTION

This will be a Firm Fixed Price Contract to design, develop, and test an Engine Barrier Filter (EBF) for the T55-GA-714a engine on the H-47 Helicopter as described in the Statement of Work, in Section C.

The Government will exercise any line item indentified as an option by unilateral written notice to the contractor within 18 months of completion of work under contract line item number 0001. The Government reserves the ability to modify bilaterally the quantities based upon available funding.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

STATEMENT OF WORK

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

MH-47G

Engine Barrier Filter Development

1. Scope: This Statement of Objectives defines the efforts required to design, develop and integrate an Engine Barrier Filter (EBF) designed as a highly efficient filtration system to reduce the ingestion of AF Coarse and AC Fine specification sands (per SAE J726) from entering into and damaging the T55-GA-714A engine used on the H-47 Helicopter This effort shall include the nonrecurring engineering to design an EBF, the development of hardware for testing to include predictions of performance, and the necessary structural analysis to enable testing of the design on both ground test stands and on an aircraft. This SOW is intended to culminate in a system-level test representative of an integrated environment on either an engine test stand, a flow test mock-up representative of the installed environment, or a similar integrated test environment.. At the conclusion of this effort, it is the objective of the U.S. Government (USG) that the test hardware be used in a follow-on effort for qualification testing purposes on an MH-47G aircraft.

1.1 Background: The U.S. Army has previously designed, developed and qualified the Engine Air Inlet Particle Separator (EAPS) system and the lighter weight Modified Engine Air Inlet Particle Separator (MEAPS) system for the CH-47D and CH-47F along with various foreign variants of the Chinook. In addition to the EAPS/MEAPS designs, a reusable media filter prototype based design was flown on a CH-47D under Cargo/Boeing ECP D027 in 1989-1991 time period. Due to a number of reasons, most prominent being weight, performance penalties associated with the design, weight/drag, and maintainability concerns, the EAPS/MEAPS design has not been integrated onto the MH-47G. As such, the MH-47G is operating without the benefit of an engine air filtration system which has a negative effect on the continued serviceability of the engine while operating in a Desert / arid environment where the ingestion of sand and dust particles is a certainty during aircraft operations. The ingestion of sand/dust not only abrades the compressor and turbine engine blades but also degrades the compressor and turbine engine liners and clogs the cooling passages of the engine which further reduces engine performance margins.

2. References:

1. Draft RFI / Sources Sought for an “MH-47G Engine Air Inlet Filtration System”, RFIH92241INLETFILT, 11 June 2012.

1. EAPS/MEAPS Modification Work Order (MWO) 1-1520-240-50-93 dated 12 May 2004.

1. Boeing/Cargo ECP D027 “ATAK Engine Barrier Filter” conducted under contract DAAJ09-88-G-A014.

1. ADS-1B-PRF, “Aeronautical Design Standard, Rotorcraft Propulsion System Airworthiness Qualification Requirements, Ground and Flight Test Surveys and Demonstrations”, dated 24 April 1996.

1. DI-GDRQ-80198, “Internal Loads and Static Strength Analysis Report”, to be used as a template for guidelines in the preparations of the airworthiness substantiation for the structural components, assemblies and installation of the proposed EBF design.

1. MIL-STD-810G, “Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests”, 31 October 2008.

1. MIL-STD-461F, “Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment”, 10 December 2007.

1. MIL-STD-882E, “System Safety”, 10 February 2000

1. TM 1-1520-272-10, “Technical Manual Operator’s Manual For MH-47G Helicopter”, 21 November 2011.

Honeywell Document 21-9845A, “Prime Item Specification for the T55-GA-714A Turboshaft Engine”, 22 January 1999.

3. Requirements (Note: Offeror to provide any supporting data, including data from existing similar fielded solutions to support justification of any proposed Engine Inlet Barrier Filter solution to address the following critical operational issues/concerns: (1) power reduction over time and correlation to the accumulation of dirt on the filter; (2) weight increase over time due to the accumulation of dirt over time (related to (1)).

3.1 The Contractor shall perform all required software and hardware design and development efforts required for integrating an inlet filtration system on a T55-GA-714A engine and H-47 aircraft. Design requirements include:

1. Minimize any engine performance reduction, system weight, and drag penalties/impacts. While it may be impossible to have “no effect” on the performance of the T55-GA-714A engine as a result of adding a filtration system of the air inlet, such performance losses must be kept to a minimum so as not to have a detrimental effect on aircraft performance and overall aircraft weight. The design objectives shall include a highly efficient design to maintain current performance standards as best possible (i.e. the current Chapter 7 aircraft performance charts per Ref 2i) and minimize weight impacts with the objective of not to exceeding 100 pounds of total delta aircraft weight (i.e. removal of current all-weather screens provides a delta of ~52 pounds per a/c side giving a total system weight objective of ~204 pounds).

1. Provide a performance estimate of the efficiency of the filter method used or the media used in the design with estimates of the performance degradation over time or as a function of buildup of dirt/dust/sand over time and the estimated reduction on total system performance.

1. Provide engine stability estimates and corresponding data as a function of the alteration of airflow patterns affected by the filtration system per Inlet Distortion Testing.

1. Provide Inlet Flow Pressure Loss and Inlet Pressure and Temperature Distortion assessments using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis and instrumented Testing to support test (Ground Static and Flight Test) of the proposed design.

1. Quantify the effects of an engine inlet filtration system on the current power/temperature margins of the T55-GA-714A engine as installed on the MH-47G.

1. Minimize EBF system performance losses in the event of component failure or filter contamination due to blockages of either sand/dirt/dust or build-up of icing with provisions to bypass the filtration system should the system become obstructed / clogged. This bypass feature shall be designed as a “fail-safe” system (i.e. bypass shall open with the removal of electrical power) and activate automatically as filtration conditions and system performance dictate.

1. Design shall include a Cockpit indication (powered for threshold) and potentially a pre-flight indication (static for objective) of the status of the Filtration System and the level of filter contamination (if a media filter design approach is used) is required (a “Delta Pressure” status indicator).

1. The developer / manufacturer of a proposed solution shall provide and quantify Reliability, Availability and, Maintainability (RAM) elements of the design solution.

1. Provide sustainment solutions (i.e. time before overhaul limits, maintenance schedules, and maintenance practices). The Maintenance Concept for this system is that all maintenance shall be conducted at the AVUM level and that no special tools shall be required to support this system and that the maintenance schedule would be presumed to be, “On Condition”.

1. System Safety shall be considered during the development of the system design and the design shall be such that potential for injury to personnel and/or equipment damage is minimized during operations, servicing, maintenance, repair or adjustment of the system. During design and development process hazards that may be indentified shall be either eliminated or the risk reduced to an acceptable level. Hazards assessed as 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, or 2B are considered as unacceptable and shall not be introduced (Ref 2h).

1. Detailed design for a mounting system on the MH-47G.

1. Data providing design life expectancies of the EBF system. It is expected that the design life of the EBF assembly is not less than 2,000 flight hours. (though the re-useable and replaceable filter elements may not last that long)

1. Provide a list of the materials used in the proposed design along with a structural loads assessment to be used as a baseline for follow-on Airworthiness Substantiation.

1. Provide drawings of the proposed design solution to include both mechanical and electrical system components and the proposed installation on an MH-47G. The drawing package shall include a mass properties assessment and weight and balance data. A modal frequency (RAP) test shall be conducted to ensure the design components do not fall within any of the MH-47G or T55 engine natural harmonic frequencies.

1. General Limitations in the proposed Design due to specification Aircraft Design Guidance or limitations imposed by the Engine System PIDS Design Guidance or criteria for inlet air in the Engine PIDS Integration Requirements:

14. Inlet Distortion Limits: Shall not be less than as defined in Ref 2j, Appendix D.

14. Allowable Connected Loads (to the engine): Limits as defined in Ref 2j, Fig. 26.

14. The maximum rated airflow for the proposed design shall be no less than 29.1 LBM/second at Sea Level ISA per Ref 2j.

14. The system shall be able to flow a minimum of 27.0 LBM/second at Sea Level ISA when in the Bypass Condition with a full blockage of the filter elements and shall not “dump” the accumulated sand/dirt into the engine when the Bypass system is opened

14. The filtration system shall be capable of exposure to surge pressures generated from the engine system with damage. The engine surge limitations for inlet design with this class of engine are no less than a 10 psig internal pressure surge for 0.10 ± .025 seconds.

14. The pressure differential detection system shall provide an indication to the cockpit when the pressure drop across the filter reaches 20 inches of water with an accuracy tolerance of ± 2 inches of water.

14. Environmental and Impact Resistance: Impact; The EBF shall design shall be designed to withstand the impact of a 3 pound bird at a velocity of 125 knots to the front panel assembly; while this does not infer that the system will not incur damage from the object impacting the system without sacrificing the structural integrity of the design in such a manner as to induce FOD into the engine. Hail protection shall be afforded against hail stones of 2 inch size with a specific gravity of 0.7 at up to 145 knots striking the front and the side panels at oblique angles. The EBF shall protect against hail entry or EBF component entry into the engine from these impacts and the EBF shall remain firmly attached to the aircraft.

14. Other Mil Spec 461 and MIL Spec 810 qualification specific requirements shall be defined in the SOW but should be seen as Aviation Industry Standard, are defined in the referenced specifications and shall be available from the Contracting Officer upon request.

3.2 The Contractor shall develop hardware suitable for demonstration and testing in an integrated test environment. This hardware shall consider Safety of Flight Airworthiness requirements being developed in parallel by the Technology Applications Program Office and the Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED) to support future flight testing and qualification.

3.3 The EBF hardware shall be tested in an integrated environment resulting in test data quantifying and demonstrating the requirements outlined in 3.1, specifically to include:

1. Performance of the technical solution as air flow changes are introduced via changing environmental conditions (i.e. rain, sand, salt contamination), foreign object debris (e.g. birds), varying engine performance (i.e. compressor surge), and any other abnormal condition affecting optimal pressure distribution. This system performance should also demonstrate the automatic bypass feature functionality and the ability to manually override.

1. Maximum negative pressure differential with and without any bypass feature.

1. Mechanical shock per Ref 2f.

1. Electromagnetic interference concerns per Ref 2g.

3.5 The Contractor shall conduct all required data research and collection required to support hardware/software development and integration for potential future aircraft integration, testing and system qualification. The objective of the U.S. Government (USG) is that this test hardware procured within this effort will be used in any required follow-on effort(s) for flight test and qualification purposes on an MH-47G aircraft.

3.6 The Contractor shall provide a Price for future procurement / production of an EBF system. This information may be used by the USG for future program planning purposes.

4.0 Security Requirements: This program is UNCLASSIFIED.

5.0 Item Unique Identification (IUID): N/A. End item of this RDT&E program will be prototype hardware and corresponding documentation; hence no requirement for IUID marking shall be mandated.

6.0 Government Furnished Property/Information: The following government furnished property/information will be provided to support this development effort.

1. T55-GA-714A engine bell-mouth, inlet adapter assembly (“doughnut ring”) as required to support the specific vendor’s detailed design interface.

1. The USG shall not procure a copy of the Honeywell Engine Performance Deck / Performance Model of the T55 engine for bidder / suppliers but will “sponsor” the awardeeto gain a copy as desired.

7.0 Deliverables:

1. Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) 1: A Final Report of all technical data as described in Section 3

1. CDRL 2: Structural Substantiation and Mass Properties Report per Requirements defined in Section 3

1. CDRL 3: Inlet Distortion Test Report/Results

1. CDRL 4: Engine Flow Test Report/Results

1. CDRL 5: Mechanical and electrical drawing package and Mechanical Design substantiation as defined by the various elements as listed in Section 3.1

1. CDRL 6: Cost Performance Reporting

1. CDRL 7: Contract Performance Reporting

1. CDRL 8: Master Test Plan

1. Hardware Deliverable: One Shipset (2 EBF systems per shipset) and a spare EBF system as defined in Section 3

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:

POP 04-JUN-2013 TO

03-DEC-2014

RYLAND BARLOW

BUILDING 401, LEE BLVD.

FT. EUSTIS VA 23604-5577

(757)878-0730 EXT 233

FOB: Destination H92241

To:

POP 04-JUN-2013 TO

03-FEB-2015

RYLAND BARLOW

BUILDING 401, LEE BLVD.

FT. EUSTIS VA 23604-5577

(757)878-0730 EXT 233

H92241

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:

POP 04-JUN-2013 TO

03-DEC-2014

RYLAND BARLOW

BUILDING 401, LEE BLVD.

FT. EUSTIS VA 23604-5577

(757)878-0730 EXT 233

H92241

To:

POP 04-JUN-2013 TO

03-FEB-2015

RYLAND BARLOW

BUILDING 401, LEE BLVD.

FT. EUSTIS VA 23604-5577

(757)878-0730 EXT 233

H92241

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been added by reference:

The following have been added by full text:

52.217-3 EVALUATION EXCLUSIVE OF OPTIONS (APR 1984)

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by including only the price for the basic requirement; i.e., options will not be included in the evaluation for award purposes.

(End of provision)

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

L.1 General Instructions to Offerors. The contractor's proposals shall become the basis for evaluation by the Government. The proposal must be precise, factual and complete, as well as legible, clear and responsive to the solicitation. In the event the offeror takes any exception to or sets any conditions for its proposal under the subject solicitation, such an exception or condition shall be set forth in a cover letter to offeror's proposal.

L.1.1 This is an all electronic solicitation release. No hard copies will be mailed. The solicitation and amendments to the solicitation will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website at www.fedbizopps.gov. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the webpage for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information. The following instructions must be followed when preparing the proposal. To be considered for award, a complete response to the RFP is required. Each proposal and response/acknowledgment of any amendment(s)) must be submitted to the issuing office. The Government will consider how well the offeror complied with these instructions when evaluating each offer. Failure to follow these instructions may be considered indicative of the type of conduct that it may expect from the offeror during contract performance. The offeror should clearly state how it intends to accomplish the work called for in the contract. Mere acknowledgement or restatement of a requirement or task is not acceptable. The information in the proposal should be presented in a clear, coherent and concise manner. The proposal shall include all the information requested in the instructions below.

L.1.2 All proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of the solicitation. Any commitments made in the proposal shall become part of the resultant contract. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding and/or ability to perform under a contract. This may be a basis for rejection of the proposal. In no case shall words like “we will comply with the requirements of the contract,” or equivalent statements, be acceptable to meet the requirements of this RFP. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in an offeror’s proposal being excluded from further consideration for award. Offerors shall submit with their proposals a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.

L.1.3 The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price contract as a result of this solicitation upon the results of the proposal evaluations and available funding. The Government also reserves the right to award contracts without discussions, see FAR 52.215-1(f).

L.1.4 Proposals should not contain classified information.

L.1.5 Qualifying Criteria shall be prepared IAW these instructions.

L.1.6 Volume I, Part 1/Technical/Factor 1 shall be prepared IAW these instructions and will be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Proposals shall include necessary information to enable the evaluators to form a definitive conclusion concerning the offeror’s ability to perform the required program. The Technical proposal shall be organized in Tab format in the order listed in Section L and submitted IAW L.1.11.

L.1.7 Volume II/Price/Factor 2 shall be prepared IAW these instructions and will be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria in Section M and submitted IAW L.1.11.

L.1.8 Volume III/Past Performance/Factor 3, shall be prepared IAW these instructions and will be reviewed IAW the evaluation criteria in Section M and submitted IAW L.1.11.

L.1.10 Delivery Instructions:

a. Hand Carrying Instructions. Hand delivery is permitted by a person from an offeror’s/teaming partner’s staff. A messenger service delivering a package is not considered a hand delivery. All hand-carried proposal documents, to include CD-ROMs/DVDs, shall be delivered to the address below. Offerors are requested to provide a 24-hour notice to the Point of Contact (POC) at the telephone number below to provide notification of pending arrival:

Technology Applications Contracting Office ATTN: Contract Specialist: Anthony Ciccariello, AMSAM-SPK Lee Blvd., Building 408 Ft. Eustis, VA 23604 Primary Telephone: (757) 878-0730 x247

b. Mailing Instructions. Submit clearly marked proposals to:

Technology Applications Contracting Office ATTN: Contract Specialist: Anthony Ciccariello, AMSAM-SPK Lee Blvd., Building 401 Ft. Eustis, VA 23604

L.1.11 Proposal Format. Format of the proposal volumes (and any resulting responses to Evaluation Notices (Ens)) shall be as follows:

PROPOSAL FORMAT: Format of the proposal volumes (and any resulting responses to Evaluation Notices (Ens)) shall be as follows: Text size shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 10 point, uncompressed font.

Pages shall be single sided, singled spaced, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides. Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, “original” or copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror’s name.

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume.

Elaborate format, color representations, and bindings are not desirable. Three-ring binders are preferred. The pages in the binders shall be easily removed and replaced to facilitate page changes. Any pages that are changed (as the result of negotiations) should be of a different color (as specified by the Contracting Officer) and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page and/or circling if changing data in a chart. The offeror shall indicate the new date on revised pages.

Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used when necessary 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 one 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 equivalent to Microsoft Word 8 point, Times New Roman. All cells in the cost proposal on the CD ROM must contain “open” cells in Microsoft Office 2007 or later spreadsheet product.

Electronic copies must be provided on CD-ROMs/DVDs, read-only memory. Microsoft Office 2007 or later, presentation and spreadsheet products are preferred. Changes, as a result of negotiations, will be conformed on CD-ROMs/DVDs and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin.

All Offerors should ensure that all requested information in Section L of the Request for Proposal be provided to the Government; Volumes 1,2,3. The Small Business Subtracting Plan, All Section K, Representations, Certifications and Disclosures and all other information requested.

L.1.12 Proposal Submission Requirements

One Electronic Version Volume I shall be VOID of proposal cost information. Volume I shall not exceed 50 pages, inclusive of any drawings, charts, etc., and exclusive of resumes, section dividers, table of content list of figures/tables, glossary of terms and cross-referencing indices (which are not considered content pages). The evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages specified. Pages shall be standard 8 ½” by 11” paper and type shall be Times New Roman, 10-pitch or larger font size, single spaced with margins at least 1 inch, except for text embedded in tables and illustrations. Fold-out illustrations required for reader ease are allowed, however, illustration shall be counted in 8 ½” by 11” increments (e.g. an 11”x17” document will count as one (1) page.

One Electronic Version No Limit

One Electronic Version 15 pages or less

L.2 QUALIFYING CRITERIA. Provide documentation under separate cover from the volumes, as required below, in order for the Government to determine if appropriate information is provided for the offeror to be responsive to the requirements. The proposal must be valid until at a minimum until 30 September 2013.

L.2.1 Proposal cover letter or proposal cover page include names, office phone and facsimile numbers, if applicable, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for proposal points of contact.

L.2.2 A copy of the RFP with the original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33. The offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP for these criteria:

Solicitation, Offer and Award (Standard Form 33), Blocks 12- 18 Include all Solicitation Amendments (Standard Form 30), if applicable.

All Section K, Representations, Certifications and Disclosures

L.2.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation. FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (FAR 52.219-8 will also be required) clauses are included in this solicitation and will be incorporated into any resultant contract. A subcontracting plan is required from all offerors other than small business concerns for proposals exceeding $650,000 which contain subcontracting opportunities. The plan shall be submitted to meet published annual USSOCOM small business goals with the initial proposal and will be concurrently reviewed and either approved or disapproved. If a cost proposal is required by this solicitation, it must relate to, and substantiate, the submissions under FAR 52.219-9(d). The offeror’s submission must provide sufficient information to support the Contracting Officer’s review of the subcontracting plan to determine if it is acceptable (otherwise an offeror will be ineligible to receive the contract award).

Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Offerors must comply with all sections of FAR 19.704. This includes:

Each offeror shall describe their corporate commitment in providing subcontracting opportunities for small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business (no mandated minimum but should still be addressed), veteran-owned small business, and service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns.

Describe the strength and specificity of each corporate commitment (i.e., what type of commitment, how binding is the commitment, how specific is the commitment to this proposed effort, and what type of work will be included in these subcontracting opportunities from the overall corporate level).

Each offeror shall include a listing of their subcontractors (large and small). For Small Businesses, list the socio-economic category (ies) for each entity.

The NAICS code of 541712 pertains to the prime offeror. The offerors will then be able to determine their subcontractors and the NAICS code for the work that the subcontractor will be performing at the task order level. The NAICS code that is listed for the subcontractor must be listed in the subcontractor’s profile, i.e., System for Award Management (SAM), Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), or documentation must be provided by the Small Business Administration if the subcontractor does not have a profile in the SAM or ORCA.

Small Business and Socio-Economic Program Participation. The offeror shall describe how their subcontracting plan meets or exceeds the mandatory small business participation minimum of 28% of total estimated contract dollars. The offerors’ Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall indicate how the subcontracting plan will meet or exceed each category percentage as follows:

L.3 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL

L.3.1 Executive Summary. This section is limited to five (5) pages, but is not included in the page limit for Volume I. It should contain, in no more than five (5) pages, a concise summary of the offeror’s proposed approach to the EBF program. The table of contents, title page, acronym lists, and tab dividers are not included in the page count. The Executive Summary shall include a declaration statement that acknowledges and accepts, without exception, all Statement of Objectives (SOO).

L.3.2 Volume I, Part 1 – Factor 1 – Technical. The offeror shall describe how their overall proposed technical solution meets integrating an inlet filtration system on a T55-GA-714A engine and H-47 aircraft requirements. The Technical Factor has four subfactors: Technical Merit, Technical Approach, Supportability/Sustainment Strategy, and Management Organizational Structure/ Teaming Arrangements.

L.3.2.1 Subfactor 1.1: Technical Merit. The offeror shall articulate their overall proposed technical solution meets integrating an inlet filtration system on a T55-GA-714A engine and H-47 aircraft requirements.

L.3.2.2 Subfactor 1.2: Technical Approach. The offeror shall describe a sound, complete, and realistic approach to analyzing requirements, system design, development, integration, and performance verification with clearly defined entry and exit criteria for program technical reviews in order to determine if the proposal meets requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements.

L.3.2.3 Subfactor 1.3: Supportability/Sustainment Strategy The offeror shall articulate their approach in incorporating logistical and sustainment considerations into the design process and define a comprehensive approach to development and integration for the Engine Barrier Filter program, including but not limited to, quantified reliability, availability and maintainability of the design solution. The overall supportability and sustainment approach should include maintenance schedules and practices taking into consideration the current T55-GA-714A time before overhaul limits and typical MH-47G scheduled maintenance events (i.e. phase every 300 flight hours). This includes determination if the proposal meets these requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements.

L.3.3 Volume II, VOLUME II – FACTOR 2 – Price Information is required other than cost or pricing data. Offerors will show a clear buildup of all direct and indirect costs being proposed. Indirect proposed rates for labor shall be based upon the business unit’s forward pricing rate recommendations (FPRR) as approved by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or forward pricing rate agreements (FPRA) that are in effect at the time of the proposal submission. Offerors shall also provide a copy of the signed FPRR or FPRA within their proposed Price (Volume II). Absent a FPRR or FPRA, offerors are required to provide the basis of the proposed costs and all associated back up documentation, i.e. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits.

L.3.3.1 The following information is provided for clarification purposes of CLIN 0003, option pricing that is to be included in Volume II.

(1) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of 10 shipsets and 2 shipsets worth of spare filter element(s); (2) Production of 59 shipsets and ~10-20% spare filter element(s) and recommended sparing levels to support sustainment in desert operations based on similar design fleet analytics.

52.207-4 ECONOMIC PURCHASE QUANTITY--SUPPLIES (AUG 1987)

(a) Offerors are invited to state an opinion on whether the quantity(ies) of supplies on which bids, proposals or quotes are requested in this solicitation is (are) economically advantageous to the Government. _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

Each offeror who believes that acquisitions in different quantities would be more advantageous is invited to recommend an economic purchase quantity. If different quantities are recommended, a total and a unit price must be quoted for applicable items. An economic purchase quantity is that quantity at which a significant price break occurs. If there are significant price breaks at different quantity points, this information is desired as well.

(c) The information requested in this provision is being solicited to avoid acquisitions in disadvantageous quantities and to assist the Government in developing a data base for future acquisitions of these items. However, the Government reserves the right to amend or cancel the solicitation and resolicit with respect to any individual item in the event quotations received and the Government's requirements indicate that different quantities should be acquired.

(d) Contractor shall propose a production schedule to support each optional line item.

(End of provision)

252.227-7017 Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions

Based upon the asserted restrictions on use, release, or disclosure of technical data, the offeror shall identify the proposed data legend to be applied to each deliverable for evaluation by the Government:

L.4 VOLUME III – FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

L.4.1 Contents. The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Proposal (Volume III) containing the following:

Table of Contents.

Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets IAW paragraph L.5.1.1 below.

Past Performance Information Sheets, paragraph L.5.1.1 below.

Consent Letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information.

L.4.1.1 Past Performance. When addressing past performance the offeror shall provide references from Government and private industry sources that are not prohibited from furnishing information to the Government. Offerors may include with their proposal information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. The Government will consider this information as well as information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. In selecting the references, offerors should consider the currency and relevancy of the past performance information. In determining relevancy and currency to the solicitation requirement, offerors should make every effort to submit references that are similar in scope, nature and complexity to this solicitation. The Government will evaluate relevancy of past performance based upon similar development effort, complexity, and dollar value of the contract.

The offeror shall submit separately, with the proposal, a list of current contracts of similar scope, nature, and complexity, with contract number, contract office point of contact, program office point of contact, contract value, scope of services, and whether the contract involves aircraft integration and flight operations. Contact information must include both telephone number and electronic mail address. The Government will send a Past Performance Questionnaire to a minimum of three (3) references and to a maximum of five (5) references for whom the offeror has contracted similar services with the Federal, State and Local Government during the past three (3) years. If the offeror does not have Government references, the offeror shall provide references from private industry sources that are not prohibited from furnishing information to the Government. The Government will contact selected references to obtain information based upon these questionnaires. Prior to forwarding, the questionnaire to each reference, the offeror shall complete Section A of the questionnaire, Contractor Information. The Government will provide Offerors an opportunity to address problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. The Government will consider this information as well as information obtained from any other sources when evaluating the offeror’s past performance.

Offerors shall submit past performance information for previous Research and Development Aviation contracts, they recently held. Along with that information they shall submit name of the Contracting Officer, Contracting Agency, and contact information.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance information may submit data from subcontractors and predecessor companies who have relevant experience. In this case, offerors shall provide relevant information to allow Government evaluators to conduct a Past Performance evaluation on the predecessor companies and subcontractors. If offerors list performance for predecessor companies, offerors shall address the relationship of the current organization to the predecessor. To be considered for evaluation, the Contractor shall provide documentation demonstrating the individuals or subcontractors are either current employees or will be employed for any ensuing contract (i.e. Letter of Intent). Such information shall, as a minimum, include:

a. Name(s) of Predecessor Company/Subcontractor and include:

Complete Address Telephone & Fax Number

b. Provide a minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) references for each Predecessor Company or Subcontractor and include for each reference:

Complete Address;

c. Offerors shall submit with their proposal a Reference List identifying all businesses and Federal, State or Local government agencies for which the offeror has been awarded a contract during the past three (3) years through this solicitation’s release date. If an offeror has more than five awarded contracts during the past 3-year period, then identify only the most recent five consecutive awarded contracts. For each reference on the list of awarded contracts, identify the following:

Company/Government Agency name;

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS OF AWARD

Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award

Best Value:

M.1 Basis for Award. The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in Section M. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of cost and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1). This best-value determination will be accomplished by comparing the value of the differences in the technical factors for competing offers, based on their strengths, weaknesses, and risks, with differences in their price to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management capabilities than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical approach. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein.

M.1.1 Best Value Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals against Technical, Program Management, Cost and Past Performance factors. A color rating technique, described below in Section M.2, will be used to evaluate the Technical and Program Management Factors. The Technical and Management Factors will also be evaluated for risk. The Cost Factor will not be given a color rating or scored. Unless otherwise stated, the subfactors within the Technical and the Program Management Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical, Program Management, Cost and Past Performance are in descending order of importance. The Technical Factor is more important than Program Management. The Program Management Factor is more important than Cost. The Past Performance Factor is significantly less important than Cost. When all evaluation factors, Technical, Program Management, and Past Performance, are combined, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than cost.

Factor 1.0 – Technical Volume I, Part 1 Subfactor 1.1: Technical Merit Subfactor 1.2: Technical Approach Subfactor 1.3: Supportability/Sustainment Strategy Subfactor 1.4: Management Organizational Structure/Teaming Arrangements

Factor 2.0 – Price Volume II

Factor 3.0 - Past Performance Volume III

M.2 FACTOR 1: Technical. Under the Technical Factor, the offeror will be evaluated on how well the overall proposed technical solution meets the Engine Barrier Filter (EBF) requirements as outlined in the SOW. Consideration will be given to the offeror’s engineering approach, teaming arrangements, systems engineering expertise, aircraft integration plan, compatibility of the design approach with the existing aircraft architecture and anticipated system reliability and maintainability. The Technical Factor has four subfactors: Technical Merit, Technical Approach, Supportability/Sustainment Strategy, and Management Organizational Structure/ Teaming Arrangements. The Technical Merit subfactor is more important than the Technical Approach subfactor which is more important than the Supportability/Sustainment subfactor which is more important than the Management Organizational Structure/ Teaming Arrangements subfactor.

Evaluation of this Factor will focus on the strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal. The risks associated with the offeror’s technical plan and their ability to execute their plan will be separately evaluated. The Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies that will enhance contract performance and are a benefit to the Government. The Government will roll up element and subfactor ratings into an overall rating for this Factor to include risk (addressed below). Note that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. Conversely, proposal elements that exceed threshold requirements or partially meet objective requirements may be characterized as strengths.

Table 1. Technical/Program Management Ratings

Each Technical subfactor will have a risk assessment performed in accordance with the definitions prescribed in Table 2. The subfactor risk assessments will be rolled up at the Factor level with the color ratings for a complete Factor rating.

Table 2. Technical Risk Ratings

degradation of performance. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

degradation of performance. Special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M.2.1 Subfactor 1.1: Technical Merit. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical solution to meeting the RFP requirements. This includes the ability to meet and/or exceed the objectives and goals of the RFP using an innovative technical solution.

M.2.2 Subfactor 1.2: Technical Approach. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate how the offeror’s proposal defines a sound, complete, and realistic approach to analyzing requirements, system design, development, integration, and performance verification with clearly defined entry and exit criteria for program technical reviews in order to determine if the proposal meets requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements.

M.2.3 Subfactor 1.3: Supportability/Sustainment Strategy. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach in incorporating logistical and sustainment considerations into the design process and define a comprehensive approach to development and integration for the Engine Barrier Filter program, including but not limited to, quantified reliability, availability and maintainability of the design solution. The overall supportability and sustainment approach should include maintenance schedules and practices taking into consideration the current T55-GA-714A time before overhaul limits and typical MH-47G scheduled maintenance events (i.e. phase every 300 flight hours). This includes determination if the proposal meets these requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements.

M.2.4 Subfactor 1.4: Management Organizational Structure/Teaming Arrangements. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s outlined plans for each organizational element and defined responsibilities and business management practices, processes, and expertise to manage the Engine Barrier Filter program in order to determine if the proposal meets requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements.

M.3 FACTOR 2: Price. The pricing proposed will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness. The proposed price will be analyzed to determine whether the proposed elements (man-hours, labor categories, materials, travel, and other costs) are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

Price proposal evaluations will consider the price of all the entire Firm Fixed Price Contract with the exception of Option CLIN 0003 which will be conducted independently of the base effort. Price will be evaluated to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 (c) (2) (iii) (C) to include ensuring the price is not unrealistically low or unreasonably high without valid explanation. The Price Evaluation will also compare proposed price to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). IAW FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government will conduct a price realism analysis of proposals. The Government will use the results of this price realism assessment as a part of its risk rating analysis. Price will not receive a color rating or score.

M.4 FACTOR 3: Past Performance. Offeror’s Past Performance - Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The evaluation will be based on the offeror’s most recent contracts for similar requirements for the past three years, as well as data from independent sources. Past Performance will assess the relevancy and the risk associated with performing the current effort based upon the offeror’s prior performance.

Based on the evaluation results, the Government will assign a performance confidence rating to the past performance volume. The evaluation will consider the factors as described in paragraph (d) below. Based on the evaluation results, the Government will assign one of five confidence ratings as defined in paragraph (g) below.