J-9 Section L and M.pdf

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO

OFFERORS

L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

L-1.1 The purpose of this solicitation is to notify prospective contractors on the performance of services for the FY26 Air Advisor Academic (AAA) Support Services, Firm Fixed Price requirements contract in support of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL). AAA services shall be provided for one (1) base year and four (4) one year option periods. In addition, the government may extend the total length of the contract by no more than (6) months after the end of the last option year, if necessary, and IAW with RFO 52.217-8.

L-1.2 The Government intends to award a target of one vendor under this contract.

The period of performance for this effort will be 12-months for the base year and subsequent option periods, targeted to begin in October 2026.

L-1.3 This is an all-electronic solicitation release. Hard copies are not available.

The Government will post all information pertaining to the solicitation and award of this requirement to the Electronic Posting System, also known as SAM.gov. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the web page for postings of amendments, updates, or changes to current information.

L-1.4 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

L-1.5 Communications: Exchanges of information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Questions received, in writing, and subsequent answers will be posted to SAM.gov. Offerors are encouraged to submit in writing all questions and requests for clarifications.

Questions will be due by 9 Apr 2026, 3:00PM EST and proposals due 30 Apr 2026 3:00PM EST. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification made after Q&A suspense date closing shall be at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Failure of a prospective offeror to submit any questions will be construed to mean that the prospective offeror fully understands all requirements of the solicitation. Questions shall be submitted via email to both Jeremy.botkin@us.af.mil and lewis.hampton@us.af.mil.

L-1.6 Incurred Expenses: The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

L-1.7 In compliance with RFO 4.309(a)(1), the Government will retain one (1) copy of all unsuccessful proposals and will destroy all extra copies. No destruction certificate will be provided.

L-1.8 All proposals must be complete and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. Any commitments made to the proposal shall become a part of the resulting contract. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in the Government summarily rejecting the offeror's proposal.

L-1.9 Contractor proposals must be submitted via email to both jeremy.botkin@us.af.mil and lewis.hampton@us.af.mil. Proposals not sent to both addresses will be considered nonresponsive and will not be evaluated forward. To ensure successful delivery, contractors should obtain confirmation from the Contracting Officer that their proposal has been received and reviewed. Email submissions can occasionally be misplaced or routed to junk folders, so it is the contractor's responsibility to secure direct confirmation from the Contracting Officer that the government has both received and acknowledged their proposal.

FEDERAL HOLIDAYS: The following Federal Legal Holidays are observed on this base:

New Year's Day - 1 January

Martin Luther King's Birthday Third Monday in January

Presidents Day Third Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May

Juneteenth - 19 June

Independence Day - 4 July

Labor Day First Monday in September mailto:lewis.hampton@us.af.mil

Columbus Day Second Monday in October

Veterans Day - 11 November

Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November

Christmas Day - 25 December

L-2 PROPOSALPREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L-2.1 Volume Organization: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes as set forth below:

Volume Description Copies of Reference Paragraph I Contract Documents

L-2.2.1 I Technical Capabilities

L-2.2.2 II Past Performance

L-2.2.3 III Price

L-2.2.4 IIII Mission Essential Plan

L-2.2.3 L-2.2 Volume Content

L-2.2.0 Contract Documents

L-2.2.0.1 SF1449 and Solicitation: Complete Blocks 14-19, 20a- 20c, and 30a-30c of SF1449 and all fill-in clauses in solicitation Sections I - L. L-2.2.1.2 SF30, Amendment Form (If used): Complete Blocks 8 and 15 (A - C) for each amendment issued under this solicitation.

L-2.2.0.2 Clauses and Provisions: Offerors shall complete all areas contained in Administrative Data of Section G, RFO Provision 52.219-28 in Section I, and all other clauses and provisions, including exceptions or deviations, within Sections I, K, and L, as applicable to the offeror.

L- 2.2.1 Volume I – Technical capabilities

L-2.2.1.1 Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following factors:

Technical Factor - Organizational Staffing and Manning Utilization Plan/Approach: The offeror shall provide a staffing plan to recruit and retain the skill sets required of the PWS and Appendix B. Measure of Merit: Requirement is met when the offeror provides a staffing plan to include a staffing chart that describes qualified personnel, recruitment and retention plan considering local market conditions, classroom capabilities and course overlap necessary to meet instructional and administrative requirements of the PWS and appendix B.

L-2.2.2 Volume II - Past Performance

L-2.2.2.1 Past Performance Information: Only references for relevant contracts are required. Submit original and one (1) copy.

L-2.2.2.2 Quality and satisfaction rating for contracts completed in the past five (5) years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires). In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

L-2.2.2.3 The Past Performance Information Retrieval System and Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information Systems as well as any other Government-sponsored information available may be utilized to help make a responsibility determination in accordance with RFO Subpart 9.104.

L-2.2.2.4 Performance Surveys: The government will evaluate the extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant and recent to the requirements of this RFP.

The government will use information submitted by the offeror and any other sources of information available to the Government to assess present/past performance. Provide a list of no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years. Relevant contracts include efforts that have an award value of no less than $100K. The evaluation of past performance information will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent, relevant experience. Provide the following information for each contract listed:

i. Company/Division name

ii. Product/Service

iii. Contracting Agency/Customer

iv. Contract Number v. Contract Dollar Value vi. Period of Performance

v. Verified, up-to-date name, address & telephone number of the contracting officer

vi. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

vii. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

viii. Infrequency or relevancy to the instant requirement is not readily apparent, it is the offeror's responsibility to explain.

Performance Questionnaires: The offeror will provide the government with a furnished questionnaire ("Past Performance Questionnaire") to those federal agencies and commercial customers where the offerors performances are deemed recent and relevant and direct them to return the completed questionnaires to the point of contact listed on the questionnaire. The evaluation of past performance information will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have recent, relevant experience.

NOTE: PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES WILL

NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM THE OFFEROR; IT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY

THE RATER. IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFEROR TO FOLLOW

UP WITH THE RATER IN ORDER TO ENSURE PAST AND PRESENT

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE

GOVERNMENT.

L-2.2.2.5 Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor's consent. Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

Requirements of the RFP Price Schedules, Performance Work Statement (PWS), and government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS . Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP. The page limitation for Part II of the proposal is 30 pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the proposal. Format for proposal Part II shall be as follows: a) A page is defined as one face of an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper containing information. b) Typing shall not be less than 12-point font. c) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

L-2.2.3 Volume III- Price

L- 2.2.3.1 Price Information: A total price breakdown required to be submitted via the B supplies or services & Prices section". Prices shall not extend past the second decimal point for unit and extended amounts. The proposed price shall include all personnel, supplies, services, management, overhead, other directs costs, G&A, and profit to fulfill the contractual requirements of the PWS and any attachments.

L- 2.2.3.2 Identify and include the company's CAGE Code, UEI Number, and business-size standard under the applicable NAICS of 611699.

L- 2.2.3.3 SF1449 and Solicitation: Complete blocks 14-19, 20a - 20c. and 30a - 30c. of the SF1449 as well as signing/acknowledging any amendments. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

L- 2.2.3.4 Representations and Certifications: You must include all Representations and Certifications with your quote or reflect they are completed in SAM.gov.

L- 2.2.3.5 All offers remain valid for 180 calendar days. Multiple offers will not be accepted.

L-2.2.4 Volume IIII Mission Essential Plan

L-2.2.4.1 Proposals must include a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with R-DFARS 252.237-7023, Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. This plan must describe in detail how the offeror will continue to provide all required services under all circumstances, ensuring uninterrupted support to DoD missions and responsibilities and acknowledge that they have an understanding that they will be required to provide services to provide under various unforeseen circumstances for example Installation or facility closures, Severe or inclement weather, natural disasters, security incidents, and situations in which the installation is under attack or otherwise compromised.

Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.1: This competitive acquisition will utilize best value award utilizing Tradeoff procedures in accordance with RFO 15.103-1 to make an integrated assessment for the best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence they will best meet or exceed our requirements at a fair, reasonable, and affordable price, and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, evaluations of the factors described in this provision will be completed.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the best value tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Awards will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-2 below.

Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. The Government intends to award a target of one contract as a result of this solicitation.

Email correspondence conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions per RFO Part 15. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror's may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period if necessary.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all line items in the solicitation. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are mathematically and materially unbalanced.

Evaluation of options, if applicable, shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-8 Option to Extend Services deviation date 27 Feb 2026

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options Jul 1990 :

M-1.2 Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR): The government intends to award without discussions with respective offerors. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the FPR will be considered in making the decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. : The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract

M-1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. In accordance with RFO 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors.

M-1.4 Contractor Responsibility: No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. At the discretion of the contracting officer, the government may require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor's current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor's compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be considered for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award.

Pursuant to RFO 9.104-4, the contracting officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s).

In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror's proposal shall be performed. The Government's evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 4: Mission Essential Plan

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance is significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS: The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review of all offers to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section Paragraph L-2. To structure and streamline the evaluation process, confirming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price from lowest to highest and then evaluated for past performance, technical specs and mission essential plan. If the lowest evaluated priced offerors judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, that offeror represents the best value for the Government and will receive the award. If the lowest priced evaluated offeror is not judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, evaluations will continue (in ascending order by price) until one (1) offeror is rated with "Substantial Confidence" or, until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment of the best value award decision for a target of one (1) awardee.

M-3.1 Technical capabilities: A "best value" award decision utilizing trade-off will be the basis of award. Technical proposals will be evaluated on a pass/ fail basis assigned ratings of acceptable/unacceptable and past performance is significantly more important than price. The evaluation of price and non-priced factors will be detailed in the request for proposal (RFP). RFO 15.103-1 allows an award to a higher priced proposal, provided that an appropriate price/technical trade-off has been made by the agency. A trade-off process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. The government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following factors: Technical Factor - Organizational Staffing and Manning Utilization Plan/Approach: The offeror shall provide a staffing plan to recruit and retain the skill sets required of the PWS and Appendix B. Measure of Merit: Requirement is met when the offeror provides a staffing plan to include a staffing chart that describes qualified personnel, recruitment and retention plan considering local market conditions, classroom capabilities and course overlap necessary to meet instructional and administrative requirements of the PWS and appendix B

M-3.2 Past Performance Evaluation Information: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance based on the recency and relevance of the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance, all which shall be considered. Any effort submitted must be similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to this effort. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are two (2) aspects to the quality of the past performance evaluation:

recency and relevancy.

M-3.2.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors may submit up to three (3) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within five

(5) years from the date of this solicitation (SF 1449 Block 3). Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

M-3.2.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must have an award value of no less than $100K with a minimum scope, magnitude and complexity of this requirement. Complexity is defined as the ability to perform and manage several task orders at the same time and successfully perform similar or higher magnitudes than described in the solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror's ability to perform the requirement described in the solicitation based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance.

Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 1 below shall be used when assessing offeror's efforts.

Table 1- Past Performance Relevance Ratings

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 involves involving scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

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

M-3.2.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2 below. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information will be evaluated less favorably than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contracts, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of "Neutral" will be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a "Neutral" confidence rating. Asa result of the recency and relevancy assessments, and overall quality of the contracts evaluated, one of the confidence ratings as described below will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if the lowest priced offeror does not receive a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment.

Table 2- Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence has low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

M-3.3 Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under RFO 15.403-1(1) will not be required.

However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in RFO Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price. After a compliance review of the lowest priced offerors are accomplished, offerors whose total evaluated price is determined unreasonable (in accordance with RFO 15.404 and RFO 31.201-3) or unbalanced (in accordance with RFO 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. 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. Unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror's proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

M-3.4 Mission Essential Plan: Proposals must include a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with R-DFARS 252.237‑7023, Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. The plan must describe in detail how the offeror will ensure the continued performance of all required services under all circumstances, providing uninterrupted support to DoD missions and responsibilities. The plan must also: Acknowledge the offeror’s understanding that the services required under this contract are mission‑essential and must be performed even during disruptive or emergency conditions, unless otherwise directed by the Government. Explain how the offeror will maintain continuity of operations and sustain essential functions during unforeseen events, including but not limited to: Installation or facility closures Severe or inclement weather Natural disasters Security incidents Situations in which the installation is under attack, compromised, or operating under emergency posture The plan should clearly outline the offeror’s staffing, communication, logistical, and operational strategies to ensure uninterrupted service delivery in any of the above scenarios.