Pre_Solicitation_Conf_-_Aero-I_DRAFT_-_FINAL.pdf

AF Life Cycle Management Center AFLCMC… Providing the Warfighter’s Edge

C/KC-135 Aero-I

Satellite Communication

(SATCOM) Replacement

Pre-Solicitation Conference

16 May 2019

Mr. Keith Lymore, Chief

Programs Branch

Legacy Tanker Division

Agenda

1300-1330: Introduction and Opening Remarks

1330-1345: Program Background

1345-1415: Solicitation Overview

1415-1430: Break

1430-1515: Source Selection Training

1515-1545: Keys to Developing a Good Proposal

1545-1600: Break

1600-1700: Open Question & Answer Session

Introduction

Branch Chief, C/KC-135 Programs: Mr. Keith Lymore

Program Manager (PM): Mr. Mark Leahy

Ms. Jackie Burns (Contractor)

Program Engineer: Ms. Paula McKinney

Program Equipment Specialist: Mr. Chuck Bates

Program Logistician: Ms. Renee Ring

Procurement Contracting Officer: Mr. William Loftis

Contract Specialist: Ms. Malita Green

Price Analyst: Ms. Dee Jordan

Source Selection Advisor: Mr. Van Garmon

Disclaimer

This briefing/training is to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

This conference does not constitute a contract, a promise to contract, or a commitment of any kind on the part of the Government nor does it constitute as a change to the RFP

Any discussions or suggested information at this meeting are for discussion purposes only

Rules of Engagement

Where possible, ask questions in writing

Submit questions only to the PCO, Will Loftis at william.loftis@us.af.mil, and Contract Specialist, Malita

Green at malita.green@us.af.mil

Official written responses will be posted on

FedBizOpps on a non-attribution basis

Verbal questions and answers are not binding

Government reserves the right to contact respondent for further clarification of submitted questions

Clarification questions to the briefer are permissible when it applies to the general audience and not a specific condition/arrangement for you or your company

Government may limit or stop oral questions at their discretion mailto:william.loftis@us.af.mil mailto:malita.green@us.af.mil

Opening Remarks

Col Robert M. Mocio, Chief

Legacy Tanker Division

Ms. Jackie Burns, PM

Quantech Services

AFLCMC/WKDM

C/KC-135 Aero-I SATCOM

Replacement

Program Background

Aero-I SATCOM installed as part of Global Air Traffic

Management Program (GATM)

Provides oceanic Controller/Pilot Data Link Communications

(CPDLC) to Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Aircraft

Communications Addressing\Reporting System (ACARS) beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) messages to 618 Tanker Airlift

Control Center (TACC) Global Decision Support System

Composed of COTS transceiver and an antenna

Transceiver

Antenna

Current provider – International Maritime Satellite (Inmarsat™)

Jul 13: Announced service would terminate in Jan 2016 as 3rd generation satellites (I-3) were decommissioned

Customer push back forced Inmarsat™ to continue service on 4th generation satellites (I-4) until 31 Dec 22

AMC-directed Iridium® solution 23 Dec 98 via ORD

Program Overview

Replace existing Inmarsat with Iridium SATCOM solution

Must be compatible with both Block 40 & Block 45

Must be able to integrate with OC-135 Open Skies aircraft

Requires integration with Software Integration Facility (SIL) and integration/production of fieldable Operational Flight

Program (OFP) release for each aircraft Block

Integration, test, and certification activities to be completed within 12 months of contract award

Antenna Size/Location

INMARSAT

IRIDIUM

Comm Rack/LRU Position

33. Provisional Mount for SATCOM 2 38. VHF Data link Module 2

34. RT6806 39. SATCOM 1

35. RT5 and RT5360 40. Covers, Electronics Equipment Cabinet

36. Capacitors 41. Electronics Equipment Cabinet

37. RT1 and RT2 42. Future Allocation

Current LRU

Mr. Mark Leahy, PM

Aero-I SATCOM

AFLCMC/WKDM

Mr. William Loftis, PCO

AFLCMC/WKK

C/KC-135 Aero-I SATCOM

Solicitation Overview

First Article Delivery

Consists of one Block 40 and one Block 45 aircraft

Includes all integration, certification, and test activities

Produce engineering package to support PDM install

Procure/Deliver BEQ 359 A Kit

A Kit is defined as the mounting plate, hardware and associated cabling

Procure/Deliver BEQ 395 B Kit

B Kit is defined as the transceiver and antenna

Install BEQ 134 aircraft – 30 hr/aircraft including cure time

Optional Foreign Military Sales (FMS)

Integration and installation for up to 17 FMS aircraft:

Chile (3), France (3), Singapore (4), and Turkey (7)

Solicitation Overview

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements

Terms and conditions

Representations and certifications

SOW and SRD requirements, in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors, and elements

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award

Solicitation Requirements

Cost and Software Data

Reporting (CSDR)

Primary method DoD collects actual costs incurred

Provide data broken out by WBS, recurring/non-recurring, and functional categories

Project future costs for existing/future programs

Serve cost estimators & distinct from Integrated

Program Management Reports which serve PM

Designated a pilot ACAT III program for CSDR

Implement a modification of the ACAT I process

Government-approved CSDR plan, DD Form 2794

Requirements outlined in SOW 3.7 and in Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) A039-A043

Contract Information

This acquisition is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite

Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract IAW FAR 16.504

The ordering period under this contract shall be from contract award (estimated 30 Apr 2020) for a maximum contract length of five years

PERIOD DATES*

Base Period (Years 1 – 5) 30 Apr 2020 –29 Apr 2025

*These dates will change depending on date of award

CLIN Structure

AERO-I CLIN Structure

CLIN Description Contract Type

X001 CFT Install – touch labor only FFP

X002 CFT Travel CR

X003 Over & Above - Labor FFP

X004 Over & Above - Material FFP

X005 A Kit – material only FFP

X006 B Kit – material only FFP

X007 Data NSP

X008 First Article – Block 40 FFP

X009 First Article – Block 45 FFP

X010 Integration (FMS Only) FFP

NOTE: FMS will have similar CLIN structure (travel is FFP)

One 5 year ordering period with individual year pricing

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1: Aircraft Installation & Integration Strategy

First Article Delivery for Block 40 and 45

Selected transceiver and antenna must meet all requirements in the SRD

Installation to include strategy for antenna removal

& location of new antenna

Supplies and Materials – long lead times and store/transport kits

Associated Contractor Agreement (ACA) with

Collins Aerospace for OFP update & SIL test

Subfactor 2: Small Business Participation

Include at least 8% of proposal price

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Government shall evaluate offeror’s team for relevancy and performance

Relevancy Assessment:

Scope – Installation of similar SATCOM systems on military or civilian heavy aircraft

Magnitude – Quantity of SATCOM systems installed per year and contract value as it relates to portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity – Similarities between a given past performance effort and the technical subfactors

Performance Assessment

Evaluation of past performance questionnaires, PPIRS information, CPARS, and interviews

Factor 3 - Price

Government shall assess all technically acceptable offers for price reasonableness (including completeness), unbalanced pricing, price realism, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing will be evaluated using Pricing Matrix

All proposed CLIN unit pricing shall be input into the

Pricing Matrix

All periods of performance must be priced

Estimated quantities per CLIN are provided in the

Pricing Matrix for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government

Preliminary Milestones

EVENT MILESTONE ACTUAL

Draft PWS/RFP to Industry 3 May 19

Pre-Solicitation Conference 16 May 19

Release Formal RFP 7 Aug 19

Receipt of Proposals 9 Sep 19

Award (with discussions) 30 Apr 20

Kick-Off Meeting 31 May 20

First Article Delivery 28 Feb 21

Mr. Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

C/KC-135 Aero-I SATCOM

Source Selection Training

Topics

SOURCE SELECTION

– What Is It

– Best Value

– Main Members

– Exchanges with Offerors

EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

– Technical

– Past Performance

– Price

AWARD DECISION

CONCLUSION

Best Value award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

The Government reserves the right to….

Trade-off possibilities

Past Performance

Price

Technical Proposals

Acceptable or

Unacceptable

TRADE-OFF SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

Source Selection Team

Main Members

Source Selection Authority (SSA)

– Makes the award decision

– Approves entering and closing discussion

Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO)

– Directs the evaluation of proposals

– Source of all direct communication between the Government and offerors

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

– Evaluate Proposals

– Assign ratings

– Present evaluation results to the SSA

Source Selection Evaluation

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

Offeror

A

Offeror

B

Offeror

C

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

SSEB does not compare proposals against each other

SSEB evaluates each proposal against the stated evaluation criteria

Source Selection Decision

Offeror

A

Offeror

B Offeror

C

SSA does compare proposals against each other

SSA offeror comparison is based on the following considerations

Technical acceptability for each offeror

Past Performance ratings

(and supporting rationale) and total evaluated price for each offeror

Factor order of importance as stated in the RFP

Request For Proposal

EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR

AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for award selection

Evaluation factors and subfactors, and order of importance in relation to each other

Factor rating definitions

Proposals will be evaluated against stated criteria

INSTRUCTIONS

TO

OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING PROPOSAL

CONTENT AND FORMAT

Describe technical approach

Provide past performance information

Provide pricing data

Includes format requirements, accepted document types, page limitations, etc

SECTION

L

SECTION

M

Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Subfactors

1 Aircraft Installation and

Integration Strategy

2 Small Business Participation

Relative Order of Importance

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past

Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past

Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

Evaluation Factors and

Ratings for Trade-off Process

Factor 1 Technical

– Acceptable

– Unacceptable

Factor 2 Past Performance

– Satisfactory Confidence

– Neutral Confidence

– Limited Confidence

– No Confidence

Factor 3 Price

– Reasonable, Balance, Realism

Evaluation Methodology

As Described in the RFP

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals.

Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror.

Technical will be evaluated IAW para 2.2

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW para 2.3

Price will be evaluated IAW para 2.4

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the past performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers and make an integrated assessment of which offerors provides the overall best value.

Exchanges with Offerors

During Source Selection

Exchanges with offerors are conducted through Evaluation

Notices (ENs)

Three types of ENs

– Clarifications – limited exchanges when award without discussions is contemplated

– Communications – exchanges leading to the establishment of a competitive range

– Discussions – formal negotiations conducted after the establishment of a competitive range

Conducted with every offeror within the competitive range

Tailored to each offeror, based on deficiencies and other issues within the proposal.

FACTOR 1

TECHNICAL

Technical Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government

Requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

Technical Evaluation

Each subfactor includes a list of criteria which defines the minimum requirements for that subfactor

– 1- Aircraft Installation and Integration Strategy – 4 elements (a-d)

– 2- Small Business Participation – 1 element (a)

In order to be rated “Acceptable” for the Technical Factor, the offeror must meet all criteria in each element within each subfactor.

Failure to meet any element criteria (deficiency) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for the corresponding subfactor.

An “Unacceptable” subfactor rating will result in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for the Technical Factor.

Section L

Instructions to Offerors

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Subfactor 1 Aircraft Installation and

Integration Strategy

b) An approach that details the installation. At a minimum, the strategy must address preliminary location of the transceiver and antenna, plan for the installation and removal of the legacy transceiver and antenna, how many teams compose the Contractor Field

Teams (CFT), team composition of the CFT, utilization of CFT and Programmed Depot

Maintenance (PDM) to minimize aircraft downtime, and the strategy to maintain the schedule provided. (SOW 3.4, SOW 6 Table 2, and SOW 6.1).

Subfactor 1

b) The proposed installation approach must ensure the transceiver and antenna will be successfully installed and will meet schedule requirements.

(SOW 3.4, SOW 6 Table 2 and

SOW 6.1).

AIRCRAFT INSTALLATION

AND INTEGRATION

STRATEGY

a)

TECHNICAL FACTOR

RATED AS

ACCEPTABLE, UNACCEPTABLE

a)

b) Deficiency

c) Deficiency d)

SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

Technical

Additional Notes

To be Acceptable, the technical approach must…

– Address the details listed in Section L (Instructions to Offerors)

– Indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

– Provide convincing rationale how the approach will meet requirements listed in Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award).

– Ensure all requirements within each subfactor (and corresponding SOW/SRD paragraphs) are met.

Section L (Instructions to Offerors) provides specific details which must be addressed in the technical approach. Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award) provides Measures of Merit for technical acceptability.

The technical approach does not have to address all SOW/SRD requirements. The technical evaluation will only include the SOW/SRD paragraphs which are listed with each subfactor.

Technical

Make sure the technical proposal stays within the required page limit. Additional pages beyond the page limit can not be considered by the Government evaluation team.

The Government evaluation team can only consider information contained in the proposal.

The proposal should not merely agree to meet requirements. It should describe the offeror’s approach to successfully accomplish the requirements.

FACTOR 2

PAST PERFORMANCE

Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating

Measures the level of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the proposed effort.

Rating is established through a review and analysis of the offeror’s recent, relevant, and past performance.

Performance evaluation focuses on portion of effort the offeror accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

Emphasis is on demonstrated performance

Confidence Definitions

Rating Definition

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government 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

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

No

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as

“Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.

Recency

Recency, as stated in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.1

– The effort must have been performed during the past three

(3) years from the date of issuance of the current RFP

– If any part of the performance falls within the recency timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance

– For example, if a contract was completed within the recency timeframe, the Government may also consider the

Phase-In portion of that contract, which may have occurred seven years ago.

Relevancy

Evaluation determines how closely the offeror’s past and current performance relates to the Technical subfactors and

Price for this requirement

Relevancy considerations

– Similar service

– Breadth and depth of skills

Similar…

– Scope

– Magnitude

– Complexity

– Price – Contract Type

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, installing similar SATCOM systems on military or civilian heavy aircraft

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude

– Quantity of SATCOM systems installed on aircraft per year

– Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-

Price (FFP) and Cost) of previous effort as compared to the KC-135

Aero-I Replacement requirement.

Past Performance Evaluation

PERFORMANCE QUALITYRELEVANCY

Reflects how similar the contractor’s previous work is to the proposed acquisition

Describes how well the contractor performed the previous work

GREEN -- SATISFACTORY

YELLOW -- MARGINAL

RED -- UNSATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE RATING

RECENCY

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT UNKNOWN

Past Performance Evaluation

Ratings

Program Title

PPQ /

CPARs Relevancy

Performance

Quality

BETA, INC (Prime)

ABC AFB

FAAAA-12-C-0004

2 / 3 VR S

XYZ Corp

ZZZZ-13-0500

2 / 0 SR M

VFY AFB

FAAAB-13-C-0005

1 / 1 R S

ZETA CORP (Subcontractor)

Delta, Inc

13313-06-45

1 / 0 VR S

ABC AFB

FAAAA-10-C-0014

1 / 4 SR S

TOTAL: 7 / 8

ANY CPARS LESS THAN

SATISFACTORY?

Y: N: X

-- Satisfactory -- Marginal -- Unsatisfactory -- Unknown

-- RelevantR -- Somewhat RelevantSR -- Not RelevantNR -- UnknownUK-- Very RelevantVR

Past Performance

Data Sources

Past Performance volume of the offeror’s proposal

Past Performance Information Forms (Prime and Subcontractors)

– Provided by contractor as part of proposal

Questionnaires

– Included as part of the RFP package

– Completed by contractor references

– Submitted directly to Past Performance Evaluation Team

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

– Government database of contractor performance records on government contracts

Other sources as needed

Offerors should describe, in detail, the work performed on previous or current contracts as it relates to the criteria in the Factor 1 Technical subfactors, Factor 3 Price, and Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity, as defined in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2.

Offerors should provide the portion of effort to be performed by each member of the team (Prime and subcontractors) as it relates to the criteria in the Technical Subfactors

– Instructions to Offerors (ITO) Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team List

– Be specific when describing which companies will be performing each criteria.

– Past Performance evaluation is based on rating each member of the offeror’s team for relevancy and performance for the portion of effort they are proposed to perform.

Provide details regarding any known adverse performance issues, and any related corrective actions. Also discuss if the corrective actions were effective.

Past Performance page limits are preferences and not requirements. Offerors are requested to keep narratives within the page limits. However, offerors may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy.

FACTOR 3

PRICE

Price Evaluation

Reasonableness (“unreasonably high”)

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Balance

– Generally refers to price increases or decreases from year to year.

– Provide rationale for any price decrease from one year to another, or any price increase over 5%.

Realism (“unrealistically low”)

– Price will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance.

– To evaluate, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

– Provide rationale to support price.

Price

Provide sufficient rationale describing how prices were developed, such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc.

Describe how the proposed price is generally consistent with the technical approach.

SOURCE SELECTION PHASES

AND

AWARD

Three Phases of

Source Selection Evaluation

Initial Evaluation offeror’s proposal

ENs prepared and finalized

Evaluation of

EN responses

Follow-up ENs

Initial Ratings established

Ratings adjusted

Based on

EN responses

Award w/o Discussions

Competitive Range

Send ENs to Offerors

Request for

Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR)

Receive FPRs from offerors

Final evaluation of proposals

Final ratings established

Best Value

Decision

INITIAL

EVALUATION

DISCUSSIONS

FINAL

EVALUATION

RESULT RESULT RESULT

Evaluation Summary

Technical Alpha, Inc.

Subfactor 1 Aircraft Installation and

Integration Strategy A

Subfactor 2 Small Business Participation A

TRADE OFF CONSIDERATIONS

Factor 2 Past Performance

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Price $XXX,XXX,XXX

Trade-off Considerations

Very Relevant in all areas

LIMITED

SATISFACTORY

Alpha, Inc.

Beta, Inc.

Overall Satisfactory

Performance.

No adverse issues

Marginal performance on 1 contract

Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating

Trade-off considerations are not based on a comparison of Confidence ratings.

They are based on specific relevancy and performance aspects.

Trade-off consideration

Note: All offerors rated as Satisfactory Confidence are considered equal

Very Relevant in all areas except magnitude

Summary

Source Selection is a Subjective process

Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) strives for consistency with each offeror

SSET evaluation is based on stated factors and written criteria listed in the RFP, not a comparison of offeror proposals

SSA determines which offeror represents the best value to the

Government based on a comparison of offerors against the evaluation criteria

Mr. Van Garmon

AFSC/PZCAB

Keys to Developing

A

Good Proposal

Typical Proposal Shortfalls

Proposal instructions are not followed

– Information not provided in the way it was requested

– Too little or too much information

Statements in the proposal are not well supported

Proposals are not well organized

– Does not follow proposal instructions structure, makes the evaluator hunt for the information

DUNS/CAGE code references do not match

Deficiencies – preclude award

– Information provided does not support claims of compliance

– Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements

Not signing the RFP and all amendments

Keys to Developing

A Good Proposal

Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks

Demonstrate sufficient resources to meet the requirements

Support your statements with facts, analysis and substantiating data to illustrate that you have valid and practical solutions for all requirements

Substantiate, don’t simply make claims

– Tell the who, what, when, where, how, how often, etc.

– Give us a reason to believe you; provide information to allow an independent assessment

– Don’t repeat the language in the SOW/SRD, just reference the section of the SOW/SRD to which you are referring

– Tell the benefit to the Government of your proposed plan

Understand the RFP requirements

Understand the SOW/SRD

Understanding the evaluation criteria will help you know where to place emphasis in your proposal

Follow the proposal instructions – provide material where requested

– Keep pricing data out of the technical volume

Tab the information

– Don’t make us have to guess or search for answers

– Follow the exact numerical outline in the instructions

Complete the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 5)

– Pricing Matrix – Attachment 3.0 completed in its entirely with unit prices and rates proposed for all CLINs across all contract performance years

– Include in the pricing volume any notes/explanations that may be helpful in our evaluation of your prices

Don’t make changes to the SOW/SRD and submit a new versions

– Document stands as written

– Don’t submit a Contractor’s Statement of Work (CSOW)

Don’t make changes to the RFP and submit a new version

– Document stands as written and amended by PCO only

What’s Next

20 May:

Government will post answers to initial written questions on FBO

Government will also provide minutes from pre-solicitation conference

23 May: Follow-on questions due to Government

3 June: Government will post answers to follow-on questions

7 Aug: Release formal solicitation

Summary

This briefing/training was designed to give you an overview of what the Government expects to see in your proposal in order to award without discussions

The formal solicitation is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the

Government’s requirements

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary

Submit questions only to the PCO, Will Loftis at william.loftis@us.af.mil, and Contract Specialist, Malita Green at malita.green@us.af.mil; questions and answers will be posted to www.fbo.gov mailto:william.loftis@us.af.mil mailto:malita.green@us.af.mil http://www.fbo.gov/

Open Question & Answer Session