Amendment07.docx

N00421-15-R-0099

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

SECTION A INFORMATION

POINTS OF CONTACT

1. This acquisition is a full and open competition that will result in placement of a single award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

1. The Product/Service Code (PSC) for this procurement is V121.

1. The resulting IDIQ contract will have a Four-Year and 364-Day ordering period; however, any task order issued shall not extend past the final day of the ordering period of this contract.

1. This contract has Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract type line items.

1. The contractor will be required to have a SECRET Facility clearance. Security clearance requirements are identified in Section C – Performance Based Work Statement (PBWS), and Attachment (1) – DD Form 254

AMENDMENT 7: The purpose of this amendment is to:

0. Request within Technical Element #2, that Offerors to submit substantiating data validating that the proposed MSA radar performance meeets Table 1.1 detection and Tracking requirements. If radar substantiating data is classified, submit in accordance with Section L, Part A, Par. 6.0.

0. Offerors have up to 2pm, 14 November, 2017 (Eastern Time) to provide any additional information.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

SECTION L

L –1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SERVICES) (May 2017)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror shall respond to all requirements of the solicitation and shall not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror’s proposal into the resulting contract.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization shall be emphasized during proposal preparation. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can comply with, or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may result in assessing weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

The Offeror shall include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or element clearly may be considered a deficiency. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception to or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may result in the assessment of a deficiency to the proposal.

Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. “JV Team member” is defined as one of the entities that make up a joint venture (JV) formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation.

Questions: Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the contract specialist at Roberta.Nethercutt@navy.mil. It is required that all questions be received within 10 calendar days of the date this solicitation is issued.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt Normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides. Graphic resolution, including such data as tables or charts, should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The Offeror will provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Contract Specialist as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft 2007 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM. The Offeror will ensure that the Price/Cost Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

The Offeror shall present proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one-to-one comparison between the information presented and this Proposal Instruction. Proposal information shall be structured such that its Volume/paragraph number matches the Proposal Instructions Volume/paragraph number provided in section “Part B Specific Instructions” to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier subparagraphs. The Offeror must provide reasons it will not provide information for a particular paragraph. The proposal information instructions are structured by paragraph numbers where first, second, third, and fourth parts correspond to the volume, book, section, and element, etc., in the Offeror’s proposal.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in the table below. The table below supersedes the copies requested in Block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. All volumes of the original proposal shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation. There are no page limitations for any of the technical elements with the exception of technical element #6 Personnel Resources.

Information submitted as an Annex to the proposal includes manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions.

Technical Element #1

Technical Element #2

Technical Element #3

Technical Element #4

Technical Element #5

Technical Element #6

Technical Element #7

Technical Element #8

Technical Element #9

Capability Standup-Base Aircraft

Aircraft Performance Requirements

Airworthiness Data

Aircraft Support

Aircraft Availability

Personnel Resources

Capability Standup-AESA Radar

AESA Performance Requirements

Small Business Utilization Strategy

Recommend: 12

Recommend: 4

No page limit

Recommend: 20

Recommend : 25

No page limit (1 page per proposed aircrew resume )

Recommend: 10

Recommend: 5

1 Original/4 Copies/2 CDs

1 Original/4 Copies/2 CDs

Applicable

No page limit 1 Original/1 Copy

1 Original/4 Copies/2 CDs

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments.

EXAMPLE OF A CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX (CRM)

Volume 1 Technical Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column shall address all paragraphs in Sections xx and xy of the SOW/PBWS.

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF33 of the RFP. However it is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted 7 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33of the RFP.

Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email.

Naval Air Warfare Center Code: AIR-2.5.1.13.4 (Robert Myers) Address: 21983 Bundy Road, Building 441 Patuxent River, MD 20670 Solicitation Number: N00421-15-R-0099

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to the address above, attention Robert Myers and/or David Silverstone.

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

The Offeror shall package the proposal volumes in cartons or equivalent packaging containers in the most efficient manner possible grouping like volumes to the maximum extent possible. Each container shall be single person portable. One container shall include all Original Proposal volumes including the original/signed documents submitted as part of Volume 3 Cost/Price.

Each box shall include a packing slip detailing the contents to include the volume number, title, and copy number. Also, each box should be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR-2.101 and 3.104.”

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED, with the exception of performance data substantiating Technical Elements #2 and #8 under Part B Specific Instructions, Volume 1. Classified data shall be submitted in accordance with DOD 5200.1-R, eChapter 7 and the appropriate classification guide.

If submitted via classified e-mail (SIPR), send to brian.alexander@navy.smil.mil

If mailed, classified data shall be addressed as follows:

Outer wrapper:

United States Naval Test Pilot School Attn: Security Officer Bldg 2168 22783 Cedar Point Rd.

Patuxent River, MD 20670-1160

Inner wrapper:

Brent Johnson Bldg 2168 22783 Cedar Point Rd.

Patuxent River, MD 20670-1160

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For notice of any changes and additional information provided by the Government for the solicitation, please go to www.FedBizOpps.gov.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Cost and pricing information shall only appear in the Price/Cost volume.

1.0 VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

The Offeror shall provide all information and data required for the Government to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror shall address the following in its proposal:

Technical Element #1-Capability Stand-Up-Base Aircraft

1.1 – List of proposed aircraft by Type, Model, Series (TMS) and serial number.

1.2 – Aircraft acquisition and import plan – The Offeror shall provide an acquisition and import plan which includes each aircraft proposed for this contract. The Offeror shall submit signed purchase or lease agreements if available. The Acquisition and import plan shall include the dates of all major milestones.

1.3 – Aircraft modification plan – For each aircraft proposed that requires modification to meet the requirements of Performance Based Work Statement (PBWS) paragraph 1.3.1, the Offeror shall submit a plan detailing the modifications required to bring the aircraft into compliance. Plans shall include all significant modifications required, major milestones, organization performing the modification(s), source of data supporting the modification(s) and airworthiness certification authority.

1.4 – Navy airworthiness certification plan – All aircraft under this contract will require a U.S. Navy issued Interim Flight Clearance (IFC). The Offeror shall submit a plan detailing its approach to obtaining a Navy IFC, including original certification authority, source of supporting data and major milestones, to include the Offeror’s submittal of a complete USN IFC package.

Technical Element #2-Aircraft Performance Requirements - For each TMS aircraft proposed for use on this contract, the Offeror shall demonstrate how the aircraft will meet the requirements described in PBWS paragraph 1.3.1, including Table 1.1. Each aircraft proposed, after any modifications shall meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in the PBWS. Supporting data (excerpts from flight manuals, published performance data, etc.) shall be submitted to substantiate the aircraft meets the performance requirements. With regard to radar capability, Offerors shall submit substantiating data validating that the proposed MSA radar performance meets Table 1.1 detection and tracking requirements. If radar performance substantiating data is classified, submit in accordance with Section L, Part A, paragraph 6.0.

Technical Element #3-Airworthiness Data - The Offerer shall provide the following documentation relating to aircraft airworthiness.

3.1 - Parts Life Tracking Process and Status Report:

3.1.1 - The Offeror shall demonstrate that all parts with OEM/military-defined life limits have been identified, and the offeror shall submit a plan for replacing those parts on/before their required dates.

3.1.2 -The Offeror shall include for each aircraft type proposed, the complete list of the parts, including structural components, for which the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or prior military user has established a life limit. The Offeror shall include for each life-limited part: (a) the flight hours, cycles, calendar date, or other limiting parameters which require removal or overhaul (b) the source that will be used to acquire or overhaul the replacement parts.

3.2 - Aircraft Modifications Status Report:

3.2.1 - The Offeror shall include for each individual aircraft a list of all currently installed modifications and configuration changes made after the aircraft was retired from military use.

3.2.2 - The Offeror shall demonstrate the airworthiness of each aircraft modification made after the aircraft was retired from military use. For each modification, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the airworthiness certification or, alternatively, the engineering report that clearly states that the modification is airworthy.

3.3 - Maintenance History Report:

3.3.1 - The offeror shall provide, for each aircraft proposed, an accounting for the timeframe from manufacture to proposal submittal date that the aircraft has been maintained in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM, prior military user(s), or (as appropriate) civil authorities. The Offerer shall provide a list of documentation, and be able to provide if required, all data and records supporting the accounting of maintenance.

3.3.2 - The Offeror shall include for each individual aircraft a description of the process and method used by the Offeror to establish the aircraft's maintenance history prior to taking possession of the aircraft.

3.3.3 - The Offeror shall identify and explain any lapses in the documented maintenance history of any individual aircraft, from the time it was manufactured to the present.

3.4 - Fatigue Life Status report:

3.4.1 - The Offeror shall include for each aircraft type proposed, the OEM's structural fatigue life limits.

3.4.2 - The Offeror shall provide for each individual aircraft: (a) the current total counts on tracked items (e.g. flight hours/catapults/landings) that have been accumulated since the aircraft was manufactured, and (b) the means used to determine the current accumulated counts since the aircraft was manufactured.

3.4.3 - The Offeror shall demonstrate all proposed aircraft have the remaining fatigue life to allow the aircraft to be safely operated throughout the four-year and 364-day performance period of the contract, based on projected combined aircraft usage rates as described in Section B, CLIN 0003.

Technical Element # 4-Aircraft Support:

4.1 – Aircraft Maintenance Strategy - The Offeror shall provide an explanation of its maintenance organization and strategy for conducting both scheduled and unscheduled aircraft maintenance.

4.2 – Aircraft Logistical Strategy:

4.2.1 - The Offeror shall provide its proposed logistical strategy for supporting each proposed T/M/S.

4.2.2 - For each proposed T/M/S, the Offeror shall provide its proposed source of OEM, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or equivalent certified parts.

4.2.3 - For each proposed T/M/S, the Offeror shall provide its proposed source of OEM, FAA or equivalent certified maintenance and engineering data.

Technical Element #5-Aircraft Availability:

5.1 Method of Performing Services:

5.1.1 - The Offeror shall describe its method for executing each of the contract missions as described in PBWS section 1.3.3: Missions under positive control, Missions under indirect of independent control and EW Missions.

5.1.2 - The Offeror shall describe its method of ensuring pilot and aircrew (excluding maintenance personnel) availability to ensure it meets the mission effectiveness metric described in the Quality Assurance Plan (QASP) (Attachment 2).

5.2 Aircraft Availability/Reliability:

5.2.1 - The Contractor will be required to provide aircraft to support each mission as scheduled. The Offeror shall describe in detail its method of ensuring it meets the mission effectiveness metric described in the QASP (Attachment 2).

5.2.2 - The Offeror shall include a discussion of managing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for all aircraft types proposed to enable contract mission completion with minimum impact to the fleet.

Technical Element #6-Personnel Resources: The Offeror shall submit a one (1) page resume for each aircrew proposed to perform under this contract. Each resume shall include relevant work history, qualifications, licenses and certificates as specified in paragraph 1.8 of the PBWS.

6.1 - The Offeror shall address employment status of each aircrew by indicating if they are a current employee, contingent hire or other status, such as temporary employee.

6.2 - The Offeror shall describe the processes used in recruiting, hiring and retaining aircrew. Describe the approach used to fill all aircrew positions proposed. Provide an assessment for hiring the number of pilots with the required qualifications without impacting mission schedule. Provide an approach to personnel retention and turnover.

Technical Element #7-Capability Standup-AESA Radar:

7.1 – List of proposed AESA radar, including manufacturer and model number.

7.2 – Aircraft modification plan – For each aircraft proposed that requires modification to meet the AESA requirements of PBWS paragraph 1.3.1, the Offeror shall submit a plan detailing the modifications required to bring the aircraft into compliance. Plans shall include all significant modifications required, major milestones, organization performing the modification(s), source of data supporting the modification(s) and airworthiness certification authority.

7.3 – AESA airworthiness certification plan – Any modifications to aircraft under this contract will require a U.S. Navy issued IFC. The Offeror shall submit a plan detailing its approach to obtaining a Navy IFC for AESA capability, including source of supporting data and major milestones, to include the Offeror’s submittal of a complete USN IFC package.

Technical Element #8-AESA Performance Requirements--For each AESA radar proposed for use on this contract, the Offeror shall demonstrate how the radar will meet the requirements described in PBWS paragraph 1.3.1, Table 1.2. Each AESA radar proposed shall meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in the PBWS. Supporting data such as manufacturer provided data or independent radar evaluation shall be submitted to substantiate that the radar meets the performance requirements. If radar performance substantiating data is classified, submit in accordance with Section L, Part A, paragraph 6.0.

Technical Element #9 Small Business Utilization Strategy:

9.1 - All Offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall address their strategies for utilizing Small Business (SB) Concerns in the performance of this contract, whether as a JV, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. SB Offerors may meet this requirement using work they perform themselves. For purposes of this solicitation, the term SB Concern shall also include the subcategories of Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned SB, HUBZone SB, Veteran-Owned SB, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB. Each subcategory of SB shall be addressed. This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the SB Subcontracting Plan, if such a Plan is required. In describing its SB Utilization Strategy for this solicitation, the Offerer shall, as applicable:

(a) Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy: All Offerors shall describe their strategies for utilizing SB Concerns in the performance of this contract, whether as a JV, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. Each subcategory of SB shall be addressed. This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the SB Subcontracting Plan, if such a Plan is required.

(b) SB Subcontracting Plans: The Large Business Offeror shall provide its SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Annex 1, unless there is an already approved comprehensive SB Plan. The Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702(a) (1) Statutory Requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful Offeror’s approved Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Sources of past performance evaluation information include information provided by the Offeror in response to the solicitation information obtained from questionnaires, and any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Matrix Form, Attachment P1, for each past performance reference performed within five years of the solicitation release date. The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Forms as the Prime Contractor, no more than two forms for each principal subcontractor, and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member. The Offeror shall submit written consent from their principal subcontractor(s) and team member(s) that will allow the Government to coordinate any past performance issues directly with the Offeror if discussions are conducted; If the Offeror does not submit the written consent, the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or JV Team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractor and JV team member that does not provide the written consent, the Offeror shall provide the name, address, phone number, and email address with whom the Government may address any past performance issues.

The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement for each contract reference as Annex 2 for this Past Performance Volume.

The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS. If a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance for that contract/order will be used for evaluation. In the event a CPAR does not exist for a past performance reference, the Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment P2, to the Program Manager who is the Assessing Official. The Offeror shall include instructions for the Program Manager to send completed questionnaires within seven (7) days of its receipt via e-mail to Roberta Nethercutt Contract Specialist, at Roberta.Nethercutt@navy.mil thereby allowing the customer approximately seven (7) days to complete their response. All PPQs should be received by the Government no later than two weeks prior to the Offeror’s proposal submission.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL

3.1 Volume Content:

(a) This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information specified below as follows:

i. Offeror Summary Table: The Offeror shall complete the table below. The Offeror shall include all subcontractors and JV team members who will be involved with the performance of the contract and list all sites where the work will be performed. If a JV teaming or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, identify the work share, distribution elements, and ratios that each contractor will perform using the table below. Also provide a definition of the legal relationship between the entities if it is other than a Prime/subcontractor relationship.

Contractor Name (Indicate Prime, JV Team Member, or Sub)

(b) This Volume shall also contain a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) and Sub-CLIN Unit Prices and, for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in using the estimated quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

(c) All price/cost and price/cost supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price/cost proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume including cover letters. Offeror are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price/cost proposal.

3.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 is not required. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2.

(b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price/cost as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price/cost estimates.

3.3 Price Volume Detailed Instructions:

(a) The Offeror shall identify the proposed prices for each CLIN as specified in Section B of this solicitation. Offerors are instructed to provide the following detailed information:

Fill in the unit and total price of all CLINs and provide in the excel file stated in paragraph 3.1 (b).

· For CLIN 0002, the Offeror shall also propose the quantity, which shall not exceed the Section B maximum of 12 months. The proposed quantity of months shall correlate with the Offeror’s technical proposal.

· For CLIN 0001, the Offeror shall also propose the quantity, which shall correspond with the maximum number of units less the number of units in the corresponding capability standup CLIN 0002.

· For OPTION CLIN 0008, the Offeror shall also propose the quantity, which shall not exceed the Section B maximum of 18 months. The proposed quantity of months shall correlate with the Offeror’s technical proposal.

· For OPTION CLIN 0007, the Offeror shall also propose the quantity, which shall correspond with the maximum number of units less the number of units in the corresponding capability standup OPTION CLIN 0008.

The combined sum total quantity of months for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 shall not exceed 59 months. Additionally, the combined sum total quantity of months for OPTION CLIN 0007 and OPTION CLIN 0008 shall not exceed 59 months.

Provide a narrative for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008 and 0009 describing the buildup of the unit price, assumptions for each CLIN, and the basis for the estimate for the unit price proposed.

(b) Fuel Costs: Offerors shall not include cost of fuel to fly Government missions in the unit price. Fuel will be provided by the Government. However, fuel costs will be evaluated; therefore, for evaluation purposes only, the Offeror shall complete the "4th Gen. Fighter Jets Fuel Information" table below. Based upon the proposed aircraft information, the total fuel cost for CLIN 0003 will be applied as a CLIN adjustment to the four-year and 364-day ordering period for evaluation purposes; however, any task order issued shall not exceed the final day of the ordering period of this contract.

4TH GEN FIGHTER JETS FUEL INFORMATION

For each T/M/S for CLIN 0003, an adjustment to the total proposed price shall be based on the following calculation:

Calculation for CLIN 0003: Mfg Burn rate with one AIM 9M CATM and one EA pod operating at

35K MSL at 0.9IMN (# of gallons burned for 1 FH)

X fuel cost per Gallon (Government provided number)= cost per FH (col. C X D); cost per FH X est. FHs (Government provided 11,500 FHS) = total projected fuel costs (col E X F); the sum of total projected fuel costs will be added to the

Offeror's proposed price for CLIN 0003 for evaluation purposes.

***EXAMPLE***

***EXAMPLE***

***EXAMPLE***

and 1 EA pod,

35K, 0.9IMN

hours in Sec.

(gal/FH)

B.)

Total:

This is an example of information required for each field and is provided for illustration purposes only.

*Contractor Provided

3.4 Use of Government Furnished Property:

See Attachment 3 SGFP for list of available Interface Control Documents and the Government property to be furnished. The status of GFP transferred to contractor control shall be reported monthly using CDRL A006.

3.5 Place of Performance:

See Section C, paragraph 3.0

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (May 2017)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For the Technical Factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Threshold Aircraft Performance Requirements set forth in Table 1.1 of the PBWS are considered to be minimum performance requirements and will be evaluated as such. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement and is evaluated by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a “Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below:

1. TECHNICAL

2. PAST PERFORMANCE

3. PRICE

Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical is significantly more important than past performance. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important that price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offeror's Technical and Past Performance proposals.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to assess if the proposed approach meets or exceeds the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

The evaluation will focus on the following technical elements:

Technical Element #1 – Capability Stand-up:

The Government will evaluate the Offerors ability to meet initial capability requirements by evaluating the following plans and supporting data, including;

a. Documentation that provides the Offeror’s acquisition and import plan including each aircraft proposed for this contract. The Offeror shall submit signed purchase or lease agreements if available. Proposals not including signed purchase or lease agreements shall be assessed as a higher risk by the evaluation team.

b. Documentation listing proposed aircraft by type, model, series (TMS) and serial number.

c. Documentation detailing the Offeror’s modification plans required to bring proposed aircraft into compliance with the solicitation requirements.

d. Documentation detailing the Offeror’s planned approach and milestones to obtaining a Navy IFC.

Technical Element #2 -- Aircraft Performance Requirements:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed aircraft performance capabilities, aircraft configuration, and special equipment and validate that the proposed aircraft meet the Threshold performance requirements. The Government will use the Offeror’s submitted performance documentation to validate that performance requirements are met. The Government intends to assign a Strength where an offeror meets or exceeds an Aircraft Performance Objective. Aircraft equipment offered in addition to the requirements and that will enhance the training mission or increase safety, may be considered a strength.

Technical Element #3 -- Airworthiness Data:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the current and continued airworthiness requirements by evaluating the plan and supporting data used to maintain airworthiness, including;

a. Data that demonstrates parts/components with defined limits are tracked for each aircraft proposed for use under the contract. Specific parts installed in specific proposed aircraft are not required to be listed; only a comprehensive list of life limited parts for a generic proposed TMS aircraft is required.

b. A supply strategy to replace parts or to overhaul/rework parts to OEM standards.

c. Data that demonstrates aircraft modifications are supported by appropriate engineering analysis/ documentation.

d. Documentation that demonstrates the maintenance history of each aircraft proposed for use under the contract, to include a thorough explanation of any lapses in maintenance history.

e. Structural fatigue life limit remaining for each aircraft proposed under the contract.

Technical Element #4 – Aircraft Support:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the requirements by evaluating the plan and supporting data used to maintain airworthiness, including;

a. The maintenance plan including the scheduled inspection plan.

b. The logistical support plan, to include source of airworthy replacement parts or overhauls.

Technical Element #5 -- Aircraft Availability:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method of achieving aircraft availability requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed method of ensuring aircrew understand and are available to execute mission tasking. The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to the management of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and approach to meeting mission effectiveness metrics.

Technical Element #6 -- Personnel Resources:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the aircrew requirements, including the number of aircrew available to perform under this contract and their qualifications to meet the mission requirements.

Technical Element #7 –Capability Standup AESA Radar:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet initial capability requirements by evaluating the following plans and supporting data, including:

a. Documentation detailing proposed AESA radar, including manufacturer and model number.

b. Documentation detailing the Offeror’s modification plans required to bring proposed aircraft into compliance with the solicitation AESA performance requirements.

c. Documentation detailing the Offeror’s planned approach and milestones to obtaining a Navy IFC for AESA capability.

Technical Element #8– AESA Performance Requirements:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed AESA performance capabilities and validate that the proposed AESA radar meets the solicitation AESA performance requirements. The Government will use the Offeror’s submitted performance documentation to validate that performance requirements are met.

Technical Element #9-- Small Business Utilization Strategy:

The Offeror's strategy for utilizing Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns as well as its consistency with the proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be evaluated.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontracting/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements. For the evaluation, the Government will focus its relevancy determination based upon the following key areas of this solicitation:

See Part C, Paragraph 3.0 for description of relevancy definitions.

Contractor provided Adversary Air Services involving Advanced Fighter Tactics

Contractor provided Adversary Air Services involving Electronic Attack Missions

Complexity:

Magnitude:

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team member’s performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) utilization of small business; 6) regulatory compliance, and 7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.

A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.0 PRICE

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing for all CLINs. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such a comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offerors’ prices in response to this solicitation, comparison to historical pricing for same or similar DoD contracts, comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, comparison to commercial and/or industry standards, among other techniques to perform the price analysis. The Government will use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value. The TEP is the sum of the following:

• The total proposed price for the FFP CLINs (all CLINS). The total proposed price is the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B Quantity for that CLIN, then adding the sum total price for all CLINs to calculate the total proposed price.

• The fuel adjustment calculations listed in Section L (section 3.3) for CLIN 0003.

In addition, with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors, adjustments to the total proposed price will be made for Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach).

Unrealistically low prices or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered a weakness under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and price proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the price proposal.

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings

2.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

3.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: More relevant past performance 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.

4.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performan…