Range_Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Brief_FBO.pdf

NAVAIR Public Release 2019-230 Distribution Statement A – Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Range Technical Support Services N00421-18-R-0038

27 Mar 2019 Pre-Solicitation Conference and Site Visit

John Tomechko Procurement Contracting Officer

(PCO)

Agenda, Ground Rules, & Acquisition Strategy

March 27, 2019

0730-0815 Sign In

0830-0840 Welcome, Agenda, Ground Rules John Tomechko & Acquisition Strategy

0840-0850 Opening Remarks Robert Vargo

0850-0910 Atlantic Test Range (ATR) Greg Havens Requirements Overview

0910-0930 ATMO Requirements Overview Thomas Lynch

0930-0945 Solicitation Overview Lauren Farmer

0945-1000 Break

Agenda

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited

1000-1100 Source Selection Overview Michelle Johnson

Tom Jones Jim Ashley Eric Harvey Jennifer Lundburg

1100-1115 Site Visit Instructions Greg Havens 1130-1230 Lunch Break 1230-1700 One-on-One Meetings

March 28, 2019

0800 -1100 ATR & ATMO Site Visits 0830-1200 One-on-One Meetings 1200-1300 Lunch Break 1300 -1600 ATR & ATMO Site Visits

Agenda

• All attendees must sign-in.

• Please silence cell phones.

• No audio or visual recordings are permitted.

• This is an Informational Briefing only.

• This presentation will be uploaded to FBO.

Ground Rules/Administrative

• Clarifying questions related to the brief may be asked at the end of the presentation.

• All other questions related to today’s brief, the site tour or the draft RFP must be emailed to Lauren Farmer by COB 31 March 2019.

• All questions and Government answers will be posted on the FedBizOpps website (www.fbo.gov) unless there is adequate justification not to do so (proprietary).

Questions and Answers

• The remarks today of Government officials involved in the Range Technical Support Services procurement should not be considered a guarantee of the Government’s course of action in proceeding with the program.

• The information shared today reflects current Government intentions and is subject to change based on a variety of circumstances, including internal and external comments.

• The formal solicitation, when issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements. The final RFP and all amendments shall be posted on https://www.fbo.gov.

Disclaimer

• Best Value source selection methodology.

• C Type, Level of Effort (LOE) Contract.

• Ten (10) year period of performance.

• One (1) year base period with nine (9) one-year options.

• CPFF CLINs labor-related effort.

• Cost reimbursement CLINs for Travel, Material, and ODCs.

• Projected Milestones.

Acquisition Strategy

Opening Remarks

Robert Vargo Associate Director

Atlantic Test Ranges

Distribution Statement A .Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Provide full life-cycle support of naval aviation aircraft, weapons and systems operated by Sailors and Marines.

This support includes research, design, development and systems engineering; acquisition; test and evaluation;

training facilities and equipment; repair and modification;

and in-service engineering and logistics support.

Mission and Vision

Strategic Imperatives: Increase material readiness and deliver capabilities with increased speed.

PEO (A)

AIR ASW, ASSAULT &

SPECIAL MISSION

PROGRAMS

PEO (U&W)

UNMANNED AVIATION

& STRIKE WEAPONS

PEO (JSF)

JOINT STRIKE

FIGHTER

ECHELON IV

ECHELON III

ECHELON II

PEO (T)

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT

PROGRAMS

NAVAL TEST WING

PACIFIC

POINT MUGU

COMMANDER

TRAINING SYSTEMS

DIVISION

ORLANDO

COMMANDING OFFICER

NAVAL TEST WING

ATLANTIC

PATUXENT RIVER

COMMANDER

OPERATING

AGREEMENT

NAVAIR HEADQUARTERS

ASN (RD&A)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

(RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION)

AIR-4.0

RESEARCH &

ENGINEERING

ASST. COMMANDER

AIRCRAFT

DIVISION

(NAWCAD)

PATUXENT RIVER,

LAKEHURST, ORLANDO

COMMANDER

WEAPONS

DIVISION

(NAWCWD)

CHINA LAKE, POINT MUGU

COMMANDER

AIR-5.0

TEST &

EVALUATION

ASST. COMMANDER

CNO

CHIEF OF NAVAL

OPERATIONS

CMC

COMMANDANT OF

THE MARINE CORPS

MISSION,

FUNCTIONS &

TASKS

CNAF

COMMANDER,

NAVAL AIR FORCES

* FLEET READINESS CENTERS (FRCs) NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTERS (NAWCs)

PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

AIR-6.0

LOGISTICS &

INDUSTRIAL OPS

ASST. COMMANDER

FRC SOUTHEAST

JACKSONVILLE

COMMANDING OFFICER

FRC WESTERN

PACIFIC

ATSUGI, JAPAN

COMMANDING OFFICER

FRC EAST

CHERRY POINT

COMMANDING OFFICER

FRC SOUTHWEST

NORTH ISLAND

COMMANDING OFFICER

FLEET

READINESS CENTER

(FRC)

PATUXENT RIVER

COMMANDER

COMMAND MASTER

CHIEF AIR-00CMC

VICE COMMANDER

AIR-09

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

PATUXENT RIVER

COMMANDER

AIR-00

JULY 2018

Reporting Relationships

DEPUTY COMMANDER

AIR-00A

HQ STAFF OFFICES

JAG AIR-00J *

INSPECTOR GENERAL AIR-00G *

CIO AIR-00CIO *

SMALL BUSINESS AIR-09D *

SAFETY DIRECTOR AIR-09F **

HQ STAFF CO AIR-7.3B

AIR-2.0

CONTRACTS

ASST. COMMANDER

AIR-7.0

CORPORATE

OPERATIONS &

TOTAL FORCE

ASST. COMMANDER

AIR-10.0

COMPTROLLER

AIR-11.0

COUNSEL

AIR-1.0

PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT

ASST. COMMANDER

* REPORTS DIRECTLY TO AIR-00 FOR

RESPECTIVE AREA OF

RESPONSIBILITY

** REPORTS DIRECTLY TO AIR-09 FOR

RESPECTIVE AREA OF

RESPONSIBILITY

NAVAIR RESERVE

PROGRAM

RESERVE DEPUTY COMMANDER

AIR-5.0A

Deputy Assistant

Commander

AIR-5.0

Assistant Commander

5.0C Staff Office

Wing Commanders

PACIFICATLANTIC

5.0D Aircraft Controlling

Office

5.0F Aviation Safety Office

5.4 Integrated Battlespace

Simulation & Test

5.1 Integrated Systems

Evaluation, Experimentation & Test

5.2 Ranges

5.3 Threat/Target Systems

Flight Test

Engineering

AIR-5.0 Test & Evaluation

ATR Organization | AD 5.2.2 / 5.2.4

Range Operations Division Head

52200MA

Test Management Branch

52210MA

Test Communications Branch

52220MA

Range Instrumentation Division Head

52400MA

Range Systems Branch

52410MA

Aircraft Signature & Avionics Measurements Branch

52420MA

Telemetry Systems Branch

52430MA

Optical Systems Branch

52440MA

Chief Test Pilot 52000

NAWCAD SSTM for EW and RCS Flight Test

52000MA

Range Safety Officer 52000

ATR Director NAWCAD SSTM for Range Technical Innovation

52000MA

SUSTAINABILITY OFFICE

52000

RID Chief Engineer 52400

RID Chief Engineer 52200

• Airspace Control

• Event Planning

• Costing

• RF Communications

• Network Management

• Information Assurance

• Displays

• Data Format Standards

• System Administration

• Radar

• RCS Measurement

• IR Measurement

• EW Signal Generation

• Telemetry Reception

• Telemetry Processing

• Telemetry Display

• Optical Tracking

• Photogrammetry

• Laser Tracking

• Weather Monitoring

• Controls and schedules range assets and services for conducting aircraft and weapons RDT&E and training events on the East Coast of the United States.

• Works closely with the Aircraft Instrumentation Systems Division to develop special flight-test instrumentation and data acquisition systems for naval aviation testing.

• Collaborates with the Integrated Battlespace Simulation and Test Department (IBST 5.4) to provide Live- Virtual-Constructive (LVC) test environments.

ATR Overview

Agile and Responsive Capability to Meet Test & Evaluation Requirements and Enable Fleet Operations

Capabilities / Support ATR provides:

• Range and ground test facilities and mobile assets for test and evaluation (T&E) and training support.

• Decision-quality data in support of Naval Aviation T&E.

• Safe, instrumented, controlled open-air flight testing/training in air, land, and sea arenas – locally and deployable world-wide.

ATR civil service and contractor workforce are commonly the lead systems designers, developers, and integrators for instrumentation.

Programs Supported

MV-22 Osprey

MQ-25 StingrayH-60 (R/S) Seahawk

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

F-35(B/C) Lightning II

MQ-8B/C Fire Scout

MQ-4C Triton

CH-53K Super Stallion

AH-1 Viper/UH-1 HueyF/A-18(A-G) Super Hornet P-8A Poseidon KC-130J Hercules

Mobile Range Assets

• Allows ATR to support test programs across the country, aboard ships and around the world – using proven range systems.

• Mobile assets for Telemetry, Optical, Electronic Warfare, Weather, Frequency Monitoring, Photogrammetrics and Signature Measurement systems.

Mobile Capability

• NASA Wallops Flight Facility.

• Joint Base McGuire–Dix–Lakehurst.

• Fleet Area Control & Surveillance Facility, Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES).

• NAVAIR simulation and stimulation labs.

• Expanding to all East Coast Navy ranges.

• Other NAVAIR and DoD major test ranges.

Real-time Connectivity

Local technical and operational expertise; global event support

ATLANTIC TARGETS AND

MARINE OPERATIONS

AD 5.3.3

FLEET TARGET

SUPPORT BRANCH

AD 5.3.3.2

T&E TARGET

SUPPORT BRANCH

AD 5.3.3.1

TARGET ENGINEERING

SUPPORT BRANCH

AD 5.3.3.3

• Fabricate Targets

• Vessel Dry Docking

• Vessel in‐service engineering

• Sea Targets for Training

• Aerial Targets

• Support Vessels

• Sea Targets for T&E

• Support Vessels

• Missile Defense Systems

Testing Support

ATMO Organization | AD 5.3.3

ATMO SITES

Range Technical Requirements

Greg Havens

ATR

Program Representative

Range Requirements Overview

• Technical Support for Range Development, Operations, and

Maintenance Requirements.

• Flexible, Responsive, and Technically Qualified Workforce to Support ATR & ATMO’s Dynamic Test & Training Environment.

• Dynamic Test and Training Event-Driven work requirements.

• Multiple DoD and Industry Customers.

• Remote Test and Training Event Locations within CONUS and OCONUS

• Surge Workload Periods.

• Overtime, Hazardous Conditions, Hazardous Materials.

• Team with the Government Managers, Technical and Administrative TPOCs to Meet Requirements.

• Workload, and Test and Evaluation Planning.

• Provide Innovative and Cost Effective Solutions to Meet Range Requirements.

• Increase Reliability and Availability of Range Systems and Improve Quality of Range

Products and Services.

• Increase Operational Security of Range Systems, Products, and Services.

Range Requirements Overview

• Logistical Support to Meet Requirements.

• Capability to Procure Materials and ODCs.

• Improve Range Property Governance Processes.

• Capability to Quickly Coordinate and Execute the Travel, Transportation, and Shipping of Personnel, Systems, and Equipment in CONUS and OCONUS.

• Management Information System (MIS) to meet Data Collection, Documentation, and Reporting Requirements.

A web-based accessible interactive query and updated capability on a real-time basis.

Capable of performing management and control functions as well as tracking of all contract requirements to include but not limited to personnel, cost, technical reports, and management plans.

• Ground Operations Procedures (GOP) and Flight Operations Procedures (FOP) to meet Aerial Target Operational Requirements.

• Top Secret and TS-SAP Security Clearances.

ATR provides:

• Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) and warfighter support capabilities including:

• Aero-Mechanical – Flight Stability and Control

• Aircraft Flying Qualities and Performance

• Carrier/Shipboard Suitability

• Air Vehicle Stores Compatibility

• Air Vehicle Survivability

• Mission Systems

• Surface Vessel Support

• Fleet Support – Joint Fleet Exercises

ATR Products & Services Overview

Aircraft RDT&E

Mission Systems

Tactical Data Links

Materials

Carrier Suitability

Human Factors Systems Safety

Sensors

AV Flying Qualities & Performance (FQ&P)

Reliability & Maintainability

Electronic Warfare

Propulsion & Power

Software Validation & Verification

Support Equipment

Shipboard Dynamic Interfaces

Aircraft Launch & Recovery

Common Control System (CCS)

Weapons Integration

Component Test

UAS

Rotary‐Wing Fixed‐Wing

Electromagnetic Environmental Effects

Stability/Control

Chesapeake Test Range

• Restricted Areas R-4006, R-4008, R-

6609, R-4007, Chessie A, B, C.

• Approximately 2,700 square miles.

• Surface to 85,000 feet.

Chesapeake Test Range

• Restricted Areas R-4006, R-4008, R-

6609, R-4007, Chessie A, B, C.

• Approximately 2,700 square miles.

• Surface to 85,000 feet.

Off-shore Atlantic Ranges

• Warning Areas W-386, W-387, W-72.

• Approximately 50,000 square miles.

• Surface to unlimited altitude.

• Expandable off-shore from New Jersey to the Carolinas.

Pax River Special Use Airspace

Bloodsworth Island

Hannibal Target

Target Cues Webster Field

Local Emitter Site Cedar Point Remote

Instrumentation Sites

Remote Emitter System Point Lookout

Instrumentation / Emitter Sites

ATR Support Areas

• Range Operations Division

‒ Test Management and Range Event Scheduling ‒ Operational Security (OPSEC) ‒ Procurement and Property Governance ‒ Mid-Atlantic Area Frequency Coordination ‒ Administration, Clerical, and Management Support ‒ Test Communications ‒ Weather Office ‒ Range Safety ‒ RDT&E Facilities Infrastructure ‒ Business Communications

• Range Instrumentation Division

• Range Systems Branch ‒ Range GPS Systems ‒ Large Area Tracking Range ‒ Personal Computer Debriefing System ‒ Range Computation & Control System ‒ Sure Trak IN Government (STING) ‒ Systems Administration ‒ Tactical Combat Training System

• Range Instrumentation Division

• Optical Systems Branch ‒ Light Detection And Ranging System ‒ Electro-Optical Tracking Systems ‒ High Speed Video and Cameras ‒ Geomatics and Metrology ‒ Photogrammetrics ‒ Meteorology

• Range Instrumentation Division

• Aircraft Signature and Avionics Measurement Branch ‒ Patuxent River Infrared Signature Measurements ‒ Battlefield Communications Simulation System ‒ Automated Communications Test System ‒ Radar

Multiple Target Instrumentation Radar

PRISM

Battlefield Communication Simulation System

Mobile Remote Emitter System

• Range Instrumentation Division

• Aircraft Signature and Avionics Measurement Branch ‒ Dynamic Radar Cross Section Measurement ‒ Broadband Emitter Antenna Measurement System

Cedar Point Local Emitter SiteDynamic RCS Measurement System

RCS Engineering Workstation

•EW Emitter Sites and Resources

Mobile C3 Emitters

VHF/UHF Antenna SystemCedar Point Fixed Emitter SitePoint Lookout Remote Emitter Site

Mobile Remote Emitter System

EW Workstation

• Range Instrumentation Division

• Telemetry Systems Branch ‒ Real-time Telemetry Processing System ‒ Mobile Telemetry Test Support ‒ Mission Control Stations

P-8A Poseidon Testing Using Mobile MITS-12 Vehicle Boeing Field, Seattle, Washington

Tom Lynch

ATMO

Program Representative

Range Technical Requirements

ATMO Overview

Patuxent River, MD

Chesapeake Basin (ATMO)

Patuxent River, MD

• Provide land, sea, and aerial target services.

• Design, develop, and fabricate target systems.

• Deploy and operate a range of vessels to support unique maritime requirements.

• Full-scale sea target hulks for weapons effects testing.

• Underwater and land test article recovery operations.

ATMO Products & Services Overview

5.3.3 Geographic Distribution

Norfolk, VA

Dam Neck, VA Solomons, MD

Support Vessels

• Navy MkIII 65ft Patrol Boat 777

• Fountain

• Relentless

• Prince

• QST 35

• Full Scale Target Hulks Command / Control

Functions

• QST-35 (57 ft.)

• Sea Deployed Surface

Target (SDST) (Roboski)

• Rafts

• Fast Attack Craft Target

(FACT)

Surface Targets

Fleet Training

• Composite Training Unit Exercises.

• United Allied Exercises.

• Force Protection Exercises.

• Anti-Terrorist Protection Exercises.

• Fast Inshore Attack Craft

Exercises.

• Maritime Intervention Operations.

Recurring Tasking

• ATMO supports Missile Defense Agency (MDA) test programs for development and validation of various missile defense systems. Such testing requires typical land-based range systems to be placed on seaborne platforms, in order to extend range capability to the open ocean.

• Primary assets supported include:

• X-Band Transportable Radar (XTR).

• Pacific Collector Range Safety System (PCRSS).

• Flight Test Communication Network (FTCN).

Missile Defense Agency

Pacific Tracker & Pacific Collector berthed in Portland, Oregon

Tomahawk Recovery Team

Support out of Eglin, FL, Point Mugu & China Lake, CA

• Target Mold Prototype & Manufacture

• 3D, 2D, cold air inflatable

• Copper clad

• Trailer mounted

• Active emitters Integrated

Plastic Land Targets

Solicitation Overview

Lauren Farmer Contract Specialist

CLIN Description Contract TYPE

0001 ‐ 0007 ATR Labor CPFF

0008 ‐ 0010 ATR Material COST

0011 ‐ 0013 ATR ODC COST

0014 – 0018 ATR Travel COST

0019 ‐ 0033 ATMO Labor CPFF

0034 ‐ 0046 ATMO Material COST

0047 ‐ 0060 ATMO ODC COST

0061 ‐ 0071 ATMO Travel COST

0072 ‐0073 ATMO Option CLINs CPFF

0074 Contract Data Requirements List NSP

X001 ATR Labor CPFF

X002 ATR Material COST

X003 ATR ODC COST

X004 ATR Travel COST

X005 ATMO Labor CPFF

X006 ATMO Material COST

X007 ATMO ODC COST

X008 ATMO Travel COST

X009 Contract Data Requirements List NSP

Section B – Supplies or Services (Base Year)

Section C Descriptions & Specifications

• Statement of Work.

Scope.

Locations for the required efforts.

Background on ATR and ATMO.

Applicable documents.

Tasking/requirements for Range.

Labor categories and qualifications.

Reports and data requirements.

• Attachment #1 – Funding Matrix.

Section G – Contract Admin Data

• G-TXT-0001 – Payment Instructions ( Feb 2018).

For the purposes of this solicitation/contract, the payment process will follow FAR Clause 52.216-7 (Allowable Cost and Payment) with the “Cost Voucher” type of payment.

• H-1 Government Directed Group Drug Testing (May 2015).

Contractor (Prime and Subcontractor), shall conduct unannounced drug testing of individual employees.

• H-2 Vessel Collision Liability And Protection And Indemnity Liability Insurance.

Insurance coverage to support ATMO vessel operations and maintenance.

• H-3 Restriction On The Direct Charging Of Material And Other Direct Costs (ODCs) NAVAIR 5252.242-9515 (Variation).

Establishes approval authority for the purchases of materials and ODCs.

Provides allowable types of ODCs and materials which can be purchased under this contract.

• H-4 Messing of Personnel.

Clause is intended to mandate a daily allowance for authorized personnel while at sea where per diem is not applicable.

Section H – Special Contract Requirements

• H-5 Mandatory Small Business Participation.

Small Business Participation is a material part of this contract.

Contractor shall sustain the mandated Small Business Participation level of

30% of total subcontracting costs.

• 5252.237-9501 Addition Or Substitution Of Key Personnel (Services)

(NAVAIR)(OCT 2005).

Must receive approval from Contracting Officer prior to substitution of key personnel.

• 5252.215-9505 Exclusive Teaming Arrangements Which Inhibit Competition.

• Additional clauses may be added prior to the Final RFP.

Section H – Special Contract Requirements

• FAR 52.222-17 – Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers (Jan 2013).

The Contractor and its subcontractors shall, except as otherwise provided herein, in good faith, offer those service employees employed under the predecessor contract whose employment would be terminated as a result of award of this contract or the expiration of the contract under which the service employees were hired, the right of first refusal of employment under this contract in positions for which the service employees are qualified.

• 52.217- 8 Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999).

Extend services up to six (6) months.

• FAR 52.223-6 (Drug Free Workplace).

Section I – Contract Clauses

• Offeror Representations and Information.

• Government Agency Information (e.g. DCAA, DCMA, etc.).

• Business System Compliance.

• Terms and Conditions (e.g. exceptions, deviations, etc.).

• Model Contract documents.

Signed original SF33.

Completed copy of all clauses requiring fill-ins.

Proposed Section H clauses.

• Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

Compliant with RFP small business requirements.

Contract Administration Volume

Distribution of Documents Federal Business Opportunities:

https://www.fbo.gov

ALL solicitation-related information will be posted to the FedBizOpps website. This includes, but is not limited to:

Synopsis and Sources Sought.

Draft RFP, including all sections (A Through M), Exhibits, and Attachments.

Industry Day Brief.

Listing of Industry Day attendees.

Industry Questions and Answers.

Final RFP.

RFP Amendments.

Break

Source Selection Overview

Michelle Johnson Source Selection Office

• Choose the Offeror who provides the best value to the Government, all factors considered.

• Obtain the best value using a comprehensive evaluation process.

• Use of the evaluation process provides a fair and consistent evaluation of proposals.

Source Selection Objectives

SSA

SSAC CHAIR

SSEB CHAIR

SSAC ADVISORS

SSEB ADVISORS

SSEB

MISSION

SUPPORT

SSAC MEMBERS

ASSISTANT CHAIR

COSTPAST

PERFORMANCE

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE PCO

Source Selection Organization

Evaluators

Source Selection Process

Generic Source Selection Process

Req’ts Developed Plan the Approach

• Acquisition Strategy/Plan

• SSP

Market Research & Early Exchanges w/Industry

• SOO

• P-Spec

• Draft RFPs • One-on-ones • Industry Days • Tech. Library

Receive Proposals

Compare Proposals

Discussions w/ Offerors

(ENs)

Complete Discussions

Evaluate Proposals

Competitive Range

(or SSA Selects Source)

Corp Exp Past Perf Technical

Cost/ Price

Evaluate FPRs Request Final

Proposal Revision (FPRs)

Debrief

Contract

SSAC SSA

SSAC SSA

SSAC SSASSA SSAC

SSAC/L&M

Formal

RFP

Select Source

Award on Initial Proposals?

• Understanding and following Sections L&M are the keys to developing a good proposal. A mutually beneficial goal to facilitate a successful evaluation.

• Proposal Instructions – Section L of the RFP:

• Tells Offerors what to put in the proposal.

• Evaluation Factors and Criteria – Section M of the RFP:

• Identifies what will be evaluated.

• Identifies relative order of importance of factors.

Proposals should use the same paragraph format as provided in Section L

Sections L & M

Draft Evaluation Criteria

Key: = equal to; >> Significantly More Important

Mission Support, Past Performance, and Corporate Experience are of equal importance, with each being more important than Cost. All evaluation factors other than Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost.

Mission Support

(Mission Support Rating and Risk Rating) Cost

Corporate Experience

(Confidence Assessment Rating)

Past Performance

(Confidence Assessment Rating)

• Best Value IAW FAR Subpart 15.101-1 Tradeoff Process.

• The Gov’t intends to evaluate each proposal & award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered.

Section L General Instructions

• An “Offeror” is defined as the prime Contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 15A on Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award.

• A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation when the prime Contractor consists of more than one legal entity. “JV Team Members” are the entities that make up a Joint Venture.

• The term “entity” is used to mean any or all of the following: prime Contractor, JV, JV team members, any subcontractor, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate (e.g., any Contractor with a different CAGE Code/DUNS than the Offeror).

• The following entities are defined as principal entities and only principal entities will be used in the past performance and corporate experience evaluations:

a) The prime Contractor;

b) JV Team Members;

c) Other entities that are proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total price for the contract;

and

d) Entities that are proposed to perform a critical function* in the performance of the resulting contract

** Critical functions include providing Electronic Warfare, Radar Cross Section Measurement, Aerial Targets, and Vessel Operations.

Proposal Content & Volumes

• Annexes are used to provide supporting data.

• Annexes do not have suggested page counts and do not count towards the suggested page count.

Volume Number Volume/Annex Title Suggested Pages Paper Copies Required

Electronic Copies Required

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 1 Original 1 Original and 1 Copy

2 MISSION SUPPORT 75

1 Original and 1

Copy 1 Original and 1 Copy

3 CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

As Needed 1 Original and 1

Copy 1 Original and 1 Copy

4 PAST PERFORMANCE

As Needed 1 Original and 1

Copy 1 Original and 1 Copy

5 COST As Needed 1 Original and 1

Copy 1 Original and 1 Copy

6 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION As Needed 1 Original and 1

Copy 1 Original and 1 Copy

Annex A Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Table SB-1 (Small Business Requirement)

As Needed 1 Original/1 Copy 1 Original and 1 Copy

Annex B Relevant Portions of Final Versions of Previous SOO/SOW/PWSs for Past Performance and Corporate Experience

As Needed Not Applicable 1 Original and 1 Copy

Annex C DCAA/DCMA Reports, Audits, and Determinations As Needed 1 Original

1 Original and 1 Copy

Annex D Joint Venture Teaming Agreement As Needed 1 Original 1 Original and 1 Copy

Proposal Delivery

• 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 – Aircraft Division Ms. Lauren Farmer, AIR-2.5.1.11.7 21983 Bundy Road, Bldg 441 Patuxent River, MD 20670 Solicitation Number: N00421-18-R-0038

• Offerors are requested to submit the following information 2 weeks prior to proposal due date:

• Attachment L-1, Table ES-1 Offeror Summary Table & ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary

• Attachment L-3, Corporate Experience Element Contract Reference Matrix

• Attachment L-5, Past Performance Contract Data

• Annex B, Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/Other Supporting

Documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience

Offeror Summary (Table ES-1)

• This table summarizes the Offeror and its entities’ proposed type and level of work, indicating a commitment to that effort during contract performance.

• Offerors are advised that in order to demonstrate work commitment, each entity identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) must be identified in Volume 5 (Cost) and associated with a dollar value commensurate with the Percent of Total Proposed Cost identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary).

• This table must be a reflection of what is proposed in Volume 5 (Cost).

Offeror: ABC, Inc.

Entity Name

Physical Location of Entity

CAGE Codes/DUNS Roles and

Responsibilities with Work Description

Workshare - % Total Proposed Cost

Principal Entity Yes or

No?

ABC, Inc. Nowhere, MD 12345 Prime: EA, TBT 65% YES

XYZ, LLC Somewhere, VA 98765 SOJ 25% YES

LMN Anywhere, CA 45632 EW design services 5% YES

PQR Elsewhere, KS 25486 Admin 5% NO

Total Proposed price (must add up to 100%) 100%

Relevant Contract Summary (Table ES-2)

Offeror: ABC, Inc

Entity Name Contract Reference

Contract Number

Contract Type Contract Title

*Description of Changes/Additions from Early Information

Prime or Joint Venture Company ABC, Inc

P1 XXXXXXXX FFP Electronic Warfare aircraft services No changes

P2 XXXXXXXX FFP Target Banner Tow services Added PBWS

P3

JV team member A (where applicable)

T1

T2

T3

T4

Subcontractor A

XYZ, LLC

S1 XXXXXXXX CPFF No changes

S2 XXXXXXXX FFP

Fixed typo in contract number

Subcontractor B

LMN

S3 XXXXXXX FFP No changes

S4 XXXXXXX CPFF No changes

Proposal Preparation Guidance

• Demonstrate a thorough understanding of requirements and inherent risks.

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

• Substantiate, don't simply make claims.

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

• Be consistent from Volume to Volume.

• Provide clear and concise descriptions.

• Drawings & diagrams complement narrative, but don't replace it.

• Help the evaluator quickly find what he/she needs.

• Is it clear?

• Is it well organized?

• Be attentive to all parts of the RFP.

• Requirements, SOW.

• Evaluation Criteria and Proposal Instructions.

Typical Proposal Shortfalls

• Proposal Instructions are not followed.

• Information not provided in the way it was requested.

• Too little information.

• Too much information.

• Statements in the proposal are not well supported.

• Proposals are not well organized.

• Does not follow Proposal Instructions structure and makes the evaluator hunt for the information.

• Past Performance POCs are not current.

• DUNS/CAGE Codes references do not match.

• Deficiencies - preclude award.

• Information provided does not support claims of compliance.

• Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements.

• Key Personnel Resume does not meet Labor Qualifications.

• Small Business Requirement

• Not signing SF-33.

Source Selection Summary

• The Source Selection process will assure that your proposal will receive a fair and consistent evaluation and selection.

• Sections L&M are intended to help you provide us with your best value solution and instruct you in preparing a proposal that will facilitate our evaluation.

• Propose a realistic proposal with a high performing team, providing an executable contract that is likely to perform as proposed.

• Provide a proposal that helps the Government perform its independent analysis and provides high confidence in the proposed solution and contract performance plan.

Volume 2: Mission Support

Tom Jones Supervisory Computer Scientist

• 2.1 Management Approach

• 2.1.1 Organization

• Provide an Organizational Chart and a short description of the proposed roles of the Offeror’s management structure for the resulting contract.

• 2.1.2 Recruitment

• Demonstrate the ability to hire personnel needed to support the

Range Technical Support Services effort.

• 2.1.3 Personnel Certification/ Qualification

• Provide a detailed plan/approach to track and ensure personnel achieve and maintain proficiency to meet the requirements in SOW Section 3.1.10 Training and Certifications and to meet the license, certifications, and special training requirements in SOW Section 3.4 Labor Category Descriptions & Qualifications.

• 2.1.4 Key Personnel

• Resumes for proposed Key Personnel (i) Engineer, Radar Cross

Section, Senior; (ii) General Operations Manager; and (iii) Field Engineer, Aerial Targets Site Lead1, Senior

1) Note: “Field Engineer, Aerial Targets Site Lead, Senior”, will be renamed “Operations Manager, Aerial Targets Journeyman” in Final RFP.

• 2.2 Transition Phase-In Plan

• Submit a detailed plan covering the transition phase-in period of 90 days, prior to the start of the base period of performance that describes its approach and risk mitigation strategies for minimizing disruptions of range operations due to contract transition and assumption of service requirements described in SOW Section 3.0 Requirements.

• 2.3 Technology/Systems/Process Approach

• Describe the Offeror’s engineering and management tools or resources, systems engineering processes, and quality improvement processes to innovatively meet existing or emergent requirements in response to future test, training, and Fleet experimentation requirements. Describe how those tools and processes would be used to assist the Government with operating, maintaining and enhancing range systems or processes in a safe, effective, and efficient manner.

• 2.4 Small Business Management

• H-5 Mandatory Small Business Participation.

Volume 2: Mission Support Cross Reference Matrix

• The CRM is included to help the offeror develop its proposal and to ensure traceability of Section L paragraphs to the requirements.

Section L – Proposal Instructions Volume or

Paragraph Numbers

Section L - Proposal Instructions Volume or

Paragraph Title RFP Sections M SOW

Offeror's Proposal

Reference

Volume 2 Mission Support

2.1 Management Approach IIA

2.1.1 Organization IIA

3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.1.7.1.1, 3.1.7.1.4

2.1.2 Recruitment IIA

3.1.7.1.2, 3.1.7.1.3, 3.1.4.2.2, 3.4.2.7, 3.4.2

2.1.3 Personnel

Certification/Qualification IIA 3.1.10

2.1.4 Key Personnel IIA 3.4

2.2 Transition Phase-In Plan IIA

3.1.9, 3.3.34.1a, 3.3.46-51, 3.4.2

2.3 Technology/Systems/Process

Approach

IIA

2.4, 3.1.3, 3.3.28.5, 3.3.28.7, 3.3.28.9, 3.3.45.1.12- 13,3.3.53.2.3,3.3.53.3, 3.3.53.2.4, 3.3.53.2.5, 3.3.53.2.6, 3.3.26.2, 3.3.26.4, 3.3.26.5, 3.3.26.8, 3.3.26.10, 3.3.26.11, 3.3.27, 3.3.25

2.4 Small Business Management IIA

Section M: Mission Support

• The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to and ability to meet the solicitation requirements.

• The Government will assess the Offeror’s Mission Support Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach.

• The evaluation will also include an assessment of the Offeror's:

1) Management Approach

2) Transition Phase-In Plan

3) Technology/Systems/Process Approach

• Will only consider strengths in element 2.3 Technology/System/Process Approach.

4) Small Business Management

Mission Support

- Rating Definitions -

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Mission Support Ratings: The rating assignments reflect the Government's assessment of the Offeror’s Mission Support solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Mission Support

- Risk Rating Definitions -

Volume 3: Corporate Experience

Jim Ashley Supervisory Engineer

• Corporate Experience:

– What your company has done?

• “We repaired 100 leaky boats in the past month”

• Past Performance:

– How well your company has done it?

• “Ninety boats still leaked after your repair”

Corporate Experience vs. Past Performance

• 3.0: Applicable Contracts for Each CE Element CE-1 (Part of Attachment L-2)

• 3.1: CE Evaluation Elements:

3.1.1 Range Operations and Maintenance

‒ Providing technical support services related to operation and maintenance of Range Systems. Additionally, address Range Telemetry and Time Space Position Information (TSPI) support.

3.1.2 Deployments

‒ Providing technical support services related to deployments for training or test and evaluation training programs. Describe the frequency (specify if any deployments were conducted concurrently), location (CONUS, OCONUS, and maritime), and duration.

3.1.3 Electronic Warfare

‒ EW threat analysis, mission planning, and conduct data analysis and reporting for use by training or test and evaluation training programs.

‒ Fixed and Mobile EW signal generation and reception at Outdoor Ranges.

Consideration will be given for experience in Indoor Anechoic Chamber facilities.

‒ Simultaneous EW operations at multiple sites supporting diverse EW assets to include remote site and seaborne operations.

• 3.1: Evaluation Elements (Con’t):

3.1.4 Radar Cross Section Measurement

‒ Providing technical support services related to performing RCS

Measurement, mission planning, data analysis and reporting for use by test and training programs.

3.1.5 Aerial Targets

‒ Describe the type of Aerial Targets supported, nature of support, and location.

‒ Developing GOPs/FOPs, training required personnel to ensure compliance with GOPs, and maintaining and updating those GOPs within the scope of contract activities in accordance with DCMA INST 8210.1.

3.1.6 Vessel Operations

‒ Operating and maintaining Vessels. Describe the type of off-shore and in-shore vessels operated, nature of support, and location. Off-shore vessels are defined as 140’ or greater.

Applicable Contracts for Each Corporate Experience Element (CE-1)

1 Offeror Name 2 Entity Name 3 Contract Reference 4 Title of Contract 5 Contract/TO/DO/Subcontract Number

6 3.1.1 Range Operations and Maintenance Applicable PWS/SOW Section/Paragraph from Contract Reference Applicable to 3.1.1 (Range Operations and Maintenance)

(1) Operation and Maintenance of Range Systems

(2) Range Telemetry Support

(3) Time Space Position Information (TSPI) Support

3.1.2 Deployments Applicable PWS/SOW Section/Paragraph from

Contract Reference Applicable to 3.1.2 (Deployments)

(1) Frequency

(2) Location (CONUS, OCONUS, and maritime)

(3) Duration

3.1.3 Electronic Warfare

Applicable PWS/SOW Section/Paragraph from Contract Reference Applicable to 3.1.3 (Electronic Warfare)

Table CE-1 Applicable Contracts for CE Elements

• The Offeror shall identify the relevant portions (sections and paragraphs) of the contract reference’s SOW/PWS or other supporting solicitation/contract documentation to clearly identify how Corporate Experience performing past tasks are similar to evaluation elements 3.1.1 through 3.1.6.

– If the Offeror performed as a subcontractor for a contact reference, identify relevant portions (sections and paragraphs) of the subcontractor or supplier SOW/PWS or other documentation of the agreement between the prime and subcontractor.

• Only contract references designated in Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary) shall be used in completing this Volume and all contract references shall be numbered the same throughout all of the Offeror’s proposal volumes (i.e., the contracts identified as P1, S1, T1, etc.).

• Contract relevancy will be determined in the Past Performance evaluation.

Only contract references identified in the Volume 3 (Corporate Experience) and determined relevant in the past performance evaluation will be evaluated in Corporate Experience.

Applicable Contracts for Each Corporate Experience Element (CE-1)

Corporate Experience Proposal

• The Offeror shall provide a comparative analysis between the principal entities’ roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) and the Corporate Experience requested in subparagraphs

3.1.1 through 3.1.6.

• Describe the extent to which previous Corporate Experience performing requirements similar to this solicitation can be leveraged in future performance of work.

• Similarity is the extent to which the Offeror’s contract references (or documented work efforts) correspond to the specific tasks required by this solicitation.

Section M: Corporate Experience

• Breadth and Depth of the corporate experience will be assessed for each element to predict how the Offeror may perform on the future effort.

‒ Breadth is the degree to which the principal entities have performed/managed the effort(s) similar to that required by the solicitation as they relate to the element.

‒ Depth is the extent to which each activity/task of the effort was performed to gain a certain level of proficiency.

• The evaluation will include an assessment of the following elements:

3.1.1 Range Operations and Maintenance.

3.1.2 Deployments.

3.1.3 Electronic Warfare.

3.1.4 Radar Cross Section Measurement.

3.1.5 Aerial Targets.

3.1.6 Vessel Operations.

• Experience considered in this evaluation will only relate to Corporate Experience, which is the experience gained through contracted work, vice the experience of the Offeror's personnel. Therefore, personnel experience is not part of the Corporate Experience factor and will not be considered.

Corporate Experience Confidence Assessment Definitions

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

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.

Corporate Experience Confidence Assessment Rating: Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s previous experience.

Volume 3: Past Performance

Eric Harvey Computer Scientist

Look Back Look Forward

Volume 4: Past Performance -Evaluation Concept-

• How did Offeror perform on current or past contracts?

– Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS, Questionnaires

– Determine Relevancy / Recency

• Assess each contract referenced

• Assess each relevant contract found through an independent Government search

• Roll up each relevant reference assessed into an overall Offeror assessment

• Based on Offeror’s assessment (Look Back), how do we think they will perform on the program?

• Final product is a determination of the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for the Range Services Contract

• Identify contracts containing efforts similar to the Range Services effort.

• For Prime, Principal Subcontractors, Critical Subcontractors and team members

• All contracts submitted for Experience should also be submitted for Past Performance or an explanation of why not.

• Performance within 5 years of proposal due date.

• 12 months of the performance must have occurred within 5 years of proposal due date.

• Relate to same plant, division or cost center where you propose to accomplish work.

• Provide agreements between you and your subs/team members to allow us to coordinate past performance issues.

• Provide past performance information, at least 2 weeks prior to proposal due date.

Requested that one hard copy and one electronic copy on a CD-ROM of the following tables be provided:

• Offeror Summary Table E.S.1

• Relevant Contract Summary Table E.S.2,

• Summary of Relevant Past Performance Contract Data Form Table PP-1

Past Performance Proposal

Volume 4: Past Performance

• Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (Attachment L-4) will be the primary customer feedback data used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance.

• For all contracts identified that do not have a CPARS, the Offeror shall forward a copy of the PPQ to that contract’s PCO, ACO, and PM; or commercial contractor equivalents.

Send to POC within two weeks from receipt of the Final RFP.

Request responses back to POC within two weeks of receipt.

Identify when and where the questionnaires were sent.

DO NOT FOLLOW-UP on Questionnaires, the Government will perform all follow-up actions.

• Quality: Past performance evaluation will be based on customer feedback of the following performance areas:

• Meeting technical requirements.

• Meeting schedule requirements.

• Managing the contracted effort.

• Small business utilization.

• Actions taken to resolve past problems (Systemic Improvement).

• Principal entities are defined as:

– The prime Contractor.

– JV Team Members;

– Other entities that are proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total price for the contract; and

– Entities that are proposed to perform a critical function* in the performance of the resulting contract.

• Critical functions include providing Electronic Warfare, Radar Cross Section Measurement, Aerial Targets, and Vessel Operations.

• Relevant Contract Data.

– Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data, Attachment L-5.

• Evaluation.

– Determine Relevancy ( Relevant and Not Relevant).

– Review/Examine Past Performance Information.

• Demonstrated Systemic Improvement.

1 Offeror Name 2 Entity Name 3 Contract Reference 4 Title of Contract 5 Contract Number 6 Contract Type

7 Relevant Delivery/Task Order Numbers (if applicable)

8 Subcontract Number/PO Number 9 Procuring agency 10 Description of product or service

Period of performance - Start Date MM/DD/YYYY

Period of performance - End Date MM/DD/YYYY 12 CAGE Code (if not the same as Offeror, explain)

Dollar value of contract (Total) Dollar value of contract (Annualized)

Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data

PP-1 Relevant Contract Data

Provide Relevant contract information for the proposed Prime (e.g. P1), proposed JV team members (e.g. T1), or Subcontractors (S1).

Only applies if performed as subcontractor on this reference

Period and Place of Performance

PP-1 Relevant Contract Data Brief Work Description and/or Program Responsibility for this past contract.

a. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Engineering, Operations, or Maintenance Services for training, or test and evaluation

b. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with customer supported DOD, FAA, or

NASA

c. PWS/SOW paragraphs from contract reference associated with Air, Land, Surface, Under Sea Range(s) or Lab(s)

15 Date of last completed CPARs MM/DD/YYYY

16 Date past performance questionnaires were sent.

MM/DD/YYYY

18 Gov't PCO or Commercial Purchasing Agent Name:

Phone:

Email:

19 Gov't ACO if applicable Name:

Phone:

Email:

20 Gov't PM or Commercial PM Name:

Phone:

Email:

21 Other POC:

Name:

Title:

Phone:

Email:

Points of Contact who can validate performance on the past performance contract, specific delivery

For each area in 14, explain how the past performance contract demonstrates relevance and list PWS/SOW references that document the relevant scope of the past performance contract submitted.

Ensure all contact info is current!!

• Provide a concise assessment of the degree of relevancy for referenced contract and identify it as Relevant (R).

A past contract is considered to have similar scope, magnitude, & complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved providing engineering, operations, or maintenance services in support of DOD, FAA, or NASA for training, or test and evaluation in Air, Land, Surface, Under Sea Range(s) or Lab(s). Period of Performance must be greater than one year to be considered relevant.

• The contract relevancy assessment should be relative to the principle entity proposed role/responsibility versus relative to the whole solicitation.

• Relevant efforts are those which have a logical connection to the RFP requirements and occurred within the applicable time span.

The question to ask is, “Will the Contractor’s performance associated with this reference have a bearing on the future performance of the proposed contract?”

Contract Relevancy

• Not Relevant (NR): Contracts assessed by the Government to involve little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort and/ or complexities that this solicitation requires, will be assessed as Not Relevant.

• NR contracts are characterized by any of the following:

• Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

• Contracts from an entity that does not have any work that matches the entity’s proposed role and responsibility identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary);

• Contracts from any entity that is not a principal entity, including those who does not demonstrate the requisite work share in the Cost/Price Volume;

• Contracts from a different physical location (e.g., with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary); or

• Contracts, or those portions of contracts, whose performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date. (If only a portion of a contract is older than 5 years, then only that portion is not relevant for reasons of recency.)

• Contracts or the portions of their performance that are NR are not utilized in the assessment.

Contract Relevancy (cont’d)

4.3: Relevancy

• The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance and systemic improvement information remains with the Offeror.

• Offerors are advised that the Government will assess each proposed present/past performance contract reference and assign a relevancy rating (Relevant or Not Relevant).

• To demonstrate relevancy, Offerors should provide a comparative analysis to the similarity of this solicitation’s requirements.

• Within the comparative analysis, Offerors should identify the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs, and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s SOW/PWS (Annex B) to clearly identify how past efforts performed are similar to this solicitation’s requirements and aligned with PP-1.

• For TOs or DOs, ensure that the SOW/PWS for that delivery or task order is provided in addition to the base contract.

• If the offeror performed as a subcontractor on the reference past contract, then ensure that the sub-contract and associated SOW/PWS that was flowed down is provided to show the work performed as the subcontractor.

• Please Do NOT provide self-assessed relevancy ratings. Only provide the comparative analysis as stated.

4.3: Demonstrated Systemic Improvement

• Identify systemic improvement actions taken to resolve any past problems identified in 4.3 Past Performance Information.

• Provide the records of such results and indicate where they are documented, preferably in Government record systems.

• Describe the techniques, elements, and tools used to correct problems on the reference contract and, if applicable, how these techniques, elements, and tools may be used for the contract to be awarded as the result of this solicitation.

• Provide quantifiable evidence or metrics that substantiate or demonstrate claims of improvement and to demonstrate that the past problem will not occur on the contract to be awarded as the result of this solicitation.

• The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror.

• Consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement.

Draft Section M: Past Performance

• A separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned based on an integrated assessment of all performance areas.

• The…