N68335-11-R-0123 Amendment 4.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 27-Jul-2011 02:00 PM to 01-Aug-2011 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 4

The purpose of Amendment 4 to solicitation N68335-11-R-0123 is to provide responses to industry questions and to extend the solicitation as shown below:

1. The solicitation is hereby extended as follows:

FROM:

27 JULY 2011 at 2:00 PM ET

TO:

01 AUGUST 2011 at 2:00 PM ET

2. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.2.3.1 of the SPS requires the HAWT to be capable of a high storage temperature of +71°C. Paragraph 3.2.3.2 of the SPS requires the HAWT to be capable of a low storage temperature of -40°C. There is no corresponding requirement expressed for the HAWT Assembly, including the transit case.

a. Shall the Contractor assume the HAWT will be environmentally tested and qualified to meet storage test parameters without benefit of its transit case?

b. If not, should the other components of the HAWT Assembly be included in the transit case during these tests?

ANSWER:

a. The SPS differentiates between the HAWT Assembly and the HAWT tester. Paragraphs 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.2, 4.2.3.1, and 4.2.3.2 refer to the HAWT tester. However, if rechargeable/reusable batteries are employed, the charging unit must also withstand the storage temperature requirements.

b. For verification and testing, whenever “HAWT Assembly” appears in the SPS (e.g., 3.2.3.6 / 4.2.3.6 Transit Drop), all components shall be in the transit case.

3. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.2.4.6 of the Statement of Work describes the requirement for PRR prior to full-rate production approval. Paragraph 3.2.7.1 of the Statement of Work states that “After the successful completion of DT, the Government will hold a Full Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR) ..”. This same paragraph requires delivery of production units within 5 months of FRPDR. In addition, CLINS 0002 through 0005 under Clause 52.211-8, Time of Delivery on Page 25 of 85 of the Solicitation require a 5 month delivery, but this requirement is tied to receipt of a Delivery Order

(presumably only the first Delivery Order), rather than FRPDR.

a. Please confirm our conclusion that receipt of the first Delivery Order and successful completion of FRPDR are intended to be coincident events.

b. We presume PRR is an event that is scheduled after successful completion of DT, as is the condition for FRPDR:

c. Please provide the expected time interval between DT and FRPDR.

d. Please provide the expected time interval between successful completion of PRR and FRPDR.

ANSWER:

a. The first delivery order will be for the required minimum order which is four (4) HAWT pilot production units. Execution of production delivery orders for CLINS 0002 through 0005 can only occur after successful FRPDR.

b. Correct, PRR is an event that is scheduled after successful completion of DT.

c. Approximately 60 days

d. Approximately 30 days

4. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.3.2 of the SPS references EMI tests listed Table V of MIL-STD-461F, and more specifically, Navy Ground. On review of the acceptance limits in Figure RE102-4 for ground applications, there are two curves labeled Navy: Navy Fixed & Navy Mobile; there is no simple Navy Ground nomenclature found.

a. Does the Government require the HAWT to meet Navy Fixed or Navy Mobile criteria?

b. If Navy Mobile, closer comparison of Figure RE102-4 (for ground applications), and

RE102-1 (for surface ship applications) reveals that the Navy Mobile ground limits are more stringent than those required to qualify for flight deck applications. Is this the Government’s intention?

ANSWER:

a. No, the Government requires neither criterion be met. The performance threshold is represented by the curve labeled "Below Deck" in Figure RE102-1 on page 102 of MIL-STD-461F. The performance objective is represented by the curve labeled "Topside."

Paragraph 3.3.2.1 of the SPS is amended as follows: "The HAWT shall comply with the EMC requirements of MIL-STD-464C for metallic surface ships (below deck)."

Paragraph 4.3.2 of the SPS is amended as follows: "The following conducted and radiated susceptibility and emissions tests listed in Table V of MIL-STD-461F for Surface Ships shall be conducted: CE101, CE102, CS101, CS106, CS114, CS115, CS116, RE101, RE102, RS101 and RS103. The HAWT test leads shall be considered part of the equipment under test for all EMC tests."

b. No. See answer to 3a above.

5. QUESTION: In paragraph 3.3.2.1 of the SPS, the EMC requirements from MIL-STD-464C are broadly imposed for metallic surface ships and USN/USMC ground. In paragraph 4.3.2, the SPS defines a series of tests to be conducted in accordance with table V of MIL-STD-461F. In Appendix A ofthe SPS, the contractor is required to verify compliance with section 3.3.2 of the SPS by performing quality assurance tests in accordance with section 4.3.2 of SPS. Our questions are:

a. Can we assume the testing performed in accordance with paragraph 4.3.2 (MIL-STD-461F) will satisfy all of the requirements of section 3.3.2.1 (MIL-STD-464C)?

b. If not, can the government provide more guidance to tailor MIL-STD-464C to the HAWT? For example, We assume Table 1, on page 12 of MIL-STD-461C, is not applicable because it refers to flight and weather decks. We do, however, assume Table 4, on page 15 of MIL-STD-461C, is applicable because this table refers to ground systems. Is this correct? If Table 4 is applicable, we note the some of the peak/average electric field strengths in Table 4 are far in excess of the field strengths shown in Table VII (page 135) in MIL-STD-461F for the RS103 testing. Will the DT subject the pre-production units to the fields and frequencies shown in Table 4 of MIL-STD-464C? If the answer is yes, what acceptance criteria will be used?

ANSWER:

a. Yes. If the tests called out in paragraph 4.3.2 of the SPS are successfully passed for the levels specified by the curve labeled “Below Deck” in Figure RE102-1, then the minimum requirement will have been satisfied.

b. N/A

6. QUESTION: We note the appendix is not a mandatory part of MIL-STD-464C; however, Table A.1 on page 55 provides a description of the types of EMI testing to be conducted for new, modified, or carry-on equipment. Our questions are:

a. Is Table A.1 applicable to the HAWT?

b. If so, what category of equipment is applicable (new, modified, carry-on)?

c. Which equipment type would be used for the HAWT (category 1 through 6)?

d. If the category has a Flight Critical and non-Flight Critical subcategory, how is the HAWT classified? Flight Critical or non-Flight Critical?

ANSWER:

a. No, Table A.1 is not applicable to the HAWT.

b. N/A

c. N/A

d. N/A

7. In the ALSSOW, paragraph 4.4 SUPPORTABILITY ANALYSIS PLAN (SAP), the first sentence is: The Contractor shall update the SAP submitted with the proposal to define how all Supportability Analysis (SA) tasks integrate with other systems engineering activities,...In section L of the solicitation, section 1.B on page 71/85, there are no specific instructions to include a Supportability Analysis Plan (SAP). Our question is:

a. Does the government require the contractor to include a SAP with the proposal? If so, we respectfully request a 10 day extension of the proposal due date from July 27, 2011 to August 8, 2011 to prepare the draft SAP.

ANSWER: No, the Government does not require the contractor to include a SAP with the proposal. The SAP will be required at the time stated in CDRL L007, Logistics Supportability Requirements deliverable. Therefore, an extension should not be required to prepare the SAP.

8. QUESTION: Page 71 of 85 of the Solicitation, under Training, requests submission of, among other things, all available computer-based training aids. With reference to CDRL L009, the information required for the Course Conduct Information Package (CCIP) makes no specific reference to a computer based training requirement.

a. Can you confirm that there is no computer-based training or ADL requirement included in the Scope of Work?

b. Can you clarify the purpose for providing a description in the proposal? e.g., would the availability of computer-based training aids would be given additional consideration in the proposal evaluation process?

ANSWER: There is no computer-based training or ADL required in the Scope of Work. A description in the proposal is not necessary, since CBT is not required. Amendment 4 deleted the words: "and computer-based training aids" in Section L, page 71 of 85, Training. CBT is not mentioned in the ALSSOW/Training CDRL. The availability of computer-based training aids will not be given additional consideration in the proposal evaluation process, as it is not part of the evaluation criteria.

9. QUESTION: The paragraph titled VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR on Page 70 of 85 of the Solicitation notes that “This volume shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer.” However, to address all of the points in the Technical SOW, we note that under Paragraph

3.2.7.2 Production Options, “The Contractor is requested to provide pricing to the

Government for production quantities in accordance with the IMS.” Further, under Paragraph

3.2.4.3, CDR, we note that “The Contractor shall conduct a CDR in accordance with the approved IMS.”

a. It is our understanding that the pricing for production options is pre-established under

CLINS 0002 thru 0005. What relationship does this pricing have to the IMS?

b. Contrary to the cautionary note referenced on Page 70 of 85 of the Solicitation, does the

Government expect any pricing data whatsoever to be discussed in connection with the

IMS?

c. As required under Paragraph I.C. Management Subfactor, Schedule and Milestones on

Page 72 of 85 of the Solicitation, ”The offeror shall provide a schedule that clearly indicates compliance with all program milestones ……” Our proposal will include a schedule to meet the parameters as required herein and, assuming no discussions are held prior to contract award, we will consider this schedule to be the baseline for the IMS presented at the PAC.

1. At what point in the process will the schedule submitted with the offer become

“approved”?

2. Is the Government aware of a pre-approved schedule? If so, when will this preapproved schedule be provided to the Contractor?

ANSWER:

a. The IMS is referenced in 3.2.7.2 to show the quantity of production units, which is linked to the quantities in Section B of the solicitation. Section B should reflect all pricing aspects of the proposal. The Technical Volume, to include the IMS, shall not contain any reference to cost or price.

b. No, the Government does not expect any pricing to be discussed in connection with the IMS.

c. The IMS submitted with the offeror's proposal shall indicate realistic dates of when each task should be accomplished. There is no pre-approved schedule at this time. Upon contract award, a master schedule will be incorporated to reflect the adjusted dates based on the contract award date.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

L-1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS

L-1 CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SUPPLIES OR SERVICES) (May 2011)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

Offerors are required to submit sufficient information concerning the following areas to enable Government personnel to fully ascertain capabilities of the offeror to perform the requirements. The proposal must be sufficient in detail and scope to permit evaluation and provide the evaluators a clear understanding of the offeror’s approach, expertise, experience and capability as required by the solicitation. All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements and associated risks; is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements; and has valid and practical solutions for all requirements and potential risk areas. Respond to all requirements of the solicitation. Do not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The burden of proof for all the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation rests with the offeror. The offerors are advised that the Government may incorporate into the final contract enhancing features included in the offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government. With the exception of the Price volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any other volume. Alternate proposals are acceptable.

In presenting material in the proposal, the offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during proposal preparation. It is the responsibility of the offeror to present enough information to allow the various work efforts, support, management approaches, and price to be meaningfully evaluated without discussions. Stating that the prospective offeror understands, can or will comply with the specifications and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate and may render a rating of unsatisfactory. For the purpose of this acquisition, relevance is defined as something that has a logical connection with the matter under consideration. Such aspects or relevance include the type of effort (e.g., development, production, repair), the type of requirement (e.g., weapon systems, information systems, engineering services, scheduled depot maintenance), service similarity, service complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, the division of the company that will perform the work, and participation of Principal Subcontractors, Team Members, or Critical Team Members.

The offeror must include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to clearly and positively address a specific factor or subfactor may be considered a deficiency. There is no need to repeat information in more than one volume if an overlap exists. The detailed information must be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

Offerors are expected to comply with all requirements of the RFP. The Government advises offerors that taking exception to or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable and the offeror ineligible for award unless the RFP expressly authorizes such an exception or deviation with regard to that specific term or condition. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001.

Throughout these instructions, “Principal Subcontractors” are defined as subcontractors who provide at least 10% of the proposed total cost/price (excluding the offeror’s profit/fee) for the contract. Team Members are the entities that make up a joint venture or any other partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation. Critical team members are entities of the offeror that perform a critical function in the performance of the resulting contract, whether it is technical or financial, and/or have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the offeror’s proposal.

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 should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one (1) original and additional copies as specified in the table below. Submission of all volumes of the original proposal to the address provided in Section 4.0 will determine timeliness of receipt. Page limitations for each volume, if any, are also specified in the table below as follows (title and table of contents pages do not count towards page limit). Proposal pages beyond a specified maximum limit, if any, will not be reviewed as part of the evaluation.

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. Annexes do not have page limitations. The authorized Annexes are summarized in the table below.

All offerors competing for award will be required to submit a Technical, an Experience, a Past Performance and a Price proposal. The proposal will be submitted in four (4) separate volumes as follows:

Annex 1

(If Needed)

Each volume must contain the following information:

Cover and title page

Title of proposal and proposal number as applicable

Offeror’s name, address and POC

RFP number

Proposal volume/book number

Copy number

Table of Contents (The table of contents must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements.)

Use tabs and dividers

The offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that the solicitation requirements contained in the Statement of Work (SOW) and Acquisition Logistics Support Statement of Work (ALSSOW) 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. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

*The Technical Volume Part A of the CRM shall include references to the following:

Statement of Work (SOW) for the Handheld Aircraft Wire Tester (HAWT): Section 3 REQUIREMENTS, pages 1 through 8.

System Performance Specification for the Handheld Aircraft Wire Tester (HAWT), document number PRF-SPEC-HAWT-0001, dated 31 January 2011: Section 3 System Requirements, pages 5 through 9 and Section 4 Quality Assurance Provisions, pages 9 through 12.

**The Technical Volume Part B of the CRM shall include references to:

Handheld Aircraft Wire Tester (HAWT) Acquisition Logistics SOW (ALSSOW) paragraphs 1 through 16

HAWT ALSSOW Enclosure 1 Provisioning Statement of Work (PSOW)

Paragraphs 1 through 22

HAWT ALSSOW Enclosure 2 Technical Manual Contract Requirement (TMCR):

Paragraphs 1.0 through 7.0

Proposal pages beyond the specified maximum limit will not be reviewed as part of the evaluation.

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 Standard Form 33 of the RFP.

Proposals shall be submitted via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Proposals are not to be submitted via facsimile or electronically via e-mail.

Naval Air Warfare Center AD (LKE)

Code: 2.5.2.1.1 (Karen Sacco)

Bldg 562-3

Hwy 547

Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5082

Solicitation Number: N68335-11-R-0123

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to B562-1, Room 134 of the address above, Attention: Karen Sacco and/or Cindy Scheper.

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

The offerors 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. Also, each carton shall be single person portable. However, the Master Set, as described below, shall be packaged separately and marked as the Master Set. Each box should 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.” The Master Set shall include all original proposal volumes including the original/signed documents.

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For any changes and additional information for the solicitation please go to website:

http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_business/open_solicitations

PART B.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

The proposal shall be subdivided into the following sections, in the order listed, and shall be written to match the following format:

VOLUME I.

Technical Factor

A.

Design Approach Subfactor

System Performance

Quality Assurance Provisions

B.

Integrated Logistics Support Subfactor

Supply Support

Warranty

Technical Manual

Training

* Logistics Management Information database

C.

Management Subfactor

Schedule and Milestones

Manufacturing Capacity and Facilities

Personnel Resources

Quality Assurance (QA) Program

Utilization of Small Business Concerns

VOLUME II.

Experience Factor Similarity of Product

Similarity of Environment

VOLUME III.

Past Performance Factor

Quality of Product and Processes

Timeliness of Performance

Customer Satisfaction

Quality Awards

VOLUME IV.

Price Factor

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer.

I.A.

Design Approach Subfactor

The Design Approach Sub-Factor section of the proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding and ability to meet or exceed the Request for Proposal’s (RFP), the System Performance Specification (SPS), technical Statement of Work (SOW), and Technical Data requirements.

In addition to meeting all the Solicitation's requirements, offerors who propose enhancements, including but not limited to, those listed below, may be given additional consideration in the technical evaluation rating:

- A HAWT with detection of “soft faults,” such as those caused by over-crimps, kinks, chafes, cracks, and micro-holes in insulation, as well as those caused by corrosion or water intrusion.

- A HAWT with the ability to monitor a wire path and record intermittent faults.

- A HAWT with the ability to compare two or more diagnostic waveform traces.

- A HAWT with test leads that are easily changed and replaced if lost or damaged.

- A HAWT with Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) with the flight deck of aircraft carriers and air-capable ships.

- A HAWT with splash- and dust-proofing that has the ability to withstand MIL-STD-810G, Method 504.1 Procedure II using simulated seawater or 5% NaCl as the fluid agent, as well as resistance to blowing sand and dust in accordance with MIL-STD-810G, Method 510.5.

System Performance: The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative of the approach that will be taken to meet or exceed the technical requirements of the HAWT as stated in the SPS. The narrative shall follow the paragraph order of Section 3 (System Requirements) of the SPS. Data shall be provided in sufficient detail to support the claim that each requirement as been met or exceeded.

Quality Assurance Provisions: The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative of the approach that will be taken to meet or exceed the quality assurance provisions of the HAWT as stated in the SPS. The narrative shall follow the paragraph order of Section 4 (Quality Assurance Provisions) of the SPS. Data shall be provided in sufficient detail to support the claim that each requirement as been met or exceeded. If actual test data are available to support the claims, they shall be provided.

I.B.

Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Subfactor

This section shall clearly demonstrate the offeror’s capability, capacity, and approach for meeting the logistic requirements in the Acquisition Logistics Support Statement of Work (ALSSOW) and the items below. The offeror shall describe the maintenance philosophy and identify and recommend the quantity of material needed to support system operational readiness. The logistics section shall be subdivided in the order listed and shall include all pertinent information in sufficient detail to permit evaluation. The approach to providing other logistical support requirements will also permit evaluation. In all logistics areas, the offeror shall base its responses on similar equipment.

Supply Support: The offeror shall describe the overall plan to provide parts support and technical support to the Navy as required in the ALSSOW.

Warranty: The offeror shall describe the proposed warranty including warranty period, terms and conditions, parts covered, turn-around time, and warranty-action processing. The offeror shall also state whether an extended warranty is available and, if so, its terms.

Technical Manual: The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative describing how the Technical Manual will be developed, including compliance with the Navy's requirements of MIL-STD-3001. The offeror is required to submit a representative sample technical manual as part of the proposal. The offeror shall submit a description of how they intend to comply with the Technical Manual Contractual Requirements (TMCR) portion of the ALSSOW. The offeror shall submit an outline of the contents of the manual and discuss the manual development process they intend to use to deliver the final product. The technical manual sample shall consist of in-service, operation and trouble-shooting procedures, illustrations, illustrated part breakdown (IPB), and how they will be captured in publication format and how updates will be provided. The offeror may provide an existing manual, which they developed, as an example.

Training: The offeror shall address the training requirements by describing the scope of the proposed training. The offeror shall also submit a description of all available operator, maintenance, troubleshooting, or technical evaluation training instructions.

Logistics Management Information database: The offeror shall provide a detailed discussion describing the approach and capabilities that will be used to conduct an ILS program as set forth in the Engineering and Logistics SOWs. Also, describe the format to be used for documentation of the Logistics Management Information (LMI) database.

I.C.

Management Subfactor

The proposal shall clearly demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the management required to successfully perform on this contract and demonstrate its experience and plan for meeting, or exceeding, these requirements. The offeror shall address all major reviews, schedules, and meetings identified in the SOW. Additionally, the following information shall be required:

Schedule and Milestones: The offeror shall provide a schedule that clearly indicates compliance with all program milestones from contract award to delivery of production units and CDRL items.

Manufacturing Capacity and Facilities: The offeror shall describe the overall production capability including facilities, major equipment, and space necessary to perform pilot-production and production efforts. The offeror shall address the availability and utilization of production resources in performance of pilot-production and production efforts.

Personnel Resources: The offeror shall discuss the qualifications and experience of critical personnel (such as the Program Manager, Production Manager, Logistics Manager, Lead Design Engineer, and Quality Assurance Manager) who will be assigned to this contract. The offeror shall discuss the production labor resources, broken down by specialty, including any applicable certifications that are required by personnel to perform this contract and whether they are currently employed by the company or will be hired to meet the contractual requirements.

Quality Assurance (QA) Program: The offeror shall discuss and provide detailed information on their quality assurance program and the ability to implement and conform to ANSI/ASQC Q9001 or a recognized industry standard or process control system that is equivalent or better.

Utilization of Small Business Concerns: Strategies for using Small Business (SB) Concerns which consist of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small business, HUBZone Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns as well as Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs). Large Businesses (unless exempt pursuant to FAR 19.702) shall address their strategies for utilizing Small Business (SB) Concerns and HBCU/MIs in the performance of this contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement or subcontractor. (This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.) Additionally, pursuant to FAR 19.1202, all Offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall address their strategies for utilizing Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns in the performance of this contract. In describing its overall strategies for this contract, the Offeror shall, as applicable:

· Describe its approach to identifying SB Concerns, SDB Concerns, and HBCU / MIs;

· Describe the extent of participation of SB Concerns, SDB Concerns, and HBCU / MIs on this contract, especially as principal subcontractors;

· Describe the extent of commitment to use such SB Concerns, SDB Concerns, and HBCU / MIs;

· Describe the complexity and variety of the work SB Concerns, SDB Concerns, and HBCU / MIs are to perform;

· Demonstrate that its SB Concerns strategy is consistent with its SB Subcontracting Plan.

· Provide targets, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract values for Small Disadvantaged Business participation. Targets of subcontractors must be listed separately.

· Demonstrating Realism through Submission of Reports: To demonstrate the realism of the utilization plan, the Offerors shall provide copies of three final or most recent SF 294s for the most current three relevant contracts that best demonstrate the offerors ability to achieve the proposed subcontracting goals. If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program, they shall provide copies of three final or most recent SF 295s. Explain how the results shown in the recent SF 295 demonstrates the realism of the plan.

The Offeror (Large Business only) shall provide its SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Annex 1. If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in DFARS 219.7, the Offeror shall describe how SB participation on this contract will contribute to its overall Comprehensive Subcontracting goals. Offerors shall describe its specific efforts to ensure the resulting contract meets or exceeds proposed goals. These efforts shall include, but are not limited to: sponsoring program specific outreach programs and industry conferences, establishing Mentor-Protégé relationships with SDB and using the NAVAIR SUBNet website http://www.navair.navy.mil/osbp (to locate small business concerns and to post requirements.

(Note: The subcontracting plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702 Statutory Requirements (a)(1) regarding failure of the apparent successful offeror to negotiate and submit an acceptable Subcontracting Plan to the Contracting Officer.) The successful Offeror’s subcontracting plan will be incorporated as an attachment to the resultant contract.

VOLUME II – EXPERIENCE

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to the cost or price aspects of the offer.

The offeror must provide the information requested for the experience evaluation or affirmatively state that it has not produced Time Domain Reflectometers (TDRs) or HAWT. Firms with TDR experience are preferred.

The experience proposal shall include information about the offeror and proposed subcontractors, if applicable. The following should be addressed in narrative format:

Similarity of Product: The offeror shall address in narrative form the extent to which it has designed, produced, and supported equipment similar to the HAWT. The offeror shall address the extent to which it has an in-depth knowledge and understanding of TDRs.

Similarity of Environment:

The offeror shall have performed and shall describe at least three (3) recent relevant experiences where TDRs and/or HAWTs were sold within the past five (5) years. Offerors shall provide the contract number for each experience and describe where the units are being used (e.g., environment, function). Units listed may include those delivered to the Federal Government, agencies of state and local governments, and commercial customers. The offeror shall explain why the experience should be considered relevant and the degree of relevance that the experience has to the solicitation requirements. Specifically describe and compare the type of work, scope of effort, and the product/technology involved.

VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to the cost or price aspects of the offer.

The offeror shall submit Past Performance information that includes details about the offeror and proposed subcontractors, if applicable, according to the following instructions.

Offerors are reminded that the Government may use information other than that provided by the offerors in their proposals to evaluate past performance. The Government may use Past Performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror. Additionally, the Past Performance Information Reporting system (PPIRs) will be utilized to evaluate Past Performance. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

The offeror shall submit Past Performance Evaluation Data forms (see Section J, Attachment 4) for their five (5) most recent contracts and/or subcontracts awarded. These contracts shall include but are not limited to the same contracts as identified in the Experience section. These contracts should be for similar scope of work completed within the last five (5) years. The offeror shall identify in specific detail why it considers that effort relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation. Contracts listed may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of state and local governments, and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly formed entities without prior contracts should list contracts and subcontracts as required above for all critical personnel.

The offeror shall use the remarks block to provide information on problems (show cause, cure notice, termination for delinquency, quality issues, defective pricing issues, etc.) encountered on these contracts and the corrective actions taken to resolve them.

Important Note: Award may be made from initial offers without discussions; however, offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

The offeror shall use the “Contract Work Description” block on the Past Performance Evaluation Data Form to identify in specific detail why or how the effort on the referenced contract is relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation. The following elements should also be addressed in this block:

Quality of Product and Processes. The offeror shall address its ability to comply with past contract requirements, produce accurate and thorough reports, assign appropriate personnel, and earn quality excellence awards.

Timeliness of Performance. The offeror shall address his experience in meeting program milestones, deadlines, and delivery dates.

Customer Satisfaction. The offeror shall address in narrative form the satisfaction of end users with the contractor’s service and product.

Quality Awards: The offeror shall describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate the offeror possesses a high quality process for developing and producing the product. Examples: Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award, Government Quality Awards and/or private sector awards or certifications. Identify what segment of the company received the award or certification. Describe when the award or certification was bestowed. If the award or certification is over three years old, present evidence that the qualifications still apply.

The offeror shall use the “Remarks” block to provide information on problems (show cause, cure notice, termination for delinquency, quality issues, defective pricing issues, etc.) encountered on these contracts and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems.

The Government intends to use the information provided by the offerors in their past performance proposal to contact the references as part of the evaluation of their past performance. The references will be asked to assess the contractor’s performance utilizing the Past Performance Evaluation Form (see Section J, Attachment 5) for information including, but not limited to, the questions as provided on the form.

VOLUME IV - PRICE FACTOR

This Volume shall contain a signed SF33 for the basic solicitation; a signed copy of each amendment; the signed Representations and Certifications and Acknowledgements or Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) reference; and a copy of Section B (Supplies and/or Services and Prices and/or Costs) with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) and Sub-CLIN Unit Prices and the Total Prices filled in using the quantities provided in the solicitation and the instructions below.

All price information shall be contained in section B and the price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other volume, including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.

The offeror shall ensure that all certifications and representations within Section K of the solicitation have been accurately completed.

Ground Rules and Assumptions:

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, the price documentation requested is not considered cost or pricing data and shall not be certified in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the PCO will need to obtain cost or pricing data pursuant to FAR Part 15.

(b) The cost of general purpose items required to conduct normal business operations will not be considered allowable Other Direct Charges in the performance of this contract. The following types of general purpose costs required to conduct normal business operations are not directly reimbursable: the cost and associated costs for telephones and telephone charges (except for project-related telephone charges for performance of this contract which, per contractor’s DCAA-approved accounting systems, may be directly reimbursed under communication expenses), modems, typewriters, reproduction machines, word processing equipment, personal computers, computer software, Internet access charges, facsimile machines, commercial carrier charges, pagers, and other general purpose office equipment and office supplies.

(c) Any apparent imbalances in the pricing, high or low proposed prices as compared to historical data, or any other anomalies should be fully explained.

(End of Summary of Changes)