RFP_Amendment_Template_3.docx

N68936-15-R-0048

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The 'issued by' organization has changed from

CDR NAWCWD CODE 254200D

ATTN: K. MCCLEAN

(760) 939-8638

429 E BOWEN RD - STOP 4015

CHINA LAKE CA 93555

to

CDR NAWCWD CODE 254200D

ATTN: A. BARTEL

(760) 939-8268

429 E BOWEN RD - STOP 4015

CHINA LAKE CA 93555

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions and Answers

Q1. Have these RF Modules been previously procured?

A1. Yes

Q2. What is the manufacturer and model number(s) that needs to be repaired?

A2. Please refer to Section 3.4 (Repair Services) in the Performance Based Statement of Work in Section C of the RFP.

Q3. Please provide the incumbent and the previous contract number?

A3. N68936-09-D-0046; General Microwave Corporation

Q4. Since this current solicitation is a total small business set aside does that mean large business are not allowed to bid?

A4. This requirement is set aside for small business

Q5. There are early submission requirements for certain portions of the proposal, as defined in the solicitation (Section 4, pg. 63):

“However, Offeror shall also submit copies of Volume (4) Past Performance information in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 and Volume I, Executive Summary "Offeror's Summary Table", 1.0 (ii) two weeks prior to the submission date/time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP.”

Does this information need to be submitted on CD-ROM as expected for the full proposal, or is email submission allowed?

A5. The information shall be submitted in accordance with section L of the RFP. The early submission requirement has been removed from Section L.

Q6. Please provide the government's budget on this job.

A6. This is an IDIQ, it is the Government intension to meet the minimum guarantee.

Q7. The instructions in the RFP for Volume 2 (Pg 64) do not seem to follow the specifications presented for the two modules. Can you please clarify?

- Under the subheading 2.1.1, the offeror is instructed to address the RF Design, which is stated to be "state-of-the-art, high power, airborne” amplifiers.

The RF modulator and signal generator modules do not fit the description of high power amplifier.

- Under the subheading 2.1.1, the offeror is instructed to address the use of Prime power.

However, the specifications state that +5 VDC and +/- 15 VDC will be supplied to the modules.

A7. Please see the updates in Sections L&M highlighted in yellow.

The following have been modified:

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

The following addresses and points of contact are provided:

Email address: amanda.bartel@navy.mil

U.S. Postal Service Mailing Address:

Direct Delivery Address (UPS, FedEx, etc):

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following have been added by full text:

DOCK HOURS are from 0800 TO 1530, MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS WHEN THE RECEIVING DOCK WILL BE CLOSED.

*To be filled in at time of award.

Additionally, the contractor shall mark all shipments under this contract in accordance with the following:

The supplies required, hereunder, shall be delivered free-on-board (FOB) destination (FR 52.247.34)

Failure to mark each shipping label and packing list as indicated above may result in return of shipment at contractor's expense or will cause a delay in processing invoice payments.

The following have been deleted:

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L – [1] CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SUPPLIES OR SERVICES) (JUNE 2011)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror is 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 capability to meet or exceed the defined elements as required by the solicitation. All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements, associated risks and is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements, and that the Offeror has valid and practical solutions for all requirements and potential risk areas. Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with all the evaluation factors and or sub factors identified in this solicitation. The Offeror is 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/Cost volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any volume. Alternate proposals are not 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. The Offeror is responsible to present enough information to allow the Government to evaluate the proposed work effort, support, and approach, as well as the price/cost proposal without opening discussions. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, or can and/or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may render a rating of unacceptable. For the purpose of this solicitation, relevance is defined as something that has a logical connection with the matter under consideration. Such aspects of relevance include the type of effort (e.g., development, production, repair), the type of requirements (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 degree of participation by principal subcontractors, team members, or critical team members. Recency is defined as performance within 5 years of the date of this proposal submission.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or sub factor clearly 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.

The Offeror is expected to comply with all requirements of the RFP. The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable, 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.

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

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

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. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size and will count as 1 page. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid. Graphic resolution should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

The Offeror will provide one complete electronic copy of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2003 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM. The Offeror will ensure that the Price/Cost Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content with the Offeror’s name.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in the table below. All volumes of the original proposal shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation Page limitations for each volume if any, are also specified in the table below; title and table of contents pages do not count towards page limit. Proposal pages beyond the specified maximum limit 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.

On CD-ROM

On CD-ROM

On CD-ROM

On CD-ROM

On CD-ROM

Each volume shall contain the following information:

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the evaluators’ review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volumes and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

EXAMPLE OF A CROSS REFERENCE MATRIX (CRM)

Volume 2 Technical Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column shall address all paragraphs in Sections xx and xy of the Performance Specification

Volume 2 Technical

Volume 2 Technical

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for the original proposal shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP. However, Offeror shall also submit copies of Volume (4) Past Performance information in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 and Volume I, Executive Summary “Offeror’s Summary Table”, 1.0 (ii) two weeks prior to the submission date/time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP.

Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile.

5.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED

6.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

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

https://www.fbo.gov

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 VOLUME 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/GENERAL INFO

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

The purpose of the Executive Summary is to provide the evaluators with an overview of the Offeror’s proposal and strategy. The Offeror shall include the following in this volume:

Contractor Name (Indicate Prime, Team Member or Sub)

2.0 VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL

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

2.1 The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. The Offeror shall address the following in the proposal:

2.1.1 The overall approach used in fulfilling the Government’s technical requirements. Offerors shall state if they are proposing First Article Testing Waiver in accordance with 5252.209-9502.

Offerors shall address the following in the proposal:

RF DESIGN:

The amplifiers required under this procurement are state-of-the-art, high power, airborne units utilized to provide final amplification for various electronic countermeasures systems. The bidder shall describe, in detail, how the proposed design will fulfill the electronic requirements specified in specifications 1611AS12357 and 1611AS123942. Describe, in detail, how the design will meet the requirements for output power, gain (both small signal and at rated power), spectral purity, harmonic and spurious emissions and broadband thermal noise together with any problem areas. A description of the gain and power allocation shall be included in this discussion.

PRIME POWER REQUIREMENTS:

The maximum power allocation specified in 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2 is +28+/-3 Volts Direct Current (VDC) at a maximum current of 15 Ampers. This power will be in accordance with MIL-STD-704 with the inherent problems described therein. Please describe, in detail, how the design will meet the performance specification with the available input power, with specific attention toward the amplifier efficiency. This description shall include a discussion of how the negative power effects described in MIL-STD-704 will be dealt with, directing specific attention toward the spectral purity requirements.

MECHANICAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS:

The physical configuration of the amplifier is illustrated in drawing 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2 as called out in specifications1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2. The drawing and specification illustrate the stringent size and weight constraints the amplifier must meet together with the required provisions for multiple mounting methods. The bidder shall describe his approach in packaging the performance requirements of this procurement within the mechanical constraints.

COOLING:

The amplifier under this procurement is air cooled. Please describe know the proposed cooling approach will meet the performance requirements throughout the specified temperature altitude envelope.

HIGH VOLTAGE DESIGN:

The amplifier will be required to operate at altitudes up to 50,000 feet. Please provide the expected voltages for the amplifier and describe previous design and manufacturing experience with these voltages at altitudes from sea level to 50,000 feet. Please include a description of any specialized techniques or processes that are proposed.

DESIGN

System Design: The Modulator, Signal Generators are state-of-the-art “chip and wire”, radio frequency modules that contain the ability to control and modulate RF signals through multiple paths. These modulations include Phase Modulation, Pulse Amplitude Modulation, Pat Switching and Attenuation. These modules will be installed in the Technique Control Modulator as part of an Electronic Attack threat simulator. Describe, in detail, how the required RF performance will be implemented.

Primary Power Consumption: The input power available from the Technique Control Modulator is limited to the voltages and currents specified in 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2. Describe how the performance requirements will be met with the available power with particular attention toward output power, gain and modulation speeds.

Heat Dissipation: Commensurate with the limitation in prime power availability, the thermal dissipation capacity of the Technique Control Modulator is limited. Describe, in detail, how the proposed design will operate within the thermal dissipation limits detailed in 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2.

Mechanical Packaging: The Modulator, Signal Generators must fit within the specified form factor detailed in drawings 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2 must interface to the VME-3U interconnection. Describe, in detail, how the design will be packaged within these limits.

RF Performance: The Modulator, Signal Generators must be capable of meeting the speed, dynamic range and isolation requirements specified in 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2. Describe what technologies will be used to meet these requirements and how they will be combined to meet the overall Modulator, Signal Generators performance requirements.

Environmental: The Modulator, Signal Generators will be subjected to the environmental effects described in 1611AS12357 and 1611AS12394-2. The offeror shall describe, in detail, how the proposed design will deal with these potentially destructive forces.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Offerors shall describe the quality assurance (QA) program proposed for this procurement. The proposed QA program shall satisfy the program objectives and meet the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000 Series or an equivalent quality system model. (Note that MIL-I-45208 or MIL-Q-9858, if proposed by the offeror are acceptable). Offeror shall describe how the proposed quality system will control the quality of the program in the design, qualification and production phases. The QA program shall address material and parts selection, process control, workmanship, inspection and configuration management for both development and production.

Offerors shall describe the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) program proposed for this procurement. The proposed DMSMS program shall satisfy the program objective of managing loss, or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers of parts and/or materials.

Offerors shall submit a plan for component compliance certification to prevent the introduction of counterfeit components into the weapon system in accordance with SAE-AS5553. Components from the Authorized Distributor or Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) shall have a Certificate of Compliance. When components are acquired from a supplier other than the Original Manufacturer or their Authorized Distributors, the contractor shall establish verification processes to confirm the components are not counterfeit.

2.1.2 The offeror’s proposed method to satisfy the Reliability requirements within the Specifications identified in the Statement of Work.

2.1.3 The offeror’s plan to satisfy the Quality Assurance Requirements within the Specifications and Statement of Work including a detailed discussion on internal QA processes. If the offeror proposes an equivalent Quality System Model in accordance with FAR Clause 52.246-11, the offeror shall provide detailed information on the system, including how it is comparable to the ISO 9000 and ANSI/Q9001/Q9003 systems. (Note that MIL-I-45208 or MIL-Q-9858, if proposed by the offeror are acceptable). Offeror shall describe how the proposed quality system will control the quality of the program in the design, qualification and production phases. The QA program shall address material and parts selection, process control, workmanship, inspection and configuration management for both development and production.

2.1.4 The offeror’s proposed method and skill level of proposed personnel to satisfy both the repair and engineering technical service requirements.

2.1.5 Provide information that describes the offeror’s experience with fabricating and producing systems like those required for this contract and whether or not the offer is requesting that either of the First Article CLINs be waived by the Government. Specifically describe previous units produced and when they were delivered to the Government and provide examples of experience demonstrating the similarity of the effort in terms of fabrication and production technologies that will be utilized to fulfill the requirements of this contract as well as the offeror’s ability to sustain production, repair and engineering efforts simultaneously.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 General

The Offeror shall identify any contracts performed within five years of this proposal submission date which contains efforts similar to those performed by Offeror, Offeror’s principal subcontractors, and critical team members in solicitation. e.g., tasks, complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, etc. Commercial contracts may be included. List the contracts from the most relevant to the least relevant. In general, recent performance will be considered more relevant than older performance. When possible, these contracts should include at least five of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor, five of the most relevant contracts for each critical team member, and two of the most relevant contracts for each principal subcontractor (as defined in Paragraph I, General Instructions). If proposing as joint venture/single legal entity (JV/SLE), the Offeror should provide the five past performance references for the JV/SLE. If less than the five past performance references are available for the JV/SLE, each member of the JV/SLE should individually submit the five references in addition to their JV/SLE references.

For each contract identified, provide contract data, relevancy, past performance, and systemic improvement information as described below. Demonstrate the relevancy of the Offeror’s, and if applicable, the Offeror’s principal subcontractors’ or critical team members’ past performance and systemic improvements with respect to the solicitation requirements. For each past performance problem identified, describe the status of the systemic improvement efforts and, where applicable, demonstrate the impact that the systemic improvement effort had on resolving the problem such that it would not reoccur.

For contracts that have CPARS Reports that are more than six months old, e.g., the completion date is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance Volume; the Offeror will forward a copy of the CPARS Update Questionnaire (Attachment 1) to that contract customer’s Program Manager. For all contracts identified which do not have CPARS reports. The Offeror will forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) to that contract customer’s PCO, Administrative Contracting Officer, and Program Manager. All questionnaires shall be forwarded within two weeks from the RFP release date with enough lead-time so that responses can be received by the Government concurrent with the Government’s receipt of the Offeror’s Past Performance information submitted as per paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 The Offeror shall include instructions for the customers to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Kelley McClean, Contract Specialist, at Email kelley.mcclean@navy.mil, thereby allowing the customer approximately two weeks to complete their response. This submittal information is provided at the top of the questionnaires to facilitate the Offeror’s effort in meeting these instructions. The Offeror shall not conduct follow-up actions with regard to this questionnaire. The Government will ensure that the customers have received and will respond to the questionnaires. The Government may send any other questionnaires as necessary.

The Offeror shall provide written consent from their principal subcontractors and critical team members that will allow the Government to coordinate their Past Performance issue(s) with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit such written consent, then the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or critical team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractors and critical team members that do not provide such written consent, provide a point of contact (name, address, phone number, and email address) with which the Government may coordinate these issues and obtain any responses as needed.

The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in their proposals to evaluate past performance. The Government may use Past Performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Past Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) will be the primary method used to evaluate Past Performance. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government has no duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information.

(a) Contract Data Provide all the information identified below separately for each contract. Additionally, provide this information electronically as a separate file on CD-ROM, which contains Offeror’s Past Performance proposal in a Word Table in the format depicted below:

Relevant Contract Data

Prime (P), or Sub (S)

1 – Place of Performance should be the same as being proposed in this solicitation. If different please include an explanation. Note: Place of Performance pertains to the physical location of the contractor, team member, or principal subcontractor that are deploying personnel or are responsible for the work, not the Government site where the work is being performed.

2 - CPARS (yes/no) - CPARS completion date - on DOD PPAIS (yes/no) (Indicate whether or not any CPARS have been completed and identify the last CPARS completion date and if it is currently on DoD PPAIS) 3 Recency-Efforts performed within the last five years.

4 - Relevancy – Provide a concise assessment of the degree of relevancy that each contract identified has to the solicitation; identifying tasks and/or aspects of the effort undertaken on the contract that are relevant to the program. Also provide the Offeror’s assessment of the relevancy of the contract in terms of one of the following ratings: Very Relevant (V), Relevant (R), Somewhat Relevant (S), or Not Relevant (N) where:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(b) Relevancy-The Offeror shall explain what aspects of the contract are deemed relevant to the proposed contract. At a minimum, identify key or critical tasks of the solicitation and indicate the relevancy of the “past performance” contract to these tasks. Also identify where contract performance took place and provide rationale why it is relevant to the solicitation if the location is different from where the related effort is proposed to take place.

(c) Past Performance Information-The Offeror shall provide a brief description of performance in delivering quality products in each of the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance, e.g., performing analysis, design, testing, etc., 2) meeting schedule requirements, i.e., schedule performance, e.g., on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes, etc., 3) controlling contract cost, i.e., cost performance, e.g., on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes, etc., and 4) managing the contracted effort, i.e., program management, e.g., cooperation with customer, subcontract management.

(d) Systemic improvement Information-Identify those systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. Describe the techniques, elements, and tools used to correct problems and, if applicable, how these techniques, elements, and tools will be used during this contract.

Earned Value: Provide earned value data generated for that contract, such as Cost Performance Report Format I, with variances, Cost Performance Index, and Schedule Performance Index. Identify if there were any Over Target Baselines or restructures, and how performance data was impacted. For CPARS data, explain significant differences between earned value measure and CPARS rating, e.g., Exceptional CPARS rating under Schedule and SPI of 0.85.

Small Business Concerns Participation Goals (if applicable): Note whether the contract met or exceeded small business, small disadvantaged business, small business HUB Zone, veteran-owned small business, service disabled veteran owned small business, women-owned small business participation and subcontracting goals.

3.2 Past Performance Data Requirements

Provide all the information identified below separately for each contract. Provide a summary of the Customer’s Points of Contact in a MS Word Table using the format below which is illustrated with an example. Include an electronic copy of this table with proposal.

1. Offeror’s Name (Prime, Principal Sub, or Critical Team Member, JV/SLE, JV/SLE Member)

1. Contract #,

4. Offeror’s Role (e.g., prime or sub)

2. Questionnaire # __ Sent?

3. For Subs - Agreement to allow Coordination with Prime?

Point of Contact’s Name;

Phone Number, Fax Number and E-mail address

4. Prime

2. Questionnaire #1: - Sent 5/4/05

3. N/A

Al (PM) 444-444-4444, fax 555-555-5555, Al@RYP

1. CPARS: No

2. Questionnaire #2: - Sent 5/4/05

3. N/A Sue (PCO) 333-333-3333 fax 222-222-2222 Sue@RTP

1. CPARS: No

2. Questionnaire #3: - Sent 5/4/05

3. N/A Joe (ACO) 111-111-1111 fax 888-888-8888 Joe@ RYP

4. Sub

2. Questionnaire # 1: - Sent 5/4/05

3. N/A Sue (PCO) 333-333-3333 fax 222-222-2222 Sue@AB

4. Prime

2. Questionnaire: - Not Sent

3. Agreement: Yes Sue (PCO) 333-333-3333 fax 222-222-2222 Sue@NNB

4.0 VOLUME 4: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL

4.1 Volume Content:

(a) This Volume shall contain the information requested below and shall include a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) Unit Prices and for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in (Supplies and/or Services and Prices and/or Costs) using the estimated quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2003 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

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

4.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, any price/cost documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors and may conduct negotiations with the Offeror, pursuant to FAR Part 15.403-4, in order to ensure a reasonable and realistic price/cost. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2. Offeror shall acknowledge the requirement to provide additional cost or pricing information and certify the data prior to award if/when requested by the Government.

(b) The cost of general purpose items required to conduct normal business operations will not be considered allowable Other Direct Charges. 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 system, 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) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price/cost as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price/cost estimates. Any apparent imbalances in the pricing, high or low proposed prices/costs as compared to historical data, or any other anomalies should be fully explained. Topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, investments, programmatic variables (e.g., inflation/escalation, location, make/buy decisions, prime/subcontractor relationships, and business base concerns), etc.

4.3 Price/Cost Information:

(a) Reasonableness and Consistency between the Technical and Price/Cost Volumes. Demonstrate that the unit prices and the total proposed price/cost are reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the solicitation and the technical and management approaches identified in the Technical Volume of the proposal. Show traceability with the CLINS, SubCLINs, the PWS, proposed effort, proposed manning levels, and the prices/costs. Refer to specific sections in the Technical Volume as needed to illustrate the consistency between the Price/Cost Volume and the Technical Volume. The Offeror shall explain any inconsistency between promised performance and price/cost, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

(b) The Government is not soliciting any investments. However, in order for the Government to properly assess a proposed price/cost that appears low due to a corporate decision to absorb costs, e.g., lower than usual burdens or rates, the Offeror shall fully identify and explain any such investments.

(c) The Offeror shall identify the proposed prices/costs for each CLIN as specified in Section B of this solicitation. The Offeror shall sum up the proposed Total Prices/Costs by contract year, and provide a total overall price/cost of the proposal using estimated quantities, and submit a complete Section B. For Fixed Priced CLINs, the Schedule B Total Price is equal to the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B Estimated Quantity for that CLIN. The offeror shall propose on each CLIN as follows:

(i) For CLINs 0001-0002 insert the price for the first article units;

(ii) For CLIN 0003insert the 2-4 unit price multiplied by 60 each per year for evaluation purposes;

(iii) For CLIN 0004 insert the 2-4 unit price multiplied by 36 each per year for evaluation purposes;

(iv) For CLIN 0005 insert the unit and total price for 48 for each ordering period;

4.4 Use of Government Furnished Property:

If none, so state.

4.5 Other Costs

The Offeror shall identify additional costs, that would be incurred that has not been identified in the solicitation and describe in detail the performance that would cause these costs. Also, describe any assumptions with regard to Government’s actions (e.g., providing resources whether it be equipment or people) that enabled the proposed price/cost to be lower and identify the amount by which it is lower.

4.6 In addition to completing Section B, the offeror shall complete Attachment 3 Proposal Price Evaluation Summary Worksheet.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M – [1] EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SUPPLIES OR SERVICES)(JUNE 2011)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

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

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions; however, award may be based upon the initial offer. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors listed below, which are listed in descending order of importance.

TECHNICAL

PAST PERFORMANCE

PRICE/COST

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Technical and Past Performance are each more important than Price/Cost.

All evaluation factors other than price/cost, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost.

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a quality supply or service that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. If deemed appropriate by the Government, proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price/cost proposal, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

For all the Technical factors, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, and deficiencies of the proposal. The degree of benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement and is assessed by the identification of weakness(es). Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. Offerors are also advised that a Marginal rating may make the proposal unawardable without discussions.

For the Past Performance factor, the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant prior efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the solicitation requirements. A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will then be assigned, which addresses the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV/SLE team members’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available or is unknown, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

PART B. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical 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 following criteria which will not be separately rated:

(1) Overall Technical approach- The overall approach used in fulfilling the Government’s technical requirements will be evaluated to determine how well the proposed methodology will satisfy the relevant specifications and drawings. The following specific areas will be evaluated to determine fulfillment of requirements as well as potential enhancements: the offeror’s proposed System Design, Primary Power Consumption, Heat Dissipation, Mechanical Packaging, RF Performance, Environmental. RF Design, Prime Power Requirements, Mechanical Design Requirements, Cooling, and High Voltage Design.

(2) Reliability- The offeror’s proposed method to satisfy the Reliability requirements within the applicable Specification identified in the Statement of Work will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the unit retains design integrity.

(3) Quality Assurance- The offeror’s proposed method to satisfy the Quality Assurance Requirements will be evaluated to determine how well the proposal complies with ISO 9000 or ANSI/Q9001/Q9003. If the offeror proposes an equivalent Quality System Model in accordance with FAR Clause 52.246-11, the model shall be evaluated to determine if it is equivalent to ISO 9000 and ANSI/Q9001/Q9003, and the proposal shall be evaluated to determine how well it complies with the proposed model.

(4) Methods and personnel proposed for services- The offeror’s approach to satisfy both the engineering and repair services requirements will be evaluated to determine how well the offeror’s technical expertise will effectively and efficiently complete engineering and repair projects with minimal impacts to the production schedules.

(5) Experience- The offeror’s experience will be evaluated to determine the similarity of the experience in terms of fabrication and production technologies utilized to fulfill the requirements of this contract as well as the demonstrated ability of the offeror to sustain production, repair and engineering efforts simultaneously.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Secondly, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price/cost, and schedule requirements on products and services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.