NGAME Combined Section L and M.pdf

900. Proposal Requirements

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the NGAME Multiple Award Contract (MAC) as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. A joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period.

The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement, or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership

Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/ROKA, Robins AFB, Att: PCO Arenina Sullivan-Jones, arenina.sullivan-jones@us.af.mil and Buyer: Raydor Coneway Johnson raydor.coneway_johnson@us.af.mil no later than the date and time specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP.

The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contracts and may do so without prior notice to the offerors. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offerors.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted and must include “Source Selection Information – See RFO 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Contracting Specialist/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to the proposal receipt date in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). It is requested that this encryption certificate exchange take place 7 days prior to proposal due date.

If an offeror's computer system cannot support encryption technology, the offeror shall send the PCO correspondence at the time that it submits its proposal stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail if it chooses to utilize unencrypted email as a channel of communication.

If sending files via DoD SAFE, please note there is a size limit of 8GB, as well as a 25 files number limit.

Offerors shall advise the PCO and buyer of any submissions that will be outside of these limitations so that multiple DoD SAFE drop-off request links can be sent. A formal notice must be sent to the PCO and Contracting Specialist for a drop-off link to be sent. Drop-off request/links sent to companies by the Government are only valid for 14 days. Additionally, drop-off request/links are only good for one submittal per use

Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing, DoD Safe, or Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) at https://piee.eb.mil (see RFP Attachments I). When submitting source selection information electronically, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

When submitting source selection documentation, offerors shall contact the Contracting Officer Arenina Sullivan-Jones and/or Contracting Specialist Raydor Coneway Johnson via email to advise of information submittal and obtain acknowledgement of receipt.

NOTE: When sending files via encrypted email, please note there is a size limit of 20MB.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes as set forth below:

PAGE

VOLUME LIMITS DESCRIPTION

I N/A Completed RFP

Cover Letter Signed RFP and RFP Amendment(s) (if applicable) DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business) Supplier Performance Risk System Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Required Clause and Provision Fill-Ins

II 30 Written Technical Proposal

NGAME Self-Scoring Matrix [1 Page] Work Samples [Maximum of 2] o Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) [2 Page Max per Work Sample] o Work Sample Contract Front Page(s) [1 Page per Work Sample] o Work Sample Artifacts

III 5 Small Business Participation (Required for Small and Large Business) IV N/A Price Proposal – Post Award Conference

Proposal information shall be submitted via PIEE/encrypted email/DoD. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government. See RFP Attachments I for instructions when submitting proposals via PIEE.

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, III, etc.) Proposals shall be in the English language, and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. shall not be greater than 11” x 17.” Multiple charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. may be submitted on paper that are either 8 1/2” X 11” or 11” X 17”. No paper shall be larger than 11” x 17. Each volume within the proposal shall be separately tabbed and identified. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats, bindings, color presentations are not desired or required. In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format.

3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, is 30 pages. The page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Concern Participation, is 5 pages. The page limitations exclude any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision; all other content is included in the page limitations. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

4. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

5. Each page containing proprietary information should be marked.

6. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE RFO 2.101 and 3.104

CUI

A. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, including any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to independently identify exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP outside of those identified in the offeror’s cover letter.

However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed. Offerors shall not include prices in the submitted RFP. Proposed prices shall be submitted in Volume (IV), RFP Attachment (I). See paragraph (fill in) below for further instructions on submitting proposed prices/costs.

2. DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”: The requirements that may generate under the resulting contract(s) may have Export Controlled restrictions for unclassified information that is not generally releasable to the public. Export Controlled is defined as: Unclassified information concerning certain items, commodities, technology, software, or other information whose export could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the United States national security and nonproliferation objectives. This includes dual use items; items identified in export administration regulations, international traffic in arms regulations and the munitions list; license applications; and sensitive nuclear technology information. In order to receive the drawing packages and associated Delivery Order Awards, a current and valid DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”, must be provided.

Interested vendors must submit a current, approved DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” to the Contract Specialist and Procuring Contracting Officer, via the email specified in this solicitation. Submit the requirements as outlined. For DD Form 2345 information, visit the DLIS website at https://www.dla.mil/Logistics- Operations/Services/JCP/DD2345Instructions/.

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan:

NOTE: The small business subcontracting plan is required by large business offerors only.

The small business subcontracting plan required by RFO clause 52.219-9, as supplemented by the R- DFARS, shall be submitted by large business offerors. The plan shall set forth the offeror’s plan for subcontracting with small businesses to the maximum extent practicable and shall include all elements in accordance with RFO clause 52.219-9, as supplemented by the R-DFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by RFO 19.206-2 and all associated clauses within this RFP.

4. Supplier Performance Risk System:

If available, offerors shall have a current assessment in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) as required by R-DFARS clause 252.240-7997 (DEVIATION 2026-O0025). An assessment date is considered current within the last three years of this solicitation issuance. The Government will consider the offeror’s risk assessment for item, price, and supplier risk, as applicable in accordance with R-DFARS provision 252.204-7024. Offerors are able to access their risk assessments by following the access instructions in the SPRS users guide available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm.)

5. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC):

Offerors shall have a current, as defined in R-DFARS 240.371-2, CMMC Level 2 posted within SPRS as required by R-DFARS provision 252.204-7025 and clause 252.204-7021 as of the RFP due date in paragraph I.A above.

6. Required Clause and Provision “Fill-Ins”: Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed. See RFP Attachment I, List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions to Complete.

B. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk in accordance with Section M-900, Evaluation Basis for Award. The Technical Proposal shall consist of an RFP Attachment I NGAME Self-Scoring Matrix, RFP Attachment I, Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) and a maximum of two (2) recent/relevant work samples, as substantiating documentation. Each work sample shall have its own cover sheet. Do not submit one (1) work sample cover sheet for all work samples.

If the offeror was a subcontractor on a contract/order for the United States Government, the offeror may only use artifacts it produced for the Prime as substantiating documentation. However, the Work Sample Cover Sheet must be populated using information from the Prime’s contract with the Government. In addition to the information described in RFP Attachment I, Section L – Instructions to Offerors, Section II.C.6, for the substantiation section of the Work Sample Cover Sheet, the offeror shall also explain its role on the Prime’s contract and how the offeror provided modernization support indirectly to the Government.

In order to maximize the offeror’s self-score matrix, the Government recommends that each submitted work sample shows expertise across one (1) of the two (2) Focus Area Categories. The offeror must show experience in at least one element of a Focus Area Category in order to get a point in the self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an offeror can claim for any given work sample is two (2) points:

one for each Focus Area Category. The Government reserves the right to contact the Government Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the work samples’ cover page or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during the validation of the self-scores.

In addition, the offeror shall:

a. Demonstrate traceability between the evaluation criteria and submitted evidence so that the Government can make a clear connection

b. Provide documented evidence that clearly supports the evaluation criteria if the Government cannot conclusively align the evidence to support the requirement, it may result in decremented points; and,

c. Ensure that the proposed evidence guides the Government to a validated conclusion if the evidence is unclear and/or the Government cannot make the connection, points will be decremented.

NGAME Focus Area Categories

1) CATEGORY 1:

This focus area represents the capacity for an Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) manufacture of munitions materiel handling equipment (MMHE) and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment. Describe the type of MMHE and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment provided and produced by your company that meets our definition of MMHE referenced in the SOO section I. Provide work samples of design development, prototypes, projects, efforts, and documentation that are applicable.

2) CATEGORY 2:

This focus area represents delivery of technical data, engineering data, and supporting documentation. Technical data is the creating, curating and maintaining of T.O.s and/or material manual, maintenance manual, provisioning, training material and/or operation manuals.

Engineering data is the use of engineering tools and analysis such as MBSE (Model-Base System Engineering) material and Technical and engineering data. Samples but not limited to DOORS, Cameo, Ansys, Solidworks, Creo, Catia, MatLab, etc. Provide work samples demonstrating technical and engineering data documentation.

3. What to Submit:

Offeror shall submit its Volume II – Written Technical Proposal as a single combined PDF which includes (1) RFP Attachment I NGAME Self-Scoring Matrix and each work sample (including its cover sheet, contract/order front page, and artifacts). As stated in the table of section II.A, this completed Technical Proposal PDF shall not exceed 30 pages.

4. What Not to Submit:

Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. The Government will NOT accept discretely generated documentation for the sole purpose of point validation. Discretely generated documentation is defined as documentation that is newly generated expressly for the purpose of responding to this RFP and was in no way a product of the work sample.

5. NGAME Self-Scoring Matrix:

The offeror shall complete one (1) RFP Attachment I Self-Scoring Matrix, submitted in PDF format, addressing up to a maximum of two (2) work samples. As described below, the offeror shall substantiate its self-score for each evaluation criterion for the Government to validate the offeror’s self-score.

6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation:

The offeror shall submit a maximum of two (2) work samples to substantiate its self-score from the matrix. Offeror may highlight sections of the work sample artifacts without inserting text notes.

Highlighting must not adversely impact the legibility of the artifact. Offeror should explain on the cover sheet for each work sample how the work sample artifact substantiates the self-score. Each work sample requires its own cover sheet. Do not submit one (1) work sample cover sheet for all work samples. Work samples should be arranged such that each segment is readily identifiable, allowing for ease of searching and validation.

Each Work Sample shall include:

a. NGAME Work Sample Cover Sheet

i. Work Sample Number: WS-X

ii. Company Name: XYZ Corporation

iii. Work Sample Name: (i.e. contract name associated with work sample) ATP Refresh

iv. Work Sample Contract/Order Number: FA8532-26-123456

v. Work Sample Period of Performance: 01 Jan 2021 – 30 Jun 2024

vi. Focus Area Categories Claimed: (i.e. category/categories for which points are being claimed for this work sample)

vii. Category 1

viii. Category 2

ix. Work Sample Government Point of Contact (x1):

x. FirstName1 LastName1, 123-456-7890, Firstname1.lastname1@us.af.mil

xi. Substantiation: Provide an explanation of this work sample and how it demonstrates experience in support of one or more Focus Area Categories for which points are being claimed on the self-score matrix. Within the explanation, the offeror shall identify each artifact supporting the category/categories claimed and its location within the work sample, describe what each artifact is, and explain how each is being used to substantiate the proposed self-score.

b. Contract/Order Front Page

c. Work Sample Artifacts: Evidence/information (produced by this work sample) used to substantiate points claimed on the self-score matrix.

Evidence of proposed previous work history must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered. Names that have been manually inserted into the substantiating documentation and were not part of the original document will not be used to validate experience.

C. Volume III, Small Business Participation

1. General:

The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The offeror shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort.

Offerors are advised that the Small Business Participation proposal is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by RFO clause 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in place of the Small Business Participation proposal.

For purposes of this evaluation, “first tier of subcontractors” means the company(ies) the offeror is/are subcontracting with.

2. Format and Specific Content: The offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation proposal for itself and any joint venture member, in a separate volume labeled “Volume III – Small Business Participation”. The Small Business Participation proposal shall address each of the following elements in the proposed performance of this resultant contract:

i. Provide detailed narrative, with at least three methods identified and explained, regarding how the offeror intends to ensure Small Businesses* have equitable opportunities to compete on all Delivery Orders.

ii. Provide detailed narrative, with at least two methods identified and explained, regarding how the offeror will develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed DoW and Small Business* goals in all Delivery Orders.

iii. Provide detailed narrative with at least three outreach methods that the offeror intends to utilize in locating Small Businesses* for subcontracting on all Delivery Orders.

*Small Business concerns include small business categories of veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small, disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns.

D. Volume IV, Price

1. General: To be eligible for award for the first Delivery Order, offerors shall provide the following reports/statements:

a. Price: The offeror shall submit their proposed price for the Post-Award Conference in RFP Attachment I. The maximum price to be paid for the Post- Award Conference (PAC) is $100.00 as stated in the RFP Attachment I.

b. In accordance with DFARS 215.371-3, cost and pricing data may be required in the event only one offer is received. If no exception in FAR 15.403-1(b) applies, the cost and pricing data shall be certified. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403- 3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

NOTE: Failure to submit the above documentation can result in an offeror being excluded from award.

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in Volume IV, Price submission.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal. The maximum amount to be paid for the PAC is $100.00; this is to serve as the contract minimum.

2. Format:

The Price proposal shall contain the information specified below:

a. Introductory documents IAW E.3.

b. Completed Price Submission (RFP Attachment I).

3. Introductory Documents:

a. Estimating System: The offeror will indicate whether the offeror’s system has Government Approval. The offeror will provide evidence of such approval.

b. Purchasing System: Offerors will provide a description of their purchasing system or methods (e.g., how material requirements are determined, how sources are selected, when firm quotes are obtained, what provisions are made to ensure quantity and other discounts). offerors will indicate whether they have Government approval or not of their purchasing system and if so, provide evidence of such approval.

c. Accounting System: The offeror will indicate whether or not they have Government approval of their accounting system and provide evidence of such approval. The offeror’s most recent Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit report must specifically state adequate accounting system to be considered standard of proof. The report shall include all numbered pages and not be redacted. In the event the offeror’s accounting system has not been reviewed and approved by DCAA/DCMA, the offeror shall complete the ‘Pre- Award Survey’ (RFP Attachment I) and shall submit the completed document as part of Volume IV: Price submission. The Government will forward the document to DCAA in order to initiate their review of the offeror’s accounting system to determine if it is adequate for a cost-reimbursement contract.

d. Disclosure Statements: The offeror is highly encouraged to provide a copy of the most recent approved Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement, if applicable. Additionally, the offeror shall provide a copy of the cognizant Federal agency official written determination regarding adequacy of the provided (and proposed in accordance with) Disclosure Statement in accordance with FAR 30.202-6.

e. Financial Capability Review: Offerors are highly encouraged to submit the address, phone number, and point of contact of their cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency DCMA) and DCAA offices, if applicable. This information is necessary for the government to potentially request a Financial Capability Review. Offerors with current (within one (1) year of the proposal due date) Financial Capability Reviews may provide a copy with their proposal.

f. Ground Rules and Assumptions: The offeror shall provide Ground Rules and Assumptions used in preparing the Price Submission within RFP Attachment I.

M-900. Evaluation Basis for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize a Technically Acceptable source selection methodology in accordance with RFO 15.103-1, 15.104, 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in R-DFARS PGI 215.200 and the DAF Contracting Compass Part 15, DAF Processes for the DoD Source Selection Procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award multiple contracts as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contracts and may do so without prior notice to the offerors. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offerors. This source selection will be conducted without trade-offs. A decision on the Technical Acceptability of each offeror’s technical and small business participation proposals will be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M, paragraph II below. Cost/Price will be evaluated in-depth at the order level; however, Price will be evaluated as identified below.

The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

Award will be made to the qualifying offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, paragraph II below. A qualifying offeror is one that is deemed responsible and technically acceptable. An unacceptable rating for any factor will result in offerors being ineligible for award.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be carried out. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Factors:

Factor I: Technical Proposal

Factor II. Small Business Participation

Factor III. Price Proposal

2. Relative Importance:

Factor I – Technical Proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Factor II – Small Business Participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Factor III – Price is evaluated but it is not rated.

There will be no tradeoffs made amongst the three factors; as such, there is no relative order of importance amongst the evaluation factors.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Negotiations: The Government intends to award without negotiations but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if determined necessary. Any negotiations will be conducted in accordance with RFO 15.204.

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, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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 pursuant to RFO 15.204-1(b). Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with RFO 15.204-2(c).

E. Volume I, Completed RFP:

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions not listed in this cover letter. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”: The submitted DD Form 2345

“Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” will be evaluated to validate it is current with the Defense Logistics Agency’s Logistics Information Service – Joint Certification Program. The DD Form 2345 must be current for the Offeror submitting the proposal. The Government will only accept and review the actual DD Form 2345. System screen captures from the DLA JCP will not be accepted. Failure to submit DD Form 2345 will result in the Offeror being considered failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per

RFO clause 52.219-9, as supplemented by the R-DFARS, to assure it reflects a sound approach to the offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting. Failure by the large business offeror/joint venture to submit this small business subcontracting plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

4. Supplier Performance Risk System: The offeror’s assessment in SPRS will be reviewed in accordance with R-DFARS 204.76, R-DFARS PGI 204-7603, and R-DFARS clause 252.240-7997 (DEVIATION 2026-O0025). Should an offeror not meet a basic score of 110 or have a current assessment (i.e., within the last three years of solicitation issuance), the offeror may be determined non-compliant and thus ineligible for award.

5. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC): The offeror’s assessment in SPRS will be reviewed in accordance with R-DFARS 240.371 and R-DFARS clause 252.204-7021. Should an offeror not have a current, as defined in R-DFARS 240.371-2, CMMC Level 2, the offeror may be determined non-compliant and thus ineligible for award.

6. Required Clause and Provision “Fill-Ins”: The offeror’s completed RFP will be evaluated to ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information, as identified in RFP Attachment (Number TBD), List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions to Complete are appropriately completed. Failure to complete all required fill-ins will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

F. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the NGAME self-score matrix, to determine if the offeror demonstrates experience in any of the identified Focus Area Categories as detailed in the NGAME Focus Area Categories Section below. The substantiating documentation provided within the technical proposal shall be used in the evaluation for the Government’s validation of the offeror’s submitted self-score.

i. This technical factor is met when the offeror’s NGAME self-score matrix with a maximum of two (2) recent/relevant work samples is validated and determined by the Government to substantiate the offeror’s self-score. The work samples shall represent contracts/orders of work performed for the United States Government and be within the last five (5) years from the proposal due date.

ii. In order to maximize the offeror’s NGAME self-score matrix, the Government recommends that each submitted work sample shows expertise across multiple Focus Area Categories. The burden of proof for substantiating points in the offeror Self-Scoring Matrix rests solely with the offeror.

The Government reserves the right to contact the Government POC identified in the work samples, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during validation of self-scores.

iii. The offeror must show experience in at least one Focus Area Category to get a point on the

NGAME self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an offeror may claim for any given work sample is two (2) points: one for each Focus Area Category. If the Government determines that an offeror’s substantiating documentation is insufficient to support the self-score in a Focus Area Category, the Government will decrement a point for any Focus Area Category found to be insufficient. Consequentially, the total work sample self-score could potentially be decremented to zero (0) points.

NGAME Focus Area Categories

1) CATEGORY 1:

This focus area is met when the offeror provides work samples describing an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) manufactures and delivers munitions materiel handling equipment (MMHE) and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment. Describe the type of MMHE and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment provided and produced by your company that meets our definition of MMHE referenced in the SOO section I. Provide work samples of design, development, prototypes, projects, efforts, and documentation that are applicable.

2) CATEGORY 2:

This focus area is met when the offeror provides work samples detailing the delivery of technical data, engineering data, and supporting documentation. Technical data is the creating, curating and maintaining of T.O.s and/or material manual, maintenance manual, provisioning, training material and/or operation manuals. Engineering data is the use of engineering tools and analysis such as MBSE (Model-Base System Engineering) material and Technical and engineering data.

Samples but not limited to DOORS, Cameo, Ansys, Solidworks, Creo, Catia, MatLab, etc.

Provide work samples demonstrating technical and engineering data documentation.

2. Technical Rating: The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the technical factor. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for the technical factor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The total score on the self-score matrix must result in two (2) points to be considered technically acceptable, comprised of one (1) point for Category 1 and one (1) point for Category (2). A total self-score matrix score below two (<2), comprised of one (1) point for Category 1 and one (1) point for Category 2, means the technical factor will be determined as unacceptable. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims could result in the Government determining that the offeror’s proposed self-scoring matrix is artificially inflated, thereby resulting in the proposal being determined unacceptable.

G. Volume III, Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i. This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the offeror intends to utilize to ensure Small Businesses* have equitable opportunities to compete for subcontracts on all delivery orders.

ii. This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least two methods the offeror intends to utilize to develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed DoW and Air Force Small Businesses* goals in all delivery orders.

iii. This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three outreach methods the offeror intends to utilize in locating Small Businesses* for subcontracting on all delivery orders.

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

* Small Businesses include Small Business Concerns, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns, HUBZONE Small Business Concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, and Women- Owned Small Business Concerns.

Note: Offerors are hereby notified that the Government intends to formally incorporate the acceptable Small Business Participation Proposal into the contract. The evaluation of proposed Small Business* goals may be included at the delivery order level.

H. Volume IV, Price Proposal Factor

The offeror’s proposals shall be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with paragraph 1 below.

1. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. The offeror shall provide a proposed price for the Post Award Conference. The proposed price will serve as the contract minimum IAW FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations. The offeror will consider the following parameters regarding the PAC.

a. The PAC shall be held virtually using Microsoft Teams.

b. The number of Contractor attendees shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) persons, and the PAC duration shall not exceed four (4) hours.

c. The price for the Post-Award Conference (PAC) is $100.00 maximum to be paid as stated in the RFP Attachment I.

2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be assigned based on the offeror’s proposed unit price for the Post Award Conference. The Offeror will provide the proposed unit price in whole dollars and must be submitted in U.S. currency. The proposed unit price will serve as the TEP for evaluation purposes only. The “Unit Price” will represent the TEP.

NOTE: The minimum amount to be awarded will be $100.00.

3. Cost/Price Proposals on Individual Delivery Orders: IAW RFO DFARS 215.202-71, in the event that only one offer is received for a competitive delivery order, information other than certified cost or pricing data may be required at the order level for fixed price orders. No detailed price information will be submitted if not required by the order. In the event a cost proposal is required, the pricing volume of the proposal shall include detailed cost/price amounts of all resources required to accomplish the requirement (i.e. labor hours, direct and indirect rates, travel, Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of Small Business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet Small Business objectives.

incidental equipment, etc.). Cost proposals shall include at a minimum, a complete Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) which coincides with the detailed technical approach and Basis of Estimates (BOEs) and provides all information as specified in the RFP. If cost-type CLINs are utilized in an individual order, a cost realism analysis will be required.

NOTE: Cost/price analysis on Delivery Orders: An in-depth cost/price proposal may be provided at the individual order level depending on the contract type(s) utilized. The proposal’s requirements and award basis will be provided for in the Contracts Ordering Instruction. If cost-type CLINs are utilized in an individual order, a cost realism analysis will be required.