section_L.docx

L-001- INFORMATION TO OFFERORS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

1.0 RESTRICTED PARTICIPATION

Five SAIDIQ contracts will be competed concurrently to support the Department of State’s Worldwide Aviation Mission. The solicitations are:

The Government has reviewed these acquisitions and determined that due to the strong potential for conflicts of interested, offerors that propose under SAQMMA13R0044 Aviation Program Office Support Services are excluded from participating as a prime contractor or team member/subcontractor at any level under the other four solicitations identified above.

2.0 General Instructions

(a) This section of the Information to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals, as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Requirements (SOR) and Section H Special Contract Requirements. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this Information to Offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should 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 that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the Offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer (CO). Email may be used to communicate with offerors. All emails must include “SAQMMA13R0044 - Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the Subject line. Email: murphypj@state.gov . Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via the U.S. Postal Service or other carrier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.) and mailed to the following address:

Contracting Officer US Department of State Office of Aviation Acquisition Suite 214 6767 North Wickham Road Melbourne, FL 32940

Reference: RFP SAQMMA13R0044

2.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.1.3 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

2.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents

(a) INL/A has established an electronic reading room for this source selection. INL/A descriptive, programmatic, and technical documents relating to this solicitation will exist on the INL/A website (https://flydos.us).

(b) Offerors are urged to use this website to familiarize proposal developers with information considered relevant for preparing their proposal.

(c) For issues concerning access or information concerning the electronic reading room, an email should be sent to coopersp@state.gov and courtesy copy to murphypj@state.gov.

2.1.5 Non-Government Advisors

Non-Government Advisors will not provide ratings for proposals received in response to the solicitation. Their expertise is required for document preparation, training, advisory, and electronic source selection support. The use of Non-Government Advisors as defined above does not warrant a formal determination by the head of the agency as prescribed in FAR 37.204 (a).

Company names and company addresses of Non-Government Advisors are:

Miracle Systems

XL Associates

2.1.6 Pre-Award Survey

The Government may, at the Contracting Officers discretion, conduct pre-award surveys in accordance with FAR 9.106.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.2. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary.

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

Limit

3 pages

7 pages

6 pages

7 pages

7 pages

8 pages

INSTRUCTION FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

SAQMMA13R0044

ATTACHMENT J-012 Page 2 of 23

Volume

Volume Title

Copies Page Limit

3 pages

No limit

No limit

3 pages

7 pages

No limit

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the Offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. Each page shall be counted except for title/cover pages and blank pages.

2.2.1.1 Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single spaced typed with 1.5 spacing between each line. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font type/text size shall be Times New Roman, no less than 12 point size. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point size. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.2 Cost or Pricing Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal and Contract Documentation Volumes. Cost trade-off information, work-hour estimates, and material kinds and quantities may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or design and trade-off decisions.

2.2.3 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The Offeror shall fill out the cross reference matrix at Attachment 1 of this Instruction to Offerors indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the RFP, PWS, CLIN numbers, and CDRL references found therein. The Offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix indicating by RFP, PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

2.2.4 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.2.5 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.6 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.3 Electronic Offers

For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007, MS Office Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, and MS Office Power Point 2007 as applicable. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will be used for evaluation.

2.4 Distribution

Proposals shall be addressed to the Contracting Officer and mailed or hand carried to:

Contracting Officer US Department of State Office of Aviation Acquisition Suite 214 6767 North Wickham Road Melbourne, FL 32940

Reference: RFP SAQMMA13R0044

Be sure when submitting a copy of your proposal to your cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office for prime and subcontractors, that the proposal is identified as "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104".

3.1 Volume I: Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

3.2 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.3 Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

4.1 Volume II: – Technical/Management

4.2 General

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical/management subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual method you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.3 Format and Specific Content

4.3.1 Technical/Management

In the Technical/Management volume, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical/management subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following technical evaluation factors which are listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1. Consistent Applications of Defined Processes

1. Sub-Factor: INL/A seeks to understand the management processes and standards the offeror proposes to apply, and corresponding levels of application.

1. Sub-Factor: Program Management Plan (PMP): INL/A seeks to ensure a complete, uniform, and logically ordered PMP is implemented as the cornerstone of consistent process application.

Factor 2. Teambuilding, Integration, and Coordination with Associate Contractors and USG

1. Sub-Factor: PSO strategy to implement a professional team ethic among associate contractors and the USG: The offerors strategy is vital to coordinating efforts among all stakeholders to achieve overall DoS Air Wing vision, mission and goals.

1. Sub-Factor: Risk Mitigation: INL/A is interested in mitigating program risk among associate contractors and the USG.

Factor 3. Project Monitoring and Reporting

1. Sub-Factor: The monitoring and reporting of essential program-wide programs, projects, and contracts is critical to the administration of the work contracted under this program. INL/A must ensure that an effective and efficient system of project reporting is implemented and maintained that will provide USG with near real-time reporting of critical DOSAW program contracts and projects.

Describe the program management essentials associated with program (project) reporting.

List the communication tools, techniques, and standards you propose to utilize in establishing your program and why you believe them to be the most effective and efficient to apply to the work.

INL/A will evaluate the proposal for relevance and the offerors understanding of the appropriate and most effective project management standard(s) applicable to the work.

Factor 4. Safety

1. Sub-Factor: INL/A seeks to understand the Safety Management System (SMS) processes and standards the offeror proposes to apply and their levels of application.

INL/A will also evaluate offerors ability to implement, monitor, and report SMS with full efficacy, across all DOSAW activities, while limiting redundant effort and expense.

1. Sub-Factor: Identify, analyze and mitigate SMS risks.

Submit a probability/ consequence matrix identifying the top three (3) areas of high risk due to SMS issues.

Assign a probability of failure and indicate the severity of the consequence. Describe the basis for their selection, and your proposed action to negate or mitigate the risk.

Provide two (2) most recent and relevant examples of SMS risk resolution. Include project contact information (POC, phone, email) INL/A will evaluate the offors perception and insight in recognizing areas requiring PSO and USG focus. The offerors proposed risk mitigation approach will be evaluated for relevance, and the likelihood of successful implementation. Real-world examples of successful mitigation will strengthen your proposal.

Factor 5. Organizational Plan

The offerors organizational plan will serve as the foundation upon which the Statement of Requirement services will be carried out. The organizational plan will exemplify an understanding of the critical and vital nature of the Program Support Office (PSO) responsibilities in supporting the simultaneous administration of multiple and complex contract requirements.

1. Sub-Factor: QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED KEY PERSONNEL. The offerors proposed key positions will form an important part of the offerors ability to successfully design, implement and conduct operations.

Identify the proposed key personnel you consider to be essential to the successful accomplishment of the work being performed.

Identify key personnel that have worked together under previous contracts. Provide a summary description of:

1. The location/project where they were employed.

1. Position held

1. The reporting/working relationships

1. The duration of the relationship

Describe your approach to attract, acquire and maintain key personnel or other personnel requiring specialized and/or unique qualifications. Include a discussion for those personnel that will be to OCONUS locations which may be austere or hazardous. Provide attrition rate statistics associated with key and specialized personnel for the last 3 years.

Provide a commitment letter for each proposed key person. The commitment letter will include the following:

1. The name of the key person

1. The position to be occupied by the key person

1. The key person’s proposed salary and a summary description of any benefits packages that have been offered to the key person.

1. A narrative statement that specifies the key person’s commitment to the contract which will include the duration, degree and breadth of the key person’s commitment.

1. The key person and offeror will sign and date the commitment letter

Identify the organizational position the person will occupy. INL/A is not interested in the offeror proposing multiple names as potential candidates for a single position. Propose only one person per key position.

Provide a resume for each proposed key person in accordance with the Key Personnel Resume Elements set forth below:

4. Name of Offeror

4. Name of key person

4. Proposed Position:

4. Duties and Responsibilities in Proposed Position. Identify the elements of the Statement of Requirements that correspond to responsibilities of the key person

4. Chronological Work History: Start with current position and work backwards. Include the following information:

4. Name and Address of Employer. Provide a point of contact and contact information for the employer:

4. Position(s) Held:

4. Dates of Employment:

4. General Summary: The resume should address the candidate’s relevant experience and demonstrated performance including accomplishments.

4. For PSO key personnel at DOSAW headquarters in Florida, the candidate’s qualifications should emphasize their leadership positions in managing programs of the size, scope and complexity for the position proposed to include improving mission performance, merging operations, reducing costs and leading an integrated enterprise.

4. For PSO key personnel with duties specific to operational planning and coordination, the candidate’s qualifications should emphasize their capability of leading and/or managing aviation operations of similar size, scope, and complexity.

4. Name, Title, Phone Number, and Email of Supervisor

4. Education: List degree(s); discipline(s); year(s); and institution(s). Education: List degree(s); discipline(s); year(s); and institution(s).

4. Citizenship:

4. Level of Security Clearance (if any)

4. Litigation: has the key person ever been involved in litigation. If yes, provide a brief description.

4. Has the key person ever been charged with a crime? If yes, provide a brief description. (Speeding tickets exempted)

4. References: provide the name, title, address, current telephone number, e-mail of 3 references that can attest to the person’s character and employment history.

4. Signature of Key Person:

The offerors proposed key personnel will be evaluated for relevant experience, the type and level of education that complements the position, working relationships with other key personnel and the key person’s demonstrated performance.

The offeror’s approach in acquiring and maintaining key and specialized personnel will be evaluated for the ability and potential to maintain stability of essential personnel.

The key person’s commitment letter will be evaluated for the term (duration) of the commitment together with the degree, conditions, and conclusive nature of the commitment. INL/A will consider lengthened terms of commitment to be more favorable.

1. Sub-Factor: ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH; The Statement of Requirements (SOR) describes the magnitude and importance of the overall responsibilities of the PSO. INL/A is interested in ensuring that the PSO’s approach in executing the work exemplifies a clear understanding of the significantly complex nature of the work and the implications of less than successful operations. The offerors proposal will illustrate, at the management level, the offeror’s approach in effectively organizing, implementing and administrating program requirements.

At the management level, describe your proposed organization. Provide an organizational chart showing key personnel, their authorities, responsibilities, and reporting channels within the organization. Show other managerial positions which you believe are significantly important to operations along with their respective authorities and responsibilities.

The organizational plan will be evaluated for relevance and the organizations potential for effective and efficient operations

Describe your corporate structure and explain how your proposed organization for this contract fits within that structure.

The relationship of the local organization to the corporate organization will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the relationship in terms of support and commitment to the local organization.

5.1 Ratings for Technical Factors

In evaluating the technical factors and subfactors as described above, the evaluation team will fully evaluate and document strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and potential discussion questions for each offeror’s proposal. Based on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies noted above, the evaluation team will assign each technical factor/subfactor a rating using the following rating scale:

5.2 Proposal Risk Assessment

The offeror’s proposed approach will be evaluated separately to determine the level of risk the approach may pose to the government. As weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies are identified in an offeror’s proposal, the corresponding risk associated with those findings is also identified using the scale shown below. The qualitative assessment, proposal risk rating, and performance risk rating are taken into consideration in determining whether award is made without discussions or whether discussions will take place. These findings are also used in determining the competitive range.

PROPOSAL RISK RATING

6.1 Volume III: Factor 3 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation team will conduct a structured past performance risk assessment that examines an offeror’s relevant present and past performance record. This is to determine the performance risk associated with each proposal and the degree of confidence for successful performance based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on similar contracts. The past performance evaluation will consider strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and overall performance record of each offeror.

Provide the following information for each contract and subcontract performed in a similar setting for the past 3 years:

· Customer's name, address, and telephone numbers of customer's Point of Contact and technical personnel;

· Contract number and type (if applicable);

· Date of the contract, place(s) of performance, and delivery dates or period of performance;

· Contract size (number of personnel employed by contract year per labor category) and dollar value;

· Brief description of the work, including responsibilities;

· A comparison to the work required under this solicitation;

· Brief discussion of any technical problems and their resolutions;

· Brief discussion of all terminations (partial or complete) and the type (convenience or default) as well as any deficiency notices, show cause notices or cure notices (provide explanatory details);

· Listing of deductions taken under any listed contracts, with explanatory details and resolution.

The Offeror shall distribute a copy of Section J, Attachment J-014, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), to each of the past performance references. PPQ responders will submit evaluations as directed in Section J Attachment J-014. Offerors shall include, at a minimum, three PPQs with their technical proposal. Offerors with no past performance shall type “NO PAST PEFORMANCE” in Bold Letters on a clean sheet of paper and place it in the past performance section.

If an Offeror believes that any unfavorable information may be provided as a part of the reference check process, the Offeror should include a brief explanation of the circumstances pertaining to this data and the position of the Offeror in reference to these circumstances. If appropriate, the Offeror should indicate what steps have been included in this offer to prevent a recurrence of such situations.

Offerors are advised that the past performance information requested above may be discussed with the PPQ customer/responder point of contact (POC). In addition, POC referenced may be asked to comment on the Offeror’s:

· Quality of services provided under the contract;

· Compliance with contract terms and conditions;

· Effectiveness of management;

· Willingness to cooperate with, and assist, the customer in routine matters and when confronted by unexpected difficulties;

· Business integrity/business conduct.

The Government will use past performance information, including the responses to the questionnaires (Attachment J -014), to primarily assess the capability of the Offeror (including proposed subcontractors).

Present and Past Performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. Past Performance will be determined to be relevant if the performance involves work that is the same or similar to the services being procured under this Solicitation and has been performed within the last 3 years.

· In determining relevance, consideration will be given to the similarity of the service performed in hostile, austere, and remote locations; complexity; technology; magnitude of effort; contract scope and type; and schedule.

· Past performance and experience of similar nature by the prime and/or partners (vendors, subcontractors) conducted in locations stated in the statement of requirements will be considered more relevant than work performed in another country. However, work in these locations is not a requirement.

· The Government will also use existing databases (e.g. FAPIIS) and available reports (e.g. Inspector Generals of State and other agencies) to further evaluate past performance.

The Government may also use this data to evaluate the credibility of the Offeror’s proposal. In addition, the CO may use past performance information in making a determination of responsibility. In evaluating past performance, the Government may use “other” past performance information obtained from any source in addition to the information and references identified by the Offeror.

If any information obtained is considered unfavorable, the Offeror will have an opportunity to address this information during clarifications and/or discussions. In order to be determined a responsible company in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, General Standards, a contractor must have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. Failure to provide current and complete information about prior contractual performance problems that may have resulted in invoice deductions taken, cure notices, show cause notices, or deficiency letters issued shall result in an unfavorable responsibility determination and the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

6.1.1 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this procurement. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offerors, your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

6.2 Ratings of Relevant Past Performance

Significant Confidence - The Offeror’s record provides little doubt that the Offeror will successfully provide a product that meets or exceeds the requirements. No or limited Government intervention is expected to be required in obtaining the required performance.

Confidence - The Offeror’s past performance record indicates the Offeror can successfully provide performance that meets the requirements. Some Government intervention is expected to obtain required performance. Offeror may have relevant experience but may not have highly relevant experience in statement of requirement locations.

Neutral - The Offeror has no relevant experience and/or Past performance record. A review was unable to identify any relevant past performance information (see FAR 15.305). This is a neutral rating. It does not hinder nor help the Offeror.

Little Confidence - The Offeror’s past performance record provides substantial doubt that the offer will successfully provide performance that meets the requirements. Substantial Government intervention is expected to be required in obtaining the required performance.

7.1 Volume IV: Factor 4 – Cost/Price

7.2 General Instructions

7.2.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness and Realism

This section is to assist you in submitting information other than cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed cost/price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror.

7.2.2 Estimating Techniques and Methods

When responding to the Cost/Price Volume requirements in the solicitation, the Offeror and associated subcontractors may use any generally accepted estimating technique, including contemporary estimating methods (such as Cost-to-Cost and Cost-to-Non-Cost Estimating Relationships, commercially available parametric cost models, in-house developed parametric cost models, etc.), to develop their estimates. If necessary, reasonable and supportable allocation techniques may be used to spread hours and/or costs to lower levels of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

7.2.3 Cost/Price Information

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

7.2.4 Cost or Pricing Information Requirements

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Information shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

7.3 Volume Organization

1) The electronic price proposal shall consist of the following, which are described further in this subsection:

a. Narrative (in Word or PDF)

b. Pricing Tables (in one folder containing one Excel workbook)

c. Supporting Information (in Word or PDF)

Offerors shall prepare on a CD-ROM one electronic file for each of the above sections. Therefore, offerors shall prepare four files on each CD-ROM.

2) The hard-copy price proposal shall consist of the following, which are described further in this subsection:

a. Narrative

b. Pricing Tables

c. Supporting Information

Offerors shall separate each of the above sections by a distinct tab and divider page.

3) The content of the electronic price proposal and hard-copy price proposal shall match. If differences exist between the two proposals and there is insufficient time for reconciliation, the hard-copy proposal shall take precedence.

4) Pricing Tables are provided by the Government and shall be completed by the offerors. Offerors proposed completed Pricing Tables shall include formulas.

5) Offerors shall use for pricing purposes the following period of performance:

Phase-in: April 1, 2014 – October 31, 2014 Base Year: November 1, 2014 – October 31, 2015 Option Year 1: November 1, 2015 – October 31, 2016 Option Year 2: November 1, 2016 – October 31, 2017

6) Completed pricing information in Section B of the solicitation.

7) In the Pricing Tables, offerors shall assume that, for at least DBA Insurance purposes, overseas performance will be conducted in an area(s) where there are no local worker’s compensation laws.

8) In the Narrative, offerors shall identify the name and full contact information of their cognizant Federal auditor (e.g., local Defense Contract Audit Agency branch).

9) In the Narrative, offerors shall identify the name and full contact information of their cognizant Federal agency official (CFAO). The CFAO works in the offeror’s cognizant Federal agency, which is normally the agency with which the offeror has the largest dollars in negotiated contracts, including option periods.

10) In the Supporting Information, offerors shall submit evidence to support the provisional billing indirect cost rates proposed. Offerors shall submit such at least one of the following pieces of evidence pursuant to the following order of preference:

a. Current negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with the offeror’s cognizant…