Section_M_Final.pdf

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize LPTA source selection procedures IAW FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding technical acceptability. Past Performance will not be evaluated. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest total evaluated price, that is deemed responsible IAW the FAR 9.104-1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government has been approved to select one contractor for the AIS program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interest. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.3. Rejection of Offers: The Government may reject any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the RFP.

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. "Deficiency" is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If the Government determines that an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet its requirements and is not easily correctable, the Offeror may be excluded from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c).

1.5. Major Proposal Revisions: If a proposal receives an "Unacceptable" rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the Offeror from the competitive range.

1.6. Discussions: During the evaluation period it may be determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions. Offeror responses to all rounds of Evaluation Notices (ENs) (if one or more rounds are held) shall be reflected in the FPR. The FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor One - Price Factor Two - Technical Sub-factor One: Representative Technical Task One (USAF) Sub-factor Two: Representative Technical Task Two (FMS) Sub-factor Three: Representative Technical Task Three (416 SCMS) Sub-factor Four: Program Management

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY: Proposal will be evaluated as follows:

2.1.1. Upon receipt of proposals, the Government's evaluation team will begin evaluating all proposals against all factors and sub-factors contained in this document (Technical and Pricing).

Additionally, the Contract Documentation Volume will be evaluated to ensure a complete proposal is received. Each offeror will be evaluated on an individual basis. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equally acceptable, and no comparative techniques will be used. The PCO will notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or from consideration for award.

2.1.2. Factor One - Price - The SSEB shall calculate the submitted TEP IAW procedures listed in paragraph 4 to allow the SSEB to evaluate pricing. The SSEB shall evaluate the Pricing Volume for:

(1) Price Reasonableness, (2) Balance, (3) TEP, and (4) Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

2.1.3. Factor Two - Technical - The SSEB shall evaluate the Technical Factor (sub- factors) assigning rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable." If any sub-factor is Unacceptable, the entire factor will be rated Unacceptable and will render the entire proposal as Unacceptable and un-awardable.

3. VOLUME 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3.1. The Government shall ensure that each proposal includes the general outline stated in the Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors in Volume 1.

4. VOLUME 2 - PRICE (Factor One)

4.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Price Reasonableness, (2) Balance, (3) TEP, and

(4) Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award.

However, all offeror proposed rates in the TEP will be fixed and contractually binding.

4.1.1. Price Reasonableness: For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. Generally, adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. All CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

4.1.2. Balance: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to rates, disclosed elements of price, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.1.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated for award purposes only and will not be contractually binding; however, the Fully Burdened Labor Rates (for both Government Site and Contractor Site) and the Material Burdened Rates will be contractually binding for future orders. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

4.1.3.1. Multiplying government generated notional hours against each offeror’s proposed fully-burdened Not-To-Exceed (NTE) labor rates for all performance years (for both Government Site and Contractor Site). All labor categories have notional hours applied, the notional hours applied are not be the same for all years; however, the same notional hours will be used for evaluating all offers.

The Government generated notional hours and labor distribution will not be disclosed outside of the

Government at any time and are not contractually binding, but the labor rates proposed shall be contractually binding.

4.1.3.2. The Government calculated total of the representative technical tasks (USAF, FMS & 416 SCMS) will be included in the TEP. Travel (CR) is proposed for the representative tasks but will be used for technical evaluation purposes only.

4.1.3.2.1. For the representative tasks, the proposed material burden rates will be averaged (Attachment P1, Pricing Workbook, ‘Material Burden’ Tab, Cell A9) and applied to the proposals where deemed applicable by the Offeror. The rates proposed and their use are considered representative, and the methodology of application will be used throughout the performance period of the awarded contract.

4.1.3.3. The Cost Reimbursable Travel CLIN will be normalized at zero dollars for all offerors for evaluation purposes only. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable at the time of Task Order award and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred

4.1.4. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: IAW FAR 52.222-46, the Offeror's compliance with FAR 52.222-46 will be based on the following evaluation.

4.1.4.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's description on salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.

4.1.4.2 The Government will compare the Offeror's proposed total compensation (Attachment P1, Pricing Workbook, Government and Contractor Site Direct & Fringe Tabs,) for each labor category, to the total compensation of the same job categories of the predecessor contract (Contract FA8251- 18-D-0017-P00003).

4.1.4.3 If the Offeror's proposed total compensation (direct labor + fringe) for any labor category is below the predecessor contract total compensation (direct labor + fringe), it may represent an unrealistically low compensation which may indicate lack of sound management judgement and lack of understanding of the requirement.

4.1.4.4 The predecessor contract total compensation (direct labor + fringe) was proposed through CY2026; therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the predecessor CY2025 total compensation will be used as the baseline for evaluation of the Offeror's proposed CY2025 rates.”

4.1.4.5 Any labor category that is lower than the predecessor total compensation (direct labor + fringe) without sufficient explanation/evidence will indicate the Contractor's inability to attract and retain competent professional service employees and will be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. This may constitute sufficient cause to reject the Offeror's proposal.

4.1.4.6 The Government will perform an integrated assessment (Technical team and Contracting team) on the Offeror’s labor category (LCAT) mapping (Attachment P1, Pricing Workbook, ‘Labor Category Mapping’ Tab) to evaluate whether the proposed LCATs will meet the Government’s requirement.

4.2. Accounting System Approval: Since portions of the contract are contemplated as a contract type other than Firm Fixed Price, the Offeror's proposal shall include the approval to ensure the Offeror's accounting system is adequate. If accounting system approval is not present at the time of proposal, award may be, at the Government's discretion, contingent upon positive resolution of a pre-award survey of the Offeror's accounting system.

4.3. A no bid or an omitted rate(s) may result in an incomplete price submission and is therefore un-awardable.

5. VOLUME 3 - TECHNICAL (Factor Two)

5.1. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the

Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Offeror's proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase, or restate PWS or Task Order language for the technical volume. The successful offeror's technical proposal shall be incorporated into the contract by reference.

5.2. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning one of the following ratings:

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated "Unacceptable" if any single sub-factor is rated "Unacceptable". The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors:

5.4. Factor Two - Technical

5.4.1. Sub-factor One, Representative Technical Task One (USAF): The Offeror shall submit the following information to satisfy Representative Technical Task One.

5.4.1.1 ATE Hardware: Evidence that the hardware to resolve obsolescence is sourced from the correct OEM. The station applicability for each component is identified correctly. Evidence that the obsolescence mitigation approach identifies, defines, and includes all tasks outlined in the SOO.

Form, fit, function and interface requirements are satisfied. Integration and qualification testing of replacement components is identified and meets the requirements. Design satisfies the requirements of the General Specification and all appropriate slash sheets. Evidence that materials are available to complete integration and regression testing requirements.

5.4.1.2. ATE Software: Integration and qualification testing of replacement components is identified and meets government requirements. Evidence that the plan to develop, integrate, and deliver modified Control and Support (C&S) software enables on-system testing of replacement assemblies.

Evidence that the creation of Discrepancy Reports (DRs) is addressed. The overall approach to incorporate developed C&S software meets government requirements.

5.4.1.3. TPS Software: Evidence that the LRU/TPS applicability for each component is correctly identified and the software integration meets the requirement to minimize impacts to existing TPS software. Identifies the requirement to provide redlines for TPS software documentation and the creation of Software Program Anomaly Reports (SPARs) and/or DRs.

5.4.1.4. Integration: Approach to perform integration and qualification testing meets government requirements. The system and sub-system integration/testing approach ensures IAIS/VXI-IAIS/R- IAIS configurations execute TPSs in accordance with the test plan. The plan to support troubleshooting and problem resolution(s) is identified and meets government requirements.

Configuration Management compliance is correctly addressed. Evidence that the approach to make improvements to the assemblies is identified and conforms with government requirements.

5.4.1.5. Data Requirements: Demonstrate approach to meeting the requirements to develop a Test Plan, develop all required Field Service Bulletins, and show that ATE data to be updated includes the following: specifications, Technical Orders, engineering data, provisioning documentation, and Calibration and Measurement Requirements Summary (CMRS) information.

5.4.1.6. Program Management/Support: The Program Management Plan (PMP) correctly demonstrates the support approach to meets requirements of the overall PMP, the PWS, and the USAF Representative Technical Task.

5.5. Sub-factor Two: Representative Technical Task Two (FMS)

5.5.1. Sub-factor Two, Representative Technical Task Two (FMS): The Offeror shall submit the following information to satisfy Representative Technical Task Two.

5.5.1.1. Installation and Check-Out (ICO): Evidence that the approach to perform ICO in country meets government requirements. Evidence that travel has been mutually agreed upon by all associated parties. Demonstrate that the identified approach utilizes Hill AFB on-site technicians with the knowledge and skill set to install the identified R-IAIS part number. Evidence that the ATE OEM is involved in the ICO process. Demonstrate that the FMS country will be prepared to ensure their facility complies with the R-IAIS Facilities Requirements Plan. Evidence that the ICO plan includes physical inventories to be performed on the transferred hardware; and that Calibration, Confidence, and Diagnostics will be run on the R-IAIS station. Demonstrate that the ICO report will include identification of items that fail while in country, and that alternatives for repair will be identified.

5.5.1.2. Familiarization Training: The approach to perform familiarization training in country meets government requirements. Evidence that software Computer Program Identification Numbers (CPINs) and Technical Orders required for LRU testing of delivered Support Equipment Recommendation Data (SERDs) will be identified to country and be in place prior to conducting familiarization training. Agenda for familiarization training meets government requirements and addresses the following: ATE familiarization and troubleshooting, TPS familiarization, and LRU testing and troubleshooting.

5.5.1.3. SERD Hardware: The approach to provide SERD hardware to country meets government requirements. Evidence that SERDs are integrated with R-IAIS test station and acceptance testing is performed prior to shipment. Travel is accurately identified and meets government requirements.

Evidence that approach to perform acceptance testing meets government requirements. Evidence that SERDs will be sourced from the correct OEM. All part numbers and quantities identified by the Government are present and accurate. The overall management approach for hardware meets government requirements.

Demonstrate that the approach to provide SERDs ancillary SE hardware to country meets government requirements. All part numbers and quantities identified are present and accurate.

Evidence that hardware is sourced from the correct OEM and management approach meets government requirements.

Management approach include addressing obsolescence issues that may arise throughout the Period of Performance.

5.5.1.4. TPS Software: Evidence that the approach to provide TPS software meets government requirements. Evidence that approach addresses research, development, updates, integration testing, and delivery of necessary software to enable SERDs to function with subsystems and systems being procured. Evidence that TPS software is sourced from the correct OEM to ensure delivered software is properly configured with end user equipment.

5.5.1.5. SERD Data: Approach to identify and define processes to update affected SERD data meets government requirements. Evidence that approach addresses updates to both SERDs and Technical Orders.

5.5.1.6. Block 70 LRU R-IAIS Candidate Study: Evidence that Study/Report addresses developing test capability for all of the LRUs identified by the Government. The Study addresses the following:

data required to develop testing, strategy for developing new capabilities, options to develop testing for FMS customers, timeline to develop testing capabilities, and prospective methodologies to include all applicable countries.

5.5.1.7. Program Management: Program Management approach meets government requirements.

Evidence that program management approach addresses how the support will meet requirements of the overall PMP, PWS, and the FMS Representative Technical Task. Program Management approach includes the development of a Master Schedule. Evidence that approach complies with FMS Letter of Offer and Acceptance.

5.5.1.8. Contract Data Requirements: All Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) identified by the Government are present and accurate. Evidence of approach to update data associated with FMS Representative Technical Task is demonstrated.

5.6. Sub-factor Three: Representative Technical Task Three (416 SCMS)

5.6.1. Sub-factor Three, Representative Technical Task Three 416 SCMS: The Offeror shall submit the following information to satisfy Representative Technical Task Three.

5.6.1.1. Technical Support/Program Management: Approach identifies the correct number of on-site Full Time Equivalent (FTE) personnel at Hill AFB. Approach identifies the proper skill set mix and labor categories necessary to meet government requirements. FTE personnel identified possess the knowledge, experience, and expertise with ATS Software, Hardware, and System Integration Software Maintenance to meet weapon system requirements. The offeror shall identify a plan for retaining current incumbent on-site personnel supporting the 416 SCMS in order to provide uninterrupted technical support required by USAF, EPAF, and FMS customers. Approach also identifies the correct number of off- site FTE personnel at the TPS OEM. Demonstrates the ability to work with TPS OEM in order to meet government requirements.

5.6.2. Sub-factor Four, Program Management Plan (PMP): The Offeror shall submit a PMP in accordance with DI-MGMT-80004A.

6. VOLUME 4 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L Section 4.

7. PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities.

Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, for offerors to be rated acceptable, they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Sections L and M to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the Offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.