SectionsLnM.pdf

SSP Attachment 3 Representations and Instructions - Section L

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

L – Proposal Preparation Instructions

A. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The response shall consist of two (2) separate Volumes; Volume I – Price Proposal and Volume II – Technical Proposal. Evaluation of proposals will follow the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, of this request for proposal.

B. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

C. Specific Instructions:

1. VOLUME I – PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit original hard copy plus an S/MIME encrypted Outlook email or AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) delivery.

(a) Complete blocks 11, 13, 15, 21, 22 and 27 of the RFP Section A, SF1447. In doing so, the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

(b) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in Section B for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

(c) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section Kshall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

2. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than 30 pages. Submit original hard copy plus an S/MIME encrypted Outlook email or AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) delivery.

Purpose - The purpose of the Engineering Services contract for Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser (WCMD) is to obtain full WCMD engineering support using engineers having at least three years of experience within the past ten years through a competitive acquisition to fulfill USAF Cluster Munition Stockpile support utilizing the WCMD guided tail kit Particulars of WCMD engineering support requirements included in the WCMD support requirements are as follows:

a. WCMD Telemetry installation, Telemetry functionality checks using Lumistar equipment, and telemetry mission control center WCMD support for WSEP and surveillance testing.

b. WSEP and surveillance testing telemetry analysis and reporting including HWIL diagnostics as required and Lumistar upgrade and functionality support..

c. WCMD aircraft mission planning WCMD MAP Fly Out Model (FOM) support.

d. WCMD Interface Control Document (ICD) support for aircraft integration including new aircraft that may require WCMD integration.

e. Aircraft System Integration Lab (SIL) interface support with WCMD SSS.

f. WCMD SSS and WCMD simulator support, repair, manufacture, and status of functionality.

g. WCMD Common Munitions Bit/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) for existing and new CMBRE SLEP system.

h. Aircraft software upgrade support requiring WCMD integration, validation, anomaly analysis and support.

i. Field WCMD failure analysis including pre-flight and post-flight failure determinations.

Extensive use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components.

Technical data support for all WCMD components and interface systems. Technical order update support for WCMD load and aircraft load manuals

Additional technical information can be found in TO 33D5-24-23-3.

The offeror’s technical proposal shall address the following:

Sub-factor 1: Weapon System Evaluation Program (WSEP), Aging & Surveillance, Aircraft Integration/CMBRE SLEP MAP, & Aircraft Mission Planning – Provide at least two examples describing your recent WCMD experience in detail, specifying your WCMD engineering support accomplishments and clearly identifying WCMD engineering support results for the requirements of paragraph 2.1; 2.1.2; 3.2.1; & 3.5 of the PWS demonstrating WSEP support capabilities, and Aircraft Integration/CMBRE SLEP MAP, and Aircraft Mission Planning using engineers having at least three years of WCMD experience within the past ten years or provide a signed Letter of Intent from engineers that meet the expertise criteria. If you provide a signed Letter of Intent for employment, please provide two detailed examples of the engineers experience to demonstrate the level of experience requested in this sub-factor.

Sub-factor 2: Software Integration Lab (SIL) and SSS Support, Maintenance, Upgrade & Hardware in the Loop (HWIL) Support – Provide at least two examples describing your recent WCMD experience in detail, specifying your WCMD engineering support accomplishments and clearly identifying WCMD engineering support results for the requirements of paragraph 3.6; 3.6.1-3.6.3; & 3.8 of the PWS demonstrating aircraft SIL, WCMD SSS,WCMD simulator, andHWIL support provided using engineers having at least three years of experience within the past ten years or provide a signed Letter of Intent from engineers that meet the expertise criteria. If you provide a signed Letter of Intent for employment, please provide two detailed examples of the engineers experience to demonstrate the level of experience requested in this sub-factor.

Sub-factor 3: Engineering Support on Guided Munition Systems Software & Hardware Data Management – Provide two detailed examples of specific experiences or scenarios on how your company has managed software and hardware data updates that avoided interruptions to operations that were relatable to Air Force guided munitions.

Additionally, explain how your company will use that experience to mitigate these interruptions within the scope of this contract based on the requirements laid out in paragraph 3.5; 3.6; & 3.8 of the PWS.

Sub-factor 4: General Aircraft Support and Integration – Provide two detailed examples of experience demonstrating how your company has supported aircraft integration with a guided weapon system or related support working with an aircraft integration resulting the requirements from the paragraphs 3.2.1; & 3.3 of the PWS.

Sub-factor 5: Engineering Management of Complex Contracts – Provide relatable detailed examples on how your company would manage an engineering services contract dealing with guided munitions that are resulting from the requirements from paragraphs 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 3.1; 3.2.1.2; 3.2.1.3; 3.2.1.4; 3.2.1.5; 3.2.3; 3.2.4; 3.3; 3.4.4; 3.6; 3.7; 5.3; 8.0 & 10.2 of the PWS.

3. PART III – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Offeror’s past performance will not be used as an evaluation factor. However, in accordance with FAR 9.1 – Responsible Prospective Contractor, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for responsibility, with adherence, as applicable to:

FAR 9.104-3(b) – Satisfactory performance record

D. Submission Instructions:

Documents submitted in response to this RFP must meet the requirements of and be consistent with the following:

1. Requirements of the CLINs, government standards, and regulations pertaining to the Technical Data Package.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

3. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the proposal.

4. Format for proposal Parts II and III shall be as follows:

(a) The proposals will be 8 1/2” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11” x 17”.

(b) A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Do not exceed 30 pages (15 pages front/back).

(c) Type shall not be less than 12 point, Times New Roman font.

(d) Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required.

(e) Responses to ENs cannot exceed two pages per EN.

SSP Attachment 4 Evaluation Factors for Award - Section M

M- Source Selection

A. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 2019 edition dated 25 May 2018. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A contract will only be awarded to an offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the WCMD Engineering Services. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and availability of funds.

C. Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

D. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or sub-factors.

Factor 1: Technical Expertise

Sub-factor 1: Weapon System Evaluation Program (WSEP), Aging & Surveillance, Aircraft Integration/CMBRE SLEP MAP, & Aircraft Mission Planning

Sub-factor 2: Software Integration Lab (SIL) and SSS Support, Maintenance, Upgrade & Hardware in the Loop (HWIL) Support

Sub-factor 3: Engineering Support on Guided Munition Systems Software & Hardware Data Management

Sub-factor 4: General Aircraft Support and Integration

Sub-factor 5: Engineering Management of Complex Contracts

Factor 2: Cost/Price

a. Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub-factor. Any sub-factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors. Responses may include planned partnerships with other companies:

Sub-factor 1: Provide at least two examples describing your recent WCMD experience in detail, specifying your WCMD engineering support accomplishments and clearly identifying WCMD engineering support results for the requirements of paragraph 2.1; 2.1.2; 3.2.1; & 3.5 of the PWS demonstrating WSEP support capabilities, and Aircraft Integration/CMBRE SLEP MAP, and Aircraft Mission Planning using engineers having at least three years of WCMD experience within the past ten years or provide a signed Letter of Intent from engineers that meet the expertise criteria. If you provide a signed Letter of Intent for employment, please provide two detailed examples of the engineers experience to demonstrate the level of experience requested in this sub-factor.

Acceptable – Offeror provided two detailed examples of experience and results demonstrating an 80% solution in WSEP support capabilities, and Aircraft Integration/CMBRE SLEP MAP, and Aircraft Mission Planning using engineers having at least three years of WCMD experience within the past ten years or provide a signed Letter of Intent from engineers that meet the expertise criteria. If you provide a signed Letter of Intent for employment, please provide two detailed examples of the engineers experience to demonstrate the level of experience requested in this sub-factor.

Unacceptable – Offeror provided insufficient detailed examples with results identifying experience or expertise with demonstrating WSEP support capabilities, Aircraft Integration/CMBRE SLEP MAP, and Aircraft Mission Planning. Additionally, they did not provide any signed Letters of Intent for employment on how they would obtain the expertise.

Sub-factor 2: Provide at least two examples describing your recent WCMD experience in detail, specifying your WCMD engineering support accomplishments and clearly identifying WCMD engineering support results for the requirements of paragraph 3.6; 3.6.1-3.6.3; & 3.8 of the PWS demonstrating aircraft SIL, WCMD SSS, WCMD simulator, and HWIL support provided using engineers having at least three years of experience within the past ten years or provide a signed Letter of Intent from engineers that meet the expertise criteria. If you provide a signed Letter of Intent for employment, please provide two detailed examples of the engineers experience to demonstrate the level of experience requested in this sub-factor.

Acceptable – Offeror provided two detailed examples of experience demonstrating an 80% solution in aircraft SIL, WCMD SSS, WCMD simulator, and HWIL support using engineers having at least three years of experience within the past ten years or provide a signed Letter of Intent from engineers that meet the expertise criteria. If you provide a signed Letter of Intent for employment, please provide two detailed examples of the engineers experience to demonstrate the level of experience requested in this sub-factor.

Unacceptable – Offeror provided insufficient detailed examples identifying experience or expertise with aircraft SIL, WCMD SSS, WCMD simulator, and HWIL support.

Additionally, they did not provide any signed Letters of Intent for employment on how they would obtain the expertise.

Sub-factor 3: Provide two detailed examples of specific experiences or scenarios on how your company has managed software and hardware data updates that avoided interruptions to operations that were relatable to Air Force guided munitions. Additionally, explain how your company will use that experience to mitigate these interruptions within the scope of this contract based on the requirements laid out in paragraph 3.5; 3.6; & 3.8 of the PWS.

Acceptable – Offeror provided two detailed examples of specific experiences or scenarios with managed software and hardware data updates that avoided interruptions to operations that were relatable to Air Force guided munitions. Additionally, they explained how they will utilize that experience to help mitigate those interruptions within this sub-factor.

Unacceptable – Offeror provided insufficient detailed examples identifying experience of managed software and hardware data updates that avoided interruptions to operations that were relatable to Air Force guided munitions. Additionally, they did not provide any explanation on how they would help mitigate interruptions within this sub-factor.

Sub-factor 4: Provide two detailed examples of experience demonstrating how your company has supported aircraft integration with a guided weapon system or related support working with an aircraft integration resulting the requirements from the paragraphs 3.2.1; & 3.3 of the PWS.

Acceptable – Offeror provided two detailed examples of experience demonstrating how their company has supported aircraft integration with a guided weapon system or related support working with aircraft integration resulting in requirements in this sub-factor.

Unacceptable – Offeror provided insufficient detailed examples demonstrating experience with supporting aircraft integration with a guided weapon system or related support working with aircraft integration resulting in this sub-factor.

Sub-factor 5: Provide relatable detailed examples on how your company would manage an engineering services contract dealing with guided munitions that are resulting from the requirements from paragraphs 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 3.1; 3.2.1.2; 3.2.1.3; 3.2.1.4; 3.2.1.5; 3.2.3; 3.2.4; 3.3;

3.4.4; 3.6; 3.7; 5.3; 8.0 & 10.2 of the PWS.

Acceptable – Offeror provided related detailed examples of managing engineering services contracts dealing with guided munitions that result in the requirements in this sub-factor.

Unacceptable – Offeror provided insufficient detailed examples in managing engineering services contract and/or did not meet the requirements listed in this sub-factor.

b. Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for all CLINs.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

SSP Attachment 5 Plan and Procedures for Protection, Maintenance, Retention, and Disposition of Source

Selection Data

1- All proposal and source selection information will be secured in a room, desk, or cabinet when not in use. Electronic copies will be secured in locked and password protected electronic folders. All source selection worksheets used for evaluation will be shredded after a source selection decision has been made. Uploading data to a government-approved file transfer site, such as DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE), which replaces AMRDEC, which is capable of handling unclassified files up to 8.0 GB. This is the method that will be utilized when Source Selection Vendor’s and ensure we are printing confirmation emails from the SAFE system.