Attachment_025_SEMA_Solicitation_Section_M

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This document incorporates one or more provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a provision may be accessed electronically at these addresses:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFFARA.HTM or http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFDFARA.HTM or http://farsite.hill.af.mil/VFAFARa.HTM

If the provision requires additional or unique information, then that information is provided immediately after the provision title.

Regulatory Cite Title Date____

M-1 52.247-50 NO EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS APR/1984

OFFER ACCEPTABILITY

M-2 52.215-4011 EVALUATION PROCEDURES TO ELIMINATE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES FROM

RENT FREE USE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROPERTY

(USAAMCOM) - JAN/1993

M-3 APPLICATION OF FAR 52.215-4011

The clause set forth in M-2 shall only apply to Government Furnished Property not specifically identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

M-4 OFFER ACCEPTABILITY

The Government will examine each offer to determine whether or not the offeror has accepted the terms and conditions in the solicitation. An offer must conform to all terms and conditions of this solicitation, Government acquisition laws and regulations in order to be considered for award.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0002 ***

M-5 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. Offerors are cautioned to ensure that their proposals are complete and accurate in their entirety and are submitted in the most favorable terms to reflect their best potential. Anything less may result in the proposal being nonresponsive, outside the competitive range, or unacceptable, and may be the basis for non-selection for award. Proposals must be realistic in terms of Mission Capability and Cost. Offers that are unrealistic, including unrealistically low or high cost proposals, will be judged to reflect lack of understanding of the program requirements. Inconsistencies between an offerors mission capability volume and the cost proposal may result in a reduced rating or even total exclusion from contract award.

b. All proposals will receive careful and impartial consideration. After initial review, the Contracting Officer may request additional information, clarification, or correction of an Offerors proposal.

c. All data required for evaluation of the mission capability proposal shall be included or summarized in the proposal. Data cited by reference only will not be considered when the proposals are evaluated.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0003 ***

M-6 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Mission Capability (Technical), Cost/Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation. The Mission Capability factor is slightly more important than the Cost/Price factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor, which is more important than the Small Business Participation factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Mission Capability factor and a rating of no less than “Good” for the Program Management subfactor, and no less than “Acceptable” for all other Mission Capability subfactors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE

GREATER THAN COST/PRICE.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0004 ***

M-7 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

FACTOR I – MISSION CAPABILITY (TECHNICAL): Mission Capability is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Program Management

b. Life Cycle Services

c. Modification

d. Contingency Operations

The Program Management subfactor is significantly more important than the Life Cycle Services subfactor, which is slightly more important than the Modification subfactor, which is more important than the Contingency Operations subfactor.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each subfactor as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor and subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

FACTOR II – COST/PRICE: The resulting award will be a hybrid contract consisting of fixed priced and cost type elements. The cost evaluation will include cost completeness and accuracy, price reasonableness, and total price to the Government. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all the CLINS for a total sum (contract value). Evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

FACTOR III – PAST PERFORMANCE: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

FACTOR IV – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or as small business subcontractors).

M-8 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The SST will be comprised of Government employees and Non-Government support contractor subject matter experts (SME). The final adjectival ratings and accompanying narrative evaluations will be made by the Government factor and sub-factor leads only. (See Section V for further policy information.)

NOTE: The Overarching and Mission Capability (Technical) factor and subfactor evaluation approaches contain useful benchmark considerations determined through unanimity by the FW PO working integrated product team (WIPT). The benchmarks are to be deliberated during evaluation consensus meetings when discussing a possible rating and associated narrative evaluation. However, all final evaluation adjectival ratings and accompanying narratives will be IAW Section IV, Evaluation Procedures of the SSP.

1. MISSION CAPABILITY (TECHNICAL) FACTOR evaluation approach is as follows:

(a) Overarching Evaluation Approach

(1) Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation; and to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with (IAW) the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

(2) Feasibility. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposal is workable and the end results achievable; the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven processes, devices, and techniques; the extent to which the offeror’s methods in meeting the requirements in a timely manner provide the Government with confidence of successful completion; and the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

(3) Flexibility. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it facilitates the implementation of both cost effective and simplified enhancements, and unanticipated future changes to the requirements.

(b) MISSION CAPABILITY (TECHNICAL) SUBFACTORS. The Mission Capability subfactors of Program Management, Life Cycle Services, Modification, and Contingency Operations, are the essential areas of concentration and evaluation for the Government. To further ascertain the feasibility of the proposal as stated above, the offeror’s response to two scenarios detailed in the Life Cycle Services and Modification subfactor sections, will be evaluated to determine the extent to which they have grasped the unique technical requirements. The Mission Capability (Technical), Subfactor evaluation specifics are as follows:

(1) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUBFACTOR. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed implementation of program, business, technical, and logistics functions for fixed wing aircraft life cycle services. It evaluates the offeror’s internal and external processes to effectively manage overall performance of the requirements set forth in the solicitation. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s responses to items (a)-(f) below.

(a) A Program management strategy describing the offeror’s proposed methodology, rationale, and process for organizational management by means of program, business, logistics, and technical disciplines; an organizational structure that includes sufficient manpower, man-year levels of effort, and employees for the basic period and all option periods; projected workforce structure and rationale for the planned skill mix; and includes all key personnel positions within the program.

(b) The transition phase-in strategy emphasizing hiring and retaining personnel;

inventory and acceptance for transfer of government furnished property (GFP) and facilities; aircraft condition acceptance, configuration status, and airworthiness certification; development of AR 95-20 Ground and Flight Procedures; and a transition milestone schedule. Also included should be a notional transition phase-out concept for use upon contract completion.

(c) Methods of Performance Improvement such as Lean Thinking, Product Value Management/Value Analysis/Value Engineering, Condition Based Maintenance, etc., that demonstrate metric-based, continuous process improvement and innovation to enhance quality, cost, and timeliness shown to be beneficial to the Government, will be implemented at all locations and levels of work effort.

(d) Well thought out programmatic, logistical, and technical processes developed with an understanding for and capacity to interface best commercial practices with the unique Army fixed wing procedures to achieve the minimum Army fixed wing readiness levels required by the solicitation.

Comprehensive understanding of the Army fixed wing Systems Engineering Process Guide. Well thought out methodology to provide aircraft OEM engineering services in support of aircraft nonstandard repair, airworthiness certification, and elective improvement modification/integration requirements (PWS Sections 4.0/5.0/7.0).

(e) Quality processes including audit procedures that demonstrate a realistic process of issue identification and subsequent monitoring of corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution; how the offeror’s proposed control and audit procedures will be documented and implemented within the proposed Quality Assurance Plan; and the offeror’s approved quality standards and certifications.

(f) Certified Security Management program demonstrating an understanding of the appropriate processes required to ship, transport, and store sensitive material up to and including the Secret

(S) level; manage personnel security clearances; control aircraft communications security (COMSEC) equipment and controlled cryptologic items; as well as the offeror’s potential ability to handle Top Secret (TS) level program, equipment, and information when directed by the Government under PWS section 7.0, Elective Improvement - specifically, how the offeror intends to obtain and provide TS coverage in a timely manner to support an elective improvement with a TS classification level.

(2) LIFE CYCLE SERVICES SUBFACTOR. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed methodologies to accomplish the day-to-day service, logistics, and technical requirements for life cycle sustainment of the fleet. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s sound approach and methodology for accomplishing work requirements identified in the PWS with the appropriate systems, processes, and resources to meet the Government’s desired outcomes. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s responses to items (a)-(f) below as well as to the notional scenario in M-9 below.

(a) Maintenance management and planning methodologies for accomplishing fixed wing aircraft field and heavy maintenance; forecasting scheduled aircraft requirements;

executing appropriate aircraft documentation; and development, approval, and application of aircraft non-standard repairs.

(b) Supply chain management and planning methodologies with sufficient capacity to meet global material and supply chain requirements; forecasting material and supply needs for mission accomplishment; understanding global restrictions for movement of US material outside of CONUS; and emphasis on pre-positioning material in support of deployed systems.

(c) GFP management and planning methodologies that result in 100% accountability of

Government assets; accomplishing GFP field maintenance; adequate storage facilities; proposed automation systems for inventory support; and audit and control procedures.

(d) Manpower, personnel, and training requirements that provide an adequate mix of

FAA certified technicians skilled in sustaining the Army’s unique commercial derivative aircraft (CDA) systems, with emphasis on processes for maintaining a trained and qualified workforce.

(e) Logistical resources the offeror intends to utilize for execution of Government-directed elective improvements requiring aircraft/component/system modification or integration.

(f) Life Cycle Services subfactor scenario (logistics requirements) is presented at M-9 below with pertinent information and instructions. This scenario is notional but is representative of the types of service actions which will potentially be required under the contract. The scenario response will be evaluated on the offeror’s overall understanding of the logistics requirements necessary to accomplish the work with the appropriate resources in order to effect the repair of the aircraft and return it to a flyable status.

(3) MODIFICATION SUBFACTOR: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s capabilities and processes to perform engineering services in support of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) sensor modification/integration on CDA. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s responses to items (a)-(d) below as well as to the notional scenario M-9 below.

(a) Application of the Contractors Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) in its comparison to the Army Fixed Wing Systems Engineering Process Guide, with regard to application of the contractor's standards, capability models, and toolsets to the acquisition program at hand. Specifically, how the Offerors SEMP relates to the execution of technical and engineering services in support of the PWS requirements for aircraft PME and MEP elective improvement system integration.

(b) Certification of the CDA system’s airworthiness methodologies and the offeror’s understanding of the Government’s processes for airworthiness approval; required testing to support airworthiness determinations; and substantiation/documentation of airworthiness.

(c) Offeror’s operational assessment methodologies and understanding of the Government’s processes for validating the functionality of modification/integration efforts applied to CDA.

(d) Modification Subfactor Scenario (ISR Integration) is presented at M-9 with pertinent information and instructions. This scenario is notional but is representative of the types of modification/integration actions which could potentially be required under the contract. The scenario response will be evaluated on the offeror’s overall understanding of and ability to perform an ISR MEP integration for SEMA CDA; the technical requirements to accomplish the work; and how such an integration may affect the configuration and functional performance of the aircraft.

(4) CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS SUBFACTOR: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding and ability to temporarily relocate personnel, equipment, and operations supporting PWS requirements away from the established beddown base to other locations as directed by the Government.

The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s responses to items (a)-(c) below.

(a) Army operations essential to training, contingency, and wartime operations; and the offeror’s understanding of contractor services and potential government options, which may be required during these types of operations.

(b) Providing services support OCONUS with consideration for host nation agreements; customs requirements; Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA); and compliance with the combatant commander’s directives.

(c) Contingency operations as they relate to security with considerations for handling classified material/documents up to the Top Secret level; communications security (COMSEC) equipment;

personnel security clearances; and Operations Security (OPSEC).

3. COST/PRICE FACTOR. The contract will be a hybrid contract consisting of fixed priced and cost type elements. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The base program and all option years (six (6) total years) shall be included in the calculation. Therefore, offeror’s are reminded that award will be made to the offeror whose proposal provides the combination of features that offer the greatest overall value to the Government.

(a) Overarching Cost/Price Evaluation Approach:

(1) Cost/Price Analysis. The cost/price evaluation will assess each offeror’s proposed cost/price for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, and completeness of the proposed costs. The burden of proof for cost/price fairness, reasonableness, compliance, and completeness rests with the offeror. An assessment that the proposal is not fair, reasonable, compliant or complete will result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award.

(2) Fairness and Reasonableness. For a cost/price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a cost/price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The options will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

(3) Compliance.

(a) The cost/price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. The offeror’s rate tables and cost/price proposal and estimates will be assessed, as appropriate, for completeness, and price reasonableness using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and are consistent with the various methods of performance described in the offeror’s overall proposal. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon cost/price in the event that the technical, management, and past performance factors and sub-factors of all the offeror’s proposals are substantially the same.

(b) In addition, pursuant to the Service Contract Act of 1965, the determination by the Secretary of Labor as to the applicable minimum monetary wage and fringe benefits will be made part of any resulting contract. For evaluation purposes only, the Government has incorporated the applicable Area

Wage Determinations and Collective Bargaining Agreement as outlined in Section X of this RFP. The offeror’s proposed labor rates will be compared to the applicable wage determination labor category to ensure compliance.

(4) Completeness. The rate tables, exhibit B-1 entries and cost/price proposal and estimates submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for completeness and currency of information based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the offeror’s price proposal and estimates including subcontractor(s) cost/price information will be evaluated based on the traceability of the cost/price proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal (Mission Capability Volume).

(5) Errors. The offeror’s overall cost/price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the

PCO.

(6) Accounting System. For Cost Reimbursable (CR), Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), and Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs the contractor shall establish and maintain an acceptable accounting system IAW DFARS 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration. The cognizant DCMA/DCAA office will verify evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If the offeror’s accounting system has not been audited to determine adequacy, the DCMA/DCAA will be requested to perform a pre-award survey of the accounting system. The offeror must have an acceptable accounting system, as determined by the DCMA/DCAA, prior to contract award.

(7) Profit. The offeror’s proposed profit dollars will be utilized in the Government’s evaluation.

(8) Evaluation. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced CLINs for award. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all the CLINS for a total sum (contract value). Evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of their successful performance of the PWS requirements.

(a) Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this factor, utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in contract attachment XX.

(b) The Past Performance factor considers the offeror’s record of current and past performance to ascertain the probability of successful performance of the required effort of this solicitation. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s, and major subcontractors, records of performance as they relate to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal as well as data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government, or commercial contracts for same or similar services encompassed by the North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 488190, Aircraft Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

(c) Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

(d) The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevance and performance confidence assessment.

(1) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(2) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(3) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

5. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION FACTOR: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors). All Offerors shall propose their best effort for all socioeconomic categories. The government will evaluate:

(a) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals

(b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than those that are not enforceable)

(c) The identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0005 ***

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

M9 EVALUATION SUBFACTOR SCENARIOS

The following subfactor scenarios provide a storied framework around which the offeror has the opportunity to inform the Government as to the depth and breadth of their understanding of the Government’s technical requirements. Each scenario response may consist of no more than ten (10) pages, and should provide enough substance for the Government to discern the offeror’s level of understanding of the Government’s requirements

(1) Purpose: The purpose of the scenario is for the offeror to address one critical logistics effort that will affect the return of a non-mission capable aircraft to an operational status, and the second, a critical modification effort requiring the integration of three sensors to an operational ISR aircraft. Offerors will provide a written response to the scenarios, which will be used to evaluate their understanding of and capability to perform appropriate logistics actions and modifications to support the Special Electronic Mission Aircraft (SEMA) Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) fleet. The scenarios are notional, but are representative of the types of logistics and modification efforts which will potentially be required under the contract.

(2) Background Information for Both Scenarios: The subject aircraft is a pressurized FAR 25 aircraft (assume amendments 25-1 thru 25-83 as a certification basis if necessary). The aircraft is Army owned, does not possess an FAA “N” number, and retains a current Army Airworthiness Release (AWR). An Electro- Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) sensor ball is currently mounted to the exterior of the aircraft nose. The subject aircraft also has other military unique modifications such as aviation survivability equipment and military communications.

(3) Life Cycle Services Subfactor Scenario (Logistics Requirements)

a. Scenario Effort Description: An aircraft was in the process of mission recovery when an unexpected hailstorm moved into the area and the aircraft sustained hail damage. The aircraft was damaged and must be returned to a mission capable status.

b. Additional Background Information: The aircraft has been previously modified with a satellite communications system consisting of a large radome on the top of the aircraft, a modification based on an FAA supplemental type certificate (STC).

c. Supporting Scenario Information:

• The hail storm is considered an act of God.

• As a result of the damage, the aircraft is in a “Red-X,” non-flyable condition.

• At least one repair is considered beyond the allowed limits of the OEM Structural

Inspection and Repair Manual (SIRM) and FAA AC 43.13-1B change 1.

d. Instructions: The offeror will prepare a response with their approach to returning the aircraft to a mission capable status based on the information above. The response will be no longer than ten (10) pages in length (not including figures, graphics, or tables). The response will discuss in sufficient detail the application of the offeror’s logistics processes with a major focus on maintenance planning and supply chain operations required to assess, repair, and return the aircraft to mission capable status.

(4) Modification Subfactor Scenario (Integration Requirements)

a. Scenario Effort Description: The Government will provide three different types of sensors to the contractor to be integrated onto the subject aircraft. The modifications required to accomplish this integration effort must be accomplished and the aircraft delivered to the Government for acceptance with a fully validated system.

b. Additional Background Information: A semi-modular payload mounting system has been installed on both sides of the aircraft. This modification was approved solely by the Army and has no FAA basis. The modular interface allows relatively small payloads to be integrated via a replaceable pressure plate bulkhead for cable pass-throughs from the cabin to the sensors located inside existing fairing areas.

c. Supporting Information:

• With the exception of the EO/IR ball, all other previous ISR sensor integrations have been removed from the subject aircraft for the purpose of this scenario.

• Sensor A is a relatively small sensor consisting of a single “box” that is capable of being mounted inside the semi-modular payload mounting system. Sensor B consists of an external antenna array (6 blade type antennas requiring mounting in a pattern in a 4’x4’ area with a field of view below the aircraft.). Sensor C is a large payload that will require centerline mounting on the underside of the aircraft and necessitate a relatively large radome/fairing (6’ long and 3’ tall).

• All of the sensors, including the EO/IR ball, will require associated equipment (control boxes, computers, power distribution units, etc…) to be mounted inside the pressurized aircraft.

• The sensors are commercial, off-the-shelf items and will be provided as GFE.

• The contractor is responsible for all technical support required to support the integration effort.

• All sensors are transceivers and are able to separately transmit and receive simultaneously.

• Crew workstations will be required to monitor, control, and/or process the collected sensor data.

• All workstations will allow the operator to readily switch to any sensor onboard the aircraft during the mission and without the need for any physical reconfiguration.

• The sensor systems will exist on two separate data systems within the aircraft. One system will be at the SECRET classification level and one will be UNCLASSIFIED.

• The system shall simultaneously operate at least three of the four (to include the EO/IR ball) sensors, when required.

• The system shall accommodate four operator workstations.

• The system shall meet certain performance requirements (e.g., be able to detect X under

X conditions) with the various sensors.

• The system shall be accredited for classified operations.

• The system shall be compliant with the airworthiness requirements contained in AR 70-

62, Army Airworthiness.

d. Instructions: The offeror will prepare a response with their approach to completing the integration effort and delivering a fully validated system to the Government for acceptance based on the information above. The response will be no longer than ten (10) pages in length (not including figures, graphics, or tables). The response will discuss the application of the offeror’s systems engineering and modification/integration processes with a major focus on requirements development and systems validation.

The response will also discuss how the offeror proposes to certify the aircraft/systems and deliver an operational aircraft to the Government.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0006 ***

M-10 EFFICIENT COMPETITION

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government has the right to limit the number of proposals to be included in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0007 ***

M-11 PROPOSAL RISK

An inherent consideration during the evaluation of the mission capability, most probably cost and past performance areas is the proposal risk associated with an offerors proposed approach to meeting the Governments requirements. Proposal risk is integral to each evaluation element within these areas; however, the Government shall assess the risk associated with the offerors overall proposal when determining which proposal offers the best value to the Government. Inconsistencies between an offerors mission capability, past performance or cost proposal may indicate risk, which could reduce a proposals chance of being selected for award. Proposal risk focuses on the risks, weaknesses, and strengths associated with an offerors proposed approach.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0008 ***