Addendum to Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services.pdf

Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial Product and Commercial Services

(a) The Government will award a Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) and a task order for the requirements listed in the Scope of Work (SOW) Attachment 2 - Master Facilities Listing resulting from this solicitation to the responsible quoter whose quotation conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotations:

1.0 EVALUATION SUMMARY

Quotations will be evaluated using the following Factors. The requirements specified in the solicitation are considered to be minimum requirements. NOTE: Factors 1-3 are in descending order of importance.

When combined, the technical Factors 1 - 3 are significantly more important than Factor 4 PRICE.

Factor 1 Technical Aspects

Subfactor A - Ballistic material, design & product features such as trim & connectors to include replacement fabric/skin panels.

Maximum Number of Pages: 10

Subfactor B - Color and Aesthetics Submittal Color Pallet and Fabric Type Maximum Number of Pages: 2

Factor 2: Schedule- Production, Delivery & Installation

Maximum Number of Pages: 6

Factor 3: Past Performance

Maximum Number of Pages: N/A

Factor 4: Price

Complete Pricing Schedule for the FY25 Master Facilities List and unit pricing for the 5-year ordering period.

Note: An "Unacceptable" evaluation rating for any factor, or combination of different factors, may cause the overall quotation to be evaluated as "Unacceptable."

2.0 QUOTATION REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMISSION FORMAT

a. Quoters shall submit quotations electronically.

b. Any pages in excess of the assigned page limitation will be removed by the Government and will not be evaluated. Incomplete information on the remaining pages will be evaluated as is. A quotation that attempts to circumvent the page restriction purpose or unnecessarily burden the government evaluation may be rejected in its entirety.

c. Font on any page shall be either Arial, Calibri, or Times New Roman, and will not be less than 10 point. Unreadable quotations due to font or reduction, will not be returned, and will be evaluated as is or rejected.

3.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ASPECTS

3.1 Subfactor A: Ballistic material, design & product features such as trim & connectors to include replacement fabric/skin panels

a. Submission Requirements

Quotations shall clearly articulate:

(a) The ballistic material that the quoter proposes

(b) The method of construction, including method of connecting multiple panel sections

(c) The style, size, weight and design of the panels and feet proposed

(d) The materials ability to prevent ricochets, spalling, and splattering. If the material does not have the required Legacy Level 8 or UL-RF-H protection level ratings and certifications, the quoter shall clearly detail how the quoter will obtain the appropriate UL ratings and certifications and how this will not affect the production, delivery or schedule

(e) Any and all salient characteristics as required by the Statement of Work (SOW)

(f) A standard manufacturer’s warranty inclusive in the price of the Panel Types 1-8. The warranty shall be detailed and explain the extent of coverage and nature of coverage of each warranty item. The government expects that the warranty items contained in the Standard Manufacturer's Warranty to include the following:

(1) 10 year coverage of:

(i) Manufacturer defects, both patent and latent

(ii) Installation defects and damage

(iii) Mold and mildew protection

(iv) Peripheral components including but not limited to: border paneling, fabric, hardware, feet, and coverings

b. Evaluation:

1) The Government will evaluate all technical data and design characteristics against the salient characteristics listed in the SOW. Any items included by the quoter in addition to the salient characteristics will be evaluated subjectively as is most advantageous for the Government.

2) Quoters that fail to meet the required specifications, or fail to provide a level of detail that sufficiently describes to the Government the solution to the requirement in the respective evaluated criteria, may be rated as unacceptable.

3.2 Subfactor B: Color and Aesthetics - Color Pallet and Fabric Type

a. Submission Requirements Quotations shall clearly articulate:

1) The colors that the quoter is proposing to use for each branch of service.

2) Fabric that the quoter is proposing to use.

3) The details of the water and moisture repellant nature of the fabric.

4) The salient characteristics of the color and fabric as compared against the requirements of the SOW

b. Evaluation:

1) The Government will evaluate the colors submitted in the offer by both technical comparison and by visually comparing them with the suggested colors in the SOW.

2) Colors and fabrics submitted in the offer must detail the manufacture of the color and fabric.

3) Fabrics submitted by the quoter will be evaluated against the criteria set forth in the SOW through both a technical and visual comparison. The comparison will evaluate pattern as well as the water repellant and moisture resistant qualities of the fabric.

4) Color and fabric will be rated on a pass/fail basis.

4.0 FACTOR 2: SCHEDULE - Production, Delivery & Installation

a. Submission Requirements

1) Quotations shall clearly articulate:

(a) The production in an easy to read, layman's terms the proposed schedule of production that accomplishes and supports the proposed delivery schedule for the requirements identified in Attachment 2 “Master Facilities Listing” for the FY25 locations. The schedule should also include the ballistic testing (SOW paragraph 5.12) and mock-up (SOW paragraph 5.11) requirements.

(b) The delivery schedule and/or the supporting narrative shall include:

(i) Logistics plan and approach for both CONUS and OCONUS Sites.

(ii) Qualifications of delivery subcontractor (if used). Qualifications demonstrating OCONUS experience will be considered more favorably.

(iii) Clear timeline to include any and all float for all locations specified in the SOW achieving 100% delivery and installation or replacement skins no later than 18 months from issuance of contract.

(iv) Due to the large numbers of delivery locations and points of contact, there are bound to be missed appointments, and adjustments that will be need to be made with minimal impact to the overall production and installation. The plan shall include how these situations will be handled (i.e., re-delivery to a location, temporary storage, etc.). The plan should define what is included in the pricing and what would need to be a contract modification.

b. Evaluation:

1) The Government will evaluate the quoters schedule in terms of realism and feasibility. Any quoter whose schedule includes delivery or installation beyond the stated 1.5 years from task order issuance may be rated as unacceptable.

2) Quoters that fail to meet the required specifications, or fail to provide a level of detail that sufficiently describes to the Government the solution to the requirement in the respective evaluated criteria, may be rated as unacceptable.

Factors 1-2 will be evaluated in determining the successful quoter utilizing the adjectival ratings below.

5.0 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Overview:

There are three aspects of the performance confidence evaluations: recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A project is considered recent for this Request for Quote (RFQ) when the completion date is not greater than seven (7) years from the date of this RFQ release; however, all projects submitted shall at least be substantially complete, meaning more than 90% invoiced and paid at the date of this RFQ release.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the RFQ. Common aspects of relevancy include but are not limited to: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The recency and relevancy of the past performance is combined with the quality of performance to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each quoter.

a. Submission Requirement:

1) The quoter shall identify up to three (3) recent and relevant contracted efforts in which the quoter has been successful in delivering quality products in response to client requirements. For each subcontractor/teaming partner included in the Quotation: up to an additional three (3) recent and relevant contracts may be included.

2) The quoter may submit its references in any combination of these three (3) methods below.

(a) Rating issued under Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) by federal clients. Quoter's are requested to retrieve their CPARS past performance information directly from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) at http://www. cpars.gov . CPARS is an

(E) EXCEPTIONAL: Performance significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government's benefit.

(S) SATISFACTORY: Performance meets contractual requirements.

(U) UNACCEPTABLE Performance does not meet contractual requirements.

electronic repository of performance information collected by all the major federal performance reporting systems. Logging onto CPARS will require a Userid and Password.

(b) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) completed by the client for submission with quotation. The PPQ is Attachment (6) to the solicitation and is provided for the quoter or its team members to submit to the client. The PPQ should be completed by an owner or owner's representative not affiliated with your firm. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact.

(c) A reference equivalent to CPARS or PPQ completed by the client. It is not necessary to have the client complete a new PPQ (or equivalent) or performance rating for this solicitation if the client has already completed one for other purposes (such as another solicitation). To avoid duplication of effort, the Government will accept a reference previously completed by the client.

3) The Government reserves the right to validate the references submitted and intends to do so. The quoter must ensure the client's current name, phone number, and e-mail address are included. It is the quoter's responsibility to ensure that the Government has the necessary information (client information, dollar value, dates, description of work, etc.) to assess past performance. Ambiguous, outdated, or incomplete past performance information will be evaluated unfavorably. The Government reserves the right to consider other past performance information beyond what is submitted in the Quotation.

b. Evaluation:

(1) The Government will rate past performance of the projects submitted and reserves the right to seek additional resources to obtain past performance information.

(2) The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the Quotation or to review personal knowledge. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance of the quoter on the submitted projects and any other previous work. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the quotation, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the quoter. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the quoter.

(3) The Government’s overall confidence level for this factor will be based on the Offeror’s Past Performance to include recency and relevancy of the projects submitted and the quality of performance.

Past Performance on projects will examine how well an Offeror has performed on relevant projects considering such criteria as: cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness and adherence to schedule; quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors; overall customer satisfaction; responsiveness to customer concerns.

(4) In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Government may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Contracting Officer may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff for this action.

Factor 3 will be evaluated in determining the successful quoter utilizing the confidence ratings below.

Rating Description 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.

6.0 Factor 4: PRICE

a. Submission Requirements: Utilize the two tabs of the attached Excel Pricing Schedule Ballistic Panels spreadsheet to provide pricing for the requirements listed in the FY25 Master Facilities Listing (SOW Attachment 2) and the binding unit pricing associated with the eight (8) panel types and fabric replacements for each year of the ordering period. The selected quoter’s price for the FY25 Requirements tab will be the award price for the task order. The unit rates in the Contract Pricing List tab will be the binding rates in the SATOC.

1) The quoter shall detail pricing by Panel Type and quantity to include both a unit price for each panel, and the total arithmetic sum for the quantities described in each Panel Type 1-8. Pricing shall include:

(a) Any applicable costs associated with design and production

(b) Quoter's markup

(c) Manufacturers standard product warranty

(d) Any and all costs associated with the contract not otherwise detailed in any of the other priced items (i.e. indirect costs, cost to manage contract, logistics and inventory, etc.).

2) The Mock-up of Panel Type 1 shall include all costs associated with this effort in the FY25 Requirement tab.

3) The Government ballistic Testing of Panel Type 1 shall include all cost associated with this effort in the FY25 Requirement tab.

4) Shipping, Delivery, and Installation shall contain all costs associated with this effort for all of the locations listed on the pricing schedule which includes both CONUS and OCONUS locations in the FY25

Requirement tab. Shipping prices for future requirements will be submitted part of subsequent Request(s) for Task Order Proposal (RTOP).

5) All costs for the estimated quantities for various repair, spare parts, and standalone fabric/ skin replacement in the FY25 Requirement tab.

6) The Contract Pricing List tab shall contain the binding unit rates for the ordering period. The SATOC award date is the start of Year 1 and the pricing transitions to the next year on the year anniversary. The unit pricing in the FY25 Requirements tab shall match the unit pricing in the Contract Pricing List tab.

The binding rate is based on the award of the task order. For example: The SATOC is awarded on 25 September 2025. Any task order awarded by 24 September 2026 would utilize the Year 1 unit pricing.

b. Evaluation:

The RFQ requires all contract line items be proposed as firm-fixed-price. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that unbalanced pricing between line items is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data will be utilized unless otherwise requested by the Government for further analysis. Proposal analysis techniques used will be in accordance with FAR

15.404 and supplements.

The Government will evaluate the price proposed for the FY25 Requirements tab and the proposed binding unit prices of each Panel Type and fabric replacement in the Contract Pricing List tab. The unit prices proposed in the Price Schedule’s Contract Pricing List tab will be contractually binding. If the Government determines the pricing in the FY25 Requirements tab or the any of the unit rates proposed are not reasonable or balanced, the offer may be removed from consideration for award.

(End of provision)