Attachment 10 - Section L M 10 July 2025.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

In order to be considered for award, Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) as a HUBZone small business under NAICS 339113, Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing (Size Standard 800 employees).

The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically. No hard copies or CDs will be accepted. The proposal must be received by the Government before the deadline for proposal submissions listed in Block 9 of the SF33 form. Each volume shall be contained in a separate electronic file. All volumes shall list the Prime contractor and any teaming partners/subcontractors on the first page, and all five volumes must be provided with the initial proposal submission.

Proposals shall be emailed to the following addresses:

Ms. Andrea Seaman Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground Andrea.L.Seaman.civ@army.mil

Ms. Shelby Saum Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground Shelby.A.Saum.civ@army.mil

The offeror’s proposal shall consist of five (5) volumes. The Volumes are:

I – Technical II – Quality Management System III – Past Performance IV – Price V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Statement of Requirements (SOR) with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. The Offeror shall describe its proposal, through the use of graphs, charts, diagrams and narrative, in sufficient detail for the Government to understand and evaluate the nature of the approach. In its evaluation, the Government will consider the degree of substantiation of the proposed approaches in the proposal volumes.

The Government evaluation will be limited to the information provided by the Offeror, and the Government will not assume the Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, or commitment not specified in the technical volume of its proposal. The Offeror is responsible for a technical proposal with sufficient details to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and full compliance with the mailto:Andrea.L.Seaman.civ@army.mil mailto:Shelby.A.Saum.civ@army.mil solicitation requirements to permit a complete, thorough, and accurate evaluation of the submitted proposal. The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide an adequate basis for evaluation of the proposal. The use of hyperlinks in the technical proposal or bid is prohibited and any such links will not be viewed or considered. If the Offeror includes assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats or exceptions with the proposal submitted in response to this solicitation, the Offeror may not be considered for contract award. All assumptions shall be addressed through the use of the question and answer period. Questions shall be submitted via email to the Contract Specialist designated in Block 10 of the Standard Form 33 by 16:00ET no later than fifteen (15) business days after the RFP release.

Proposal volumes shall not contain classified information. Proposal volumes that include classified information will be considered nonresponsive and categorized as unacceptable.

If the Offeror wishes to restrict the disclosure of their proposal or bid, the Offeror shall mark their proposal in accordance with FAR 52.203-13(b)(3)(ii). Multiple proposals from a single Offeror will not be accepted. All volumes of the Offeror’s proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 180 days from the day it is received by the Government. The proposal shall state that proposed prices are valid for a minimum of 180 days after being received by the Government.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape. All pages prepared in Microsoft Word 2010 and later, files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” Font – Time New Roman size 12

NOTE: 11x17 folded pages are acceptable for tables/graphic representations; however, each 11x17 page counts as two pages.

Pages that exceed the required page limitations indicated in the Proposal Content Requirements section will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed from the proposal by the Contracting Officer prior to turning the proposal over to the Government evaluation team(s) and will not be considered in the evaluation.

2. File Packaging. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aid in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel unprotected format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2010 and later. Please note – Self extracting .exe files are not acceptable.

3. The Offeror’s proposal must include all information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may not be evaluated. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Requirements (SOR). Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. The Offeror shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of its capabilities and experience. Offeror’s proposals with vague or terse statements such as “will comply,” “noted,” and “understood,” etc. may not be accepted by the Government.

4. The Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the solicitation. All inconsistencies, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price shall be explained in the proposal. Unexplained inconsistencies, such as those appearing to result from the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of work for the overall solicitation, may be grounds for rejection of a proposal.

5. Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume.

Information included in the incorrect volume will not be evaluated. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Title Page, Table of Contents (no more than two levels e.g.

1.1, 1.2), Summary Section and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the volume. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

All five volumes must be provided with the initial proposal submission.

6. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conducts discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. Should the Government determine that discussions are necessary, then such discussions will be held with all Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range, IAW FAR 15.306(c). If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition before award will receive prompt written notice of this decision IAW FAR 15.503.

7. No pricing information shall be in any volumes other than Volume IV – Price.

Proposals that fail to separate the price factor may be determined unacceptable and may not be considered for award.

8. The Government may, at its discretion, incorporate portions of the successful Offeror’s proposal, including information provided by the Offeror during discussions, into the resultant contract. Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract.

PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The minimum requirements for each Proposal Volume are as follows:

NOTE: Page count includes all pages including but not limited to; body and all appendices. Cover sheets, title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, and all Government provided appendices/forms do not count toward page limits. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

Offerors shall submit only essential matters sufficient to clearly present their approach and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. The Government may consider how well the Offeror complied with these instructions when evaluating the Offeror's capability to perform the prospective contract. Offerors are advised to ask for clarification on any part of these instructions that they do not understand.

The Offeror' s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the solicitation. All inconsistencies, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price shall be explained in the proposal. Unexplained inconsistencies, such as those appearing to result from the Offeror's lack of understanding of the nature

Volume Title

Maximum Pages

Volume I - Technical 20

Volume II - Quality Management System No limit

Volume III - Past Performance 25

Volume IV – Price N/A

Volume V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

N/A and scope of work for the overall solicitation or their lack of financial ability to perform the contract, may be grounds for rejection of a proposal.

Prior to award, the Government may, at its discretion, incorporate portions of the successful Contractor's proposal, including information provided by the Offeror during discussions, into the resultant contract.

Security Classification Specifications. DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification - Please note, Contract Security Classification Specification (DD254) compliance is not part of the evaluation criteria for selecting the awardee, but it is responsibility criteria that will be considered before a firm is determined eligible for award of this contract. Inability or failure to meet the DD254 requirements will result in a determination of non-responsibility. Any potential offeror's disagreement with the DD254 compliance requirement must be raised prior to the SAPI Solicitation closing date.

Volume/Factor I – Technical

The Offeror’s Technical Factor volume is comprised of the Offeror’s:

Section 1: Production Demonstration Model (PDM) Test Report – PDM Test Quantities/Report for PDM Test Protocol requirements. Prior to submission of any written proposal, Offerors must send PDM samples to Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) in the required quantities stated below. The timeline for ATC to complete the non-ballistic PDM protocol and provide a report is approximately fifteen (15) business days. As part of its proposal, the Offeror must furnish a PDM Test Report, signed by the test lab, showing PDM samples met non-ballistic protocols and are in accordance with the length, width, weight, thickness, body side surface profile, chamfer, perpendicularity, and parallelism requirements detailed in the Purchase Description (PD).

This PDM Test Report is due at the same time as the entire written proposal (all volumes) is submitted and must be submitted on or before the due date for proposals.

All testing, both ballistic and non-ballistic, must be conducted at ATC. Dimensional measurements shall be taken utilizing the ATOS Blue Light Triple Scan Camera or substantially equivalent technology, in the Government's discretion.

Offerors shall deliver the Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) PDM samples to to Ms.

Erin Andrulewicz, erin.m.andrulewicz.civ@army.mil at the following address:

Unites States Army, Aberdeen Test Center ATTN: Soldier Survivability Branch (Building 608) 6850 Lanyard Road, Building 358 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5059 Phone: 410-278-1569

PDM Sample Quantities:

For the PDM samples (that the Offeror shall provide to ATC in order to obtain a PDM Test Report), the Offeror shall provide a total of 34 PDM SAPI samples, in the sizes below. The Government anticipates that the primary PDM testing will utilize 19 samples and the 15 additional samples will serve as contingency or spares, for use at the Government's discretion.

SIZE SAPI

X-Small (XS) 5

Small (S) 7

Medium (M) 8

Large (L) 7

X-Large (XL) 7

TOTAL 34

Some or all of the PDM Samples will be destroyed in testing. They will not be returned.

Offerors are encouraged to enter PDM ballistic testing and allow enough time for a second round of PDM ballistic testing at ATC, or NIJ Certified Labs, if Offerors are dissatisfied with their PDM ballistic Test Report. For the purposes of the source selection, the PDM Test Report shall be conclusive regarding the performance of an Offeror's PDM sample performance.

Section 2: Dry Layup Sample & Government Retained Samples - In addition to the PDM Samples submitted to Aberdeen Test Center for non-ballistic testing- and ATC or other NIJ lab for ballistic testing - the Offeror shall deliver five SAPI samples, one of each size (XS, S, M, L, XL), to the Program Office in Ft. Belvoir as identified below. The dry layup samples will be reviewed against the Product Manager Soldier Protective Equipment (PM SPE) Hard Armor Dry Layup Review Check List.

The size Medium shall be a deconstructed Dry Layup Sample of the SAPI design, evaluated for uniform area of coverage, workmanship, composition, and orientation. The other four sizes (XS, S, L, XL) should not be deconstructed, and will be retained by the Government as Government Retained Samples. These Government Retained Samples, like the PDM samples, should meet all PD requirements and the Government reserves the right to test the Government retained samples, should the Government determine such testing in necessary for any reason. Neither the Dry Layup Sample nor the Government Retained Samples will be returned.

The Government Retained Sample and Dry Lay Up Sample shall be delivered, by the proposal due date, to Mr. Ameer Ahmad at the following address:

Product Manager Soldier Protective Equipment

ATTN: Mr. Ameer Ahmad 10125 Kingman Road Building 317 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Email: ameer.s.ahmad.ctr@army.mil

Section 3: Written Technical Narrative - Written Technical Narrative should demonstrate that the minimum requirements for the Technical Factor are met in accordance with (IAW) Purchase Description (PD) CO/PD 00-03 Revision G. In addition, the narrative shall include references to specific data within the test report that validates the vendor's assertion of meeting each technical requirement. See Section M of the RFP for how Ballistic Protection; Weight; Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage, and Design and Workmanship will be evaluated.

Also, Offerors shall provide a recommendation which describes a realistic Service Life time period of their proposed design(s). The Government will not evaluate this recommendation as part of the source selection criteria, but the recommendation will be used to inform future Vital Torso Protection (VTP) Service Life Requirements.

Volume/Factor II – Quality Management System (QMS)

The QMS volume shall demonstrate the Offeror understands and has the capability to meet the requirement for ISO 9001:2015 compliance. The Offeror shall also submit all policies or procedures, describing the activities needed to implement the ISO 9001:2015 compliant system, in their entirety. Offerors shall submit records or objective evidence of compliance to ISO 9001:2015. If the Offeror is ISO 9001:2015 registered, the Offeror shall provide the current registration certificate as well as a description of the interaction between the processes of the QMS.

ISO Quality Manual: The Offeror shall submit a Quality Manual (QM) and supporting documentation as part of the proposal that meets the minimum requirements detailed in the solicitation. In addition, as required by ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems, the Offeror shall outline how the Quality Manual will be maintained.

The QM shall include: The scope of the QMS, the ISO 9001:2015 required documented procedures established for the Quality Management System, in their entirety, and a description of the interaction between the processes of the QMS.

Volume/Factor III – Past Performance

Offerors shall submit a list of all Contracts, where the Offeror is/was the prime contractor, during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP, which are Relevant to the efforts required by this Solicitation. Relevant is defined in Section M.

For Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts, please provide base contract information, not details on individual delivery orders.

The Past Performance volume is comprised of three (3) sections and shall be organized (as applicable) to provide data concerning the Prime Offeror.

Section 1 - Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information, organized by contract, in the following format:

a. Contractor place of performance, CAGE Code and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number.

b. Government contracting activity, current address, email address, telephone and fax numbers.

c. Government's technical representative/COR, current email address, telephone, and fax numbers.

d. Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)'s name, current email address, telephone, and fax numbers (if different than the contracting activity).

e. Government contract administration activity's Pre-Award Monitor's name, current email address, telephone, and fax numbers.

f. Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, General Services Administration (GSA) contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

g. Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.) In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, Offerors shall identify both the Primary Contract Type (e.g. Requirements/ Definite Quantity/Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)) and Secondary Contract Type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

h. Awarded price/cost.

i. Final or projected final price.

j. Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

k. Final or projected final and delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

a. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements (i.e. First Article Test failure, Lot Acceptance Test failure), provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective and preventive action(s) taken to avoid recurrence.

b. The Offeror shall list each time the delivery schedule received revision and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The Offeror shall address all Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offeror shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices, Show Cause Letters, or Stop Work Orders received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offeror shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

c. For all contracts, the Offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the Offeror's delivered product.

*Note for New Corporate Entities: New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above.

Section 3 - Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires must be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire and email the questionnaire to the point of contact (POC) for both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POC 's shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and email the entire questionnaire to the Contract Specialist Andrea Seaman, at andrea.l.seaman.civ@army.mil AND the Contracting Officer Shelby Saum at Shelby.a.saum.civ@army.mil, prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

The Offeror shall also email to the Contract Specialist a list of all the POC's who received a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list within twenty (20) calendar days after release of the solicitation. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields:

POC List

Solicitation Number

Company name

Contract Number

Government Agency

POC Last name, First Name

POC Title

POC Telephone number

POC Email Address

Date Emailed to POC (month/day) mailto:andrea.l.seaman.civ@army.mil mailto:Shelby.a.saum.civ@army.mil

Volume/Factor IV – Price

In accordance with FAR 15.403-(l)(b)(l) adequate competition is anticipated in response to this solicitation. Therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required, and data other than certified cost or pricing data is currently required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

However, the Government reserves the right to request and evaluate certified cost or pricing data, if it is determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. If certified cost or pricing data is determined necessary, the Contracting Officer will specific the format and due date for such information and Offerors will be required to provide the requested information to remain eligible for award.

In accordance with FAR 15.403-S(b) the Contracting Officer may specify the format of cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data. Therefore, each offeror shall submit a completed and totaled Section B, completed "Volume IV - Price.xlsx" in electronic formats via email, and accompanying narrative, "Volume IV - Price Narrative.pdf' in enough detail to describe the underlying basis and amounts of the proposed unit prices.

The Offeror shall complete the Volume IV - Price.xlsx matrix (excel spreadsheet) which includes all pricing information in Section B. Offerors must provide unit prices for the quantities indicated. Failure to provide prices for any quantity may result in rejection of a proposal as unacceptable.

Volume V - Solicitation, Offer And Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

Certifications and Representations - Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Section A- Standard Form 33 (SF 33), Solicitation, Offer and Award Section G - Contract Administration Data Section K - Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors

Subcontractors/Team Members/Affiliates/Joint Venture (JV). Offerors proposing subcontractors/team members/affiliates or other organizational elements not part of the entity submitting the offer shall provide evidence of the commitment from these organizations to perform as presented and fully disclosed in the offeror's proposal IAW FAR 9.603l. Examples might include teaming agreements, subcontracts, joint venture agreements, or other similar commitments. If the Offeror is a division or subsidiary of another company an organizational chart depicting all parent and affiliated companies of the Offeror shall be provided. For Mentor-Protégé (MP) joint ventures, confirmation of Small Business Administration approval of the MP joint venture must be submitted with the proposal package. A copy of the agreement establishing the JV must contain the signatures of all members comprising the JV.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

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: Technical, Quality Management System (QMS), Past Performance and Price. The evaluation will utilize a two-phase approach. In Phase 1, Factor 1 Technical will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Offerors whose proposals meet the Technical requirements will proceed to Phase 2 of the evaluation, where an evaluation of the remaining factors will be conducted. Offerors who do not meet the requirements of Phase 1 will be notified in writing of their removal from consideration for award of this contract at the end of the Phase 1 evaluation. In Phase 2, the Quality Management System (QMS) factor is significantly more important than Past Performance, and QMS and Past Performance combined are more important than Price. The Price factor will only be evaluated for proposals that receive a rating of Acceptable or better in Quality Management System and a rating of Neutral or better in Past Performance. The Price factor may become more significant if competing proposals are related similarly for the QMS and Past Performance factors. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS/EVALUATION APPROACH

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

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 Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the QMS and Past Performance evaluation results for all offerors that pass the Phase 1 evaluation are substantially the same.

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

PHASE 1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Technical: The Technical factor is further divided into the following sections:

1. PDM Test Report

2. Dry Layup Sample

3. Government Retained Sample

4. Written Technical Narrative

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical section as it applies to the Statement of Requirement (SOR). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation follows:

1. PDM Test Report. As described in Section L, the Offeror will submit PDM Samples to an independent Army testing center (Aberdeen Test Center) for non-ballistic testing. Ballistic testing will be conducted at ATC or any NIJ certified ballistic lab. Offerors will submit the resulting PDM Test Report, and the report will be evaluated for compliance with ballistic and non-ballistic requirements of the PD.

Specifically, the PDM Test Report will be used to determine the Offeror's ability to meet the PD ballistic and non-ballistic requirements discussed below:

a. Ballistic Protection (Ballistic Testing). PDM Samples shall pass test requirements of the PDM Protocol in CO/PD 00-03 Revision G. The samples used for ballistic testing shall be the same thirty-four (34) samples that undergo non-ballistic testing at ATC.

b. Weight (Non-Ballistic Testing). All thirty-four (34) PDM test articles shall be weighted by ATC, shall meet weight requirements in the PD, and shall have these compliant weights documented in the ATC non-ballistic test report.

c. Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage (Non-Ballistic Testing). PDM Samples shall fit properly into the list of items described in CO/PD 00-03 Revision G, paragraph 3.5.1 Outer Tactical Vest (OTV), Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV), Soldier Plate Carrier System (SPCS), Torso and Extremity Protection (TSP), Modular Scalable Vest (MSV), shall provide uniform areal density per

3.8.1 and shall comply with the Government drawings and PD requirements in paragraphs 3.5.3 and 3.5.4.

d. Design and Workmanship (Non-Ballistic Testing). PDM samples shall demonstrate the product is able to meet minimum product design and workmanship requirements as stated in CO/PD 00-03 Revision G.

2. Dry Layup Sample. The Offeror's dry layup will be evaluated primarily to determine uniform area of coverage, workmanship, composition, and orientation.

The dry layup samples will be reviewed against the Product Manager Soldier Protective Equipment (PM SPE) Hard Armor Dry Layup Review Check List on a pass/fail basis.

3. Government-Retained Samples. The Offeror's Government-retained samples will not be evaluated, unless an unexpected contingency makes such evaluation necessary, as determined by the Government. Submitting the required samples will be considered a Pass; not submitting them, or submitting less than the required number, will be a Fail.

4. Written Technical Narrative. The Offeror's written technical narrative will be evaluated, in conjunction with the PDM Test Report, to assess the adequacy of the Offeror's proposed approach for meeting the requirements of the PD. The Technical Narrative will be evaluated to identify how their PD Samples meet the Ballistic and Non-Ballistic requirements discussed above (Ballistic Protection;

Weight; Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage; Design and Workmanship) and to provide their Service Life Recommendation (not evaluated).

The technical factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Only offerors who receive a Pass for the Technical factor will be evaluated in Phase 2.

PHASE 2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Quality Management System, Past Performance and Price Proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection team as stated below. Price will only be evaluated for proposals that pass Phase 1, and that receive a rating of Acceptable or better in Quality Management System and a rating of Neutral or better in Past Performance. The Quality Management System (QMS) factor is significantly more important than Past Performance, and QSM and Past Performance combined are more important than Price. In a trade-off evaluation, offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the offeror who submitted the lowest price offer.

Factor 2 - Quality Management System (QMS): The Offeror's Quality Manual will be evaluated against the following ISO Clauses and all supporting procedures describing the activities needed to implement the QMS. The ISO Clauses are as follows:

Table ISO 9001:2015

Paragraph Number ISO Paragraph Title

7.5.2 and 7.5.3

Documented Information - Creating and Updating Control of documented information

8.1 Operational Planning and Control

8.4.2 Type and Extent of Control

8.5.2 Identification and Traceability

8.3.4 Design and Development Controls

7.1.5 Monitoring Measuring Resources

9.2 Internal Audit

8.7 Control of Non-Conforming Outputs

10.2 Non-Conformity and Corrective Actions

10 Improvement

The Government will evaluate based upon the offeror' s demonstrated ability to meet ISO 9001:2015 compliance. If an Offeror omits the procedures that support Quality Manual, a rating of Unacceptable may be assigned. If the Offeror is ISO (or AS9100) Certified, the Offeror shall include a copy of its certificate.

If the Offeror regurgitates the solicitation requirements without substantively addressing management of their Subcontractor relationships, this may result in an Unacceptable rating for the Quality Management System Factor.

The QMS Factor will be rated as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable (the definitions of which can be found in Table 1). All Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable or better in QMS to be eligible for award.

Table 1– Combined Technical/Risk Rating Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

Factor 3 - Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy and an overall confidence assessment.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation purposes may include some or all of the following sources:

a. Past performance information provided by the Offeror;

b. Past performance information obtained from other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting Systems (eSRS), or other databases;

c. Interviews/communication with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, other Government Officials;

d. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and,

e. Responses to Past Performance Questionnaires.

The first major aspect of the Past Performance Factor evaluation will be a review of the Recency and Relevancy of an Offeror's individual past performance references.

The Government will first assess each individual past performance reference to determine if it is Recent. The Government will only include Recent past performance references in the Relevancy assessment. For this Solicitation, "Recent" means any contract under which at least 6 months of performance or delivery has taken place within the last five (5) years of the initial proposal due date.

The Government will next assess the Relevancy of each of each individual past performance references. The Relevancy of each past performance reference will be assigned in accordance with the table below:

Table 2 - 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.

Note: Typically, relevant past performance will involve the production of individually-worn hard-armor. The Government anticipates the most relevant past performance will be contracts for the production of the Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) of the same type as being purchased under this Solicitation. Aspects of relevancy that may be reviewed are similarity of prior performance to the solicitation requirements, complexity, dollar value, and contract type.

The second major aspect of the Past Performance Factor evaluation will be an assessment of how well the Offeror performed on its Recent and Relevant efforts, in order to determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment. Each Offeror will receive one Performance Confidence Assessment, which will serve as the overall adjectival rating for the Past Performance Factor.

Table 3 - Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Rating 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.

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

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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 past performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Definitions:

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

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 not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, offerors are advised in accordance with the stated Basis of Award of this solicitation, that the Government may determine a rating of "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" as more valuable to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating in making a best-value tradeoff source selection decision. Offerors that receive a rating of "No Confidence" are not eligible for award.

Factor 4 - Price: Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) ordering periods for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum contract ceiling. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

Note: Proposed unit prices will be binding/or the successful offeror(s) as ceiling prices/or delivery orders, will be incorporated into the resultant contracts, and represent the maximum Unit Price amount throughout the five-year ordering period of the resultant contract.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

D. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held if determined necessary by the Government.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting

Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 3 business days prior to their discussion session. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place virtually via Microsoft Teams.