Draft CCAD IPV Gen II Section M_Industry day.pdf

SPE4AX25R0001

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104

SECTION M EVALUATION FOR AWARD

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS (FAR) 52.212-2 EVALUATION –

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS (NOV 2021) (TAILORED)

M.1 Evaluation Basis for Award

The Government intends to award one contract resulting from this solicitation for the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) Integrated Product Support Vendor (IPV) Generation II Program;

however, the Government is not obligated to make an award. The contract will be awarded to the offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and who would be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. A competitive Source Selection Trade-Off will be used, based on the following factors and Subfactors:

• Factor I: Technical o Subfactor One: Quality Assurance o Subfactor Two: AbilityOne, Small Business and Socioeconomic Program

Participation

• Factor II: Management o Subfactor One: Supply Chain Management o Subfactor Two: Transition Plan

• Factor III: Past Performance

• Factor IV: Price

In the trade-off decision and when combined, technical and management and past performance factors are significantly more important than the price factor. Of the non-price factors, past performance is more important than technical/management. Technical/Management subfactors are equally important. If any subfactor is rated as unacceptable, the overall factor will be rated as unacceptable. Prospective offerors are forewarned that a proposal with the lowest price that also meets solicitation requirements may not be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government.

ADDENDA FOR FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

M.2. Evaluation of Proposals.

M.2.1 Offerors are required to submit proposals as prescribed in Section L of the solicitation. A proposal determined to be non-compliant with the solicitation and in need of excessive revisions that could not be easily corrected through discussions, if conducted, may be rejected. No discussion will be held with rejected offerors, nor will any rejected offeror be given an opportunity to revise its offer to correct those deficiencies to become acceptable after the date and time established for receipt of initial offers.

M.2.2 The Government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal. The failure of an offeror’s proposal to meet any given requirement of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may result in the entire proposal being found to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2.3 All proposals will be evaluated to determine that the offered price is fair and reasonable.

M.2.4 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions.

Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial proposal should contain the best terms from a non-price and a cost/price position.

M.2.5 If the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Contracting Officer (KO) determines discussions are necessary, those offerors retained in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to address weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks in their proposal. An offeror’s response resulting from discussions, or lack thereof, will be included in the final evaluation.

M.3 Non-Price Evaluation Factors.

M.3.1 Factor I: Technical Capabilities

The technical capabilities factor shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below. The purpose of these subfactors is to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The subfactors are equally important. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure it addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail, including identifying risks and mitigations. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

The proposal will be evaluated based on resume submission of key personnel. Resumes will not be counted toward the page limit in L.1.1. List and describe all key personnel (including subcontractor personnel) that are essential to the successful management and oversight of this effort. Describe the qualifications of key personnel to demonstrate their understanding and experience in working with and/or supporting the government maintenance process. Describe what roles and responsibilities of those personnel will have with respect to managing this effort.

Specifically identify the Program Manager with overall responsibility for the program in ensuring performance to the solicitation requirements and the minimum qualifications of this position.

M.3.1.1 Subfactor One: Quality Assurance.

The primary goal of the proposal submissions relating to its Quality System is to demonstrate that the offeror has the systems necessary to meet the performance standards while ensuring the quality and conformance of the items supplied. The proposal will be evaluated based on the below requirements.

1. The proposal will be evaluated based on the description of the offeror’s quality system and assurance process to ensure it procures and provides items from approved sources, provides items that meet the requirements of the drawings and specifications, and prevents counterfeit material from entering the supply chain, to meet the requirements of section 2.4.1 of the PWS. The proposal must include a copy of its current quality standard (i.e. International Organization for Standardization (ISO 9001) or equivalent). The current quality standard will not be counted toward the page limit in L.1.1.

2. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s quality plan that ensures that their internal processes and procedures provide accurate information and data (e.g., invoices and reports) to the Government, to meet the requirements of section 2.4.1 of the

PWS.

3. The proposal will be evaluated based on how the offeror will ensure product conformance as well as ensuring criteria standards for testing, inspection, and marking are met, to meet the requirements of section 2.4.1 of the PWS.

4. The proposal will be evaluated based on commercial warranty provisions and return/exchange program for incorrect or defective component items, to meet the requirements of section 3.8 of the PWS.

5. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s obsolescence management program for managing the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers and its resources and approach for providing the Government with information regarding any known obsolescence issues. Additionally, the offeror should advise on the assistance it will provide to the Government in establishing obsolescence solutions, to meet the requirements of section 3.8 of the PWS.

6. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s system for obtaining, handling, and supplying Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) certified parts, parts requiring Qualified Product List (QPLs), or in accordance with Government drawings and specifications, plus proper handling of Critical Safety Item (CSI) items, items requiring First Article Testing (FAT), Production Lot Testing (PLT), DNA marking or other special requirements, to meet the requirements of section 2.4.1 of the PWS.

7. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s plan and actions that will be taken to address product deficiencies and discrepancies, to meet the requirements of section 3.8 of the PWS.

8. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s plan and actions that will be taken to manage shelf-life items, with specific management of bulk shelf-life material, to meet the requirements of section 3.2 of the PWS.

M.3.1.2 Subfactor Two: AbilityOne, Small Business and Socioeconomic Program Participation.

The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s (both large and small businesses) submission of a Small Business Commitment Plan Document (SBCPD) that will describe the extent of small business commitment. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the extent of the commitment to small business concerns, how it will track orders with small business, how the offeror will demonstrate and achieve the required minimum of 25% small business commitment requirement and how the offeror will implement an incremental approach to achieve up to 50% small business participation. Throughout the life of the contract, on an annual basis, the awardee will report small business participation results and describe how the results compare to the proposed SBCPD.

1. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s (both large and small businesses) submission of a SBCPD. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s level of commitment to small businesses (as a small business prime and/or first tier small business subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition.

Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror only -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime { } Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU) or { } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a { } Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) { } Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) { } Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business { } Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) { } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

(1) The proposal will be evaluated based on the extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals.

• Provide a listing of proposed subcontractors with their specific names, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s), and respective socio-economic categories to the extent they are known.

(2) The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments such as long-term agreements are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones).

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the extent of commitment to use small businesses. Provide a listing of all small business subcontractors and types of commitments if any are in place for this specific acquisition, such as, written contract, purchase order, exclusivity arrangements, joint venture and mentor-protégé.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the description of the efforts your company will make and implement to assure that small business concerns and socio-economic categories - VOSB; SDVOSB; HUBZone; SDB; AbilityOne; or a WOSB concern will have equal opportunity to compete for subcontracts under any resulting contract.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the provided name and title of the individual principally responsible for ensuring company support to such firms.

(3) The proposal will be evaluated based on the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the current and planned proposed range of services, supplies, and any other support that will be provided to you by small business and socio-economic categories.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the listing of principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses. Be as specific as possible, reference to PWS paragraphs as applicable to identify the variety and complexity of work small businesses are to perform.

(4) The proposal will be evaluated based on the realism of the proposal.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s submission of a detailed plan to meet the commitments proposed, along with the supporting business case rationale.

Provide adequate justification for lack of small business participation and for any proposed percentages below the Government target small business commitments.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s justifications that must include sufficient discussion of how efficient and effective contracting performance, nature of supplies, availability of small business subcontractors, cost, delivery, any actions taken to increase unmet commitments, and/or any other relevant information supports a sound business case.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on any future the offeror has for developing additional subcontracting opportunities for all categories of small business concerns during the contract performance.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the type of performance data you will accumulate and provide to the DLA KO regarding your support of small business and socio-economic categories during the period of contract performance.

(5) The proposal will be evaluated based on past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

• When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror in the Past Performance Volume 4, the proposal will be evaluated based on whether the offeror awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, VOSB concerns, SDVOSB concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, SDB concerns, AbilityOne, and WOSB concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If utilizing small businesses in current or prior contracts was not practicable, the proposal will be evaluated based on why this was not practicable. The proposal will also be evaluated based on any information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing small business on past contracts in detail. Include at a minimum, the two most recent Summary Subcontract Reports (SSR).

(6) The proposal will be evaluated based on the extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition. The proposal will also be evaluated based on what proportion of your proposal, as a percentage of dollars, will be subcontracted to small business and socio-economic categories.

• The proposal will be evaluated based on the total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

Total Contract Value (TCV): $____________________ Dollar Value of your Participation as a Prime Contractor: $_____________ Total Percentage planned for Large Business(es) % = $ __________ Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) % = $ _________ NOTE: When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100%.

The proposal will be evaluated based on the percentage of work performed by small businesses that qualify in multiple socio- economic categories that may be counted in each category (reference the below table). The sum of all percentages need not equal 100%. All percentages shall use TCV as a baseline.

The proposal will be evaluated based on adequate rationale if socio-economic entity commitments are not met. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a commitment is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a commitment is unmet, and any actions being taken to increase any unmet commitments.

Small Business Type Percentage of TCV Dollar Value

SDB

HUB Zone

WOSB

SDVOSB

VOSB

HBCU /MI

AbilityOne

*Per DFARS 252.219-7003, subcontracts with AbilityOne may also be counted toward the offeror’s small business subcontracting goal.

NOTE: Separate from the SBCPD, other than United States (U.S.) small business offerors are required to submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) 252.219- 7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a Comprehensive subcontracting plan).

Other than U.S. small businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award.

2. The proposal will be evaluated based on how small business commitment will be tracked at the order level.

3. The proposal will be evaluated based on how the offeror will achieve the required minimum of 25% small business commitment in performing the contract and the mitigation of risk to avoid not achieving the 25%.

4. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s identification of techniques that will be used to aggressively pursue small business commitment during contract performance, such as industry days, notices in commercial publications, and similar efforts.

5. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s incremental scale to surpass the minimum requirement of 25% small business participation to achieve a goal of 50% small business participation.

6. The offeror’s present and/or past experience shall be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the proposed small business commitments. The proposal will be evaluated based on the percentage of work performed by small businesses in comparison to the small business goals in previous contracts.

M.3.2 Factor II: Management.

The management factor shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below. The purpose of these subfactors is to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The subfactors are equally important. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure it addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail, including identifying risks and mitigations. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

The proposal will be evaluated based on resume submission of key personnel. Resumes will not be counted toward the page limit in L.1.1. List and describe all key personnel (including subcontractor personnel) that are essential to the successful management and oversight of this effort. Describe the qualifications of key personnel to demonstrate their understanding and experience in working with and/or supporting the government maintenance process. Describe what roles and responsibilities of those personnel will have with respect to managing this effort.

Specifically identify the Program Manager with overall responsibility for the program in ensuring performance to the solicitation requirements and the minimum qualifications of this position.

M.3.2.1 Subfactor One: Supply Chain Management.

The primary goal of the proposal submissions relating to Supply Chain Management is to demonstrate that the offeror has an adequate supply chain infrastructure (to include personnel, processes, and program-level managerial structure) in place to support the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated based on the below requirements.

1. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s corporate structure identifying the responsibilities of the offeror and all critical subcontractors relating to Supply Chain Management and oversight of the contract. A "critical subcontractor" is defined as any subcontractor, team member, or consultant (at any tier) designated by the prime contractor as being necessary to the performance management and operational oversight activities in performance of the resulting contract (i.e., from contract award to contract expiration).

2. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to integrate manpower, facilities, and a supply chain necessary for a program of this magnitude, including plans for site activation, acquisition of consumable items, bin replenishment, stockage level management, and support for worldwide and surge and sustainment (S&S) requirements, in order to meet the requirements of Section 1.4 of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

3. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to maintain a Management Information System (MIS) for reports, information flow, connectivity with existing and emerging government information systems, supplier network management, subcontract management, surge/sustainment requirements and invoicing, to meet the requirements of section 5.0 of the PWS.

4. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s approach to maintain a 99.0% Bin Fill Rate under normal fluctuation in customer operational requirements, to meet the requirements of section 4.0 of the PWS.

5. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to establish long term agreements with the supplier base to maintain material support, to meet the requirements of section 2.2 of the PWS.

6. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to identify the metrics, procedures, and frequency by which it will measure and continuously improve performance under the contract, to meet the requirements of sections 4.0, 6.0, and 8.0 of the PWS.

7. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to identify a process for expeditiously responding to and meeting both planned and unplanned variability in customer demand, to meet the requirements of section 2.4.7 of the PWS.

8. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s approach to provide forecasting support that would result in a reduction in material obligations while not negatively impacting Bin Fill Rate, to meet the requirements of section 3.7 of the PWS.

M.3.2.2 Subfactor Two: Transition Plan.

The primary goal of the proposal submissions relating to the contractor’s transition plan is to demonstrate how the offeror’s execution approach will successfully operate program transition support and to provide assurance that the offeror’s approach will satisfy (or exceed) the performance requirements.

1. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s development of a transition plan from contract award through Initial Operational Capability (IOC) to Full Operational Capability (FOC) in accordance with Section 10 of the PWS by the time of activation.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the following:

• Dated milestones must be identified for each step of the plan within the specified two-month transition timeframe.

• Any actions that will cause a delay and impact the successful FOC must be clearly identified.

• The process for establishment of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and any other required system capabilities.

• Identify all aspects of the proposal that are dependent upon Government action and/or information for the offeror to successfully perform its transition to full implementation.

2. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s plan to execute the Supply Chain Management responsibilities at CCAD site as identified in the PWS, Section 10.3.

3. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s approach to identify potential supply chain risks to meet specific performance standards and provide an approach to mitigate each risk identified to meet the requirements of section 2.4 of the PWS.

4. The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s plan to successfully accomplish hiring actions and plan to form an infrastructure for logistics support, and interfacing with their supplier base, to meet the requirements of section 10.6 of the PWS.

M.3.2.3 Technical Capabilities/Management Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The five subfactors used for the combined technical/ risk ratings are equally important.

Each subfactor will receive a separate rating. The subfactor ratings will then be rolled up to achieve a final technical/risk rating. The following adjectival ratings shall be utilized/assigned in the evaluation of the Technical/Management proposals.

Combined Technical Capabilities/Management Risk Rating

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

M.3.3 Factor III: Past Performance.

M.3.3.1 The offeror’s present and/or past performance experience shall be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the proposed contract requirements. If the offeror’s experience is not sufficient, the experience of any significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, predecessor entity, etc. of the offeror will be evaluated as experience of the offeror, if the offer adequately details the relevance of that past performance.. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated recent performance (i.e., currently ongoing or completed within the last three calendar years from the solicitation open date). relevant record of performance in supplying services and products that are the same or similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude (i.e., dollar value, volume) to the requirements of the solicitation. For the purpose of this requirement, same or similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude refers to number of NSNs and bins.

CPARS for the full duration of the submitted contracts will be evaluated. Each submitted contract will be weighted equally, and all contract years will be weighted equally.

M.3.3.2 Relevancy and Confidence Assessment.

The following relevancy ratings shall be used in the Past Performance evaluation.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

After ratings for relevancy have been assigned, a confidence assessment is determined which reflects, based on the quality of the offeror’s performance on the assessed present/past performance, an expectation of the offeror’s successful performance of the requirements herein. The following confidence assessments shall be used in the evaluation of the Past Performance factor.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

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

M.3.3.3 An offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when it has no record of relevant past performance or when information on the offeror’s past performance is not available; a “Neutral” rating/assessment is assigned under these circumstances. An evaluation of neutral/unknown confidence will not eliminate an offeror from the overall review and evaluation of its proposal for the requirement herein.

M.3.3.4 A record of favorable relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral” rating. Likewise, a recent relevant record of favorable performance may receive a higher rating than a less recent relevant record of favorable performance. The past performance of the offeror will be weighted more heavily than the past performance of any significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, etc.

M.3.3.5 Adverse past performance for which an offeror did not previously have an opportunity to comment will be handled through communications or discussions, in accordance with FAR 15.306(b) or (d).

M.4 Factor IV: Price.

M.4.1 Reasonableness. Adequate price competition is expected to support the determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be utilized to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional cost data in accordance with FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

M.4.2 Balance. Unbalanced pricing is discussed in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or underestimated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.4.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for items identified for pricing which are applicable to the basic requirements and other price-related issues. The TEP shall include all prices associated with providing the final items to the Government. The TEP will be calculated by totaling:

1. Extended offered prices for CLINs 0001. Extended pricing for CLIN 0001 will be calculated by multiplying the per item price by the one (1) year estimated ADQ by 10 [unit price * EAD * 10]

2. CLINs 0002 and 1002. CLINs 0002, and 1002 will not be extended as the offeror shall propose a fixed price for the base and each option period for the material management CLINs.

3. Kitting surcharge element CLIN 0004. The Kitting Surcharge element of the TEP is calculated as follows: =sum of items in each kit [extended kit unit price after surcharge % applied – extended kit unit price before surcharge % applied] * max annual kit order qty. The formula for the kitting surcharge element is shown in Attachment x.

The TEP elements are further explained below:

M.4.3.1 Material Contract Line-Item Number. DLA sourced material will be purchased under Military Standard Requisitioning and Issue Procedures (MILSTRIP) Signal Code B at the DLA Standard Unit Price (SUP) and therefore not evaluated.

Vendor sourced material prices are established and are subject to an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) on an annual basis pursuant to DLA Procurement Note C09 – Economic Price Adjustment – Department of Labor Index. Material contract line-item number (CLIN) will be paid out monthly.

All national item identification numbers (NIINs) shall be priced for this action utilizing the Market Basket items as found at RFP Attachment x. The Contractor’s price proposal shall consist of a proposal of the items identified in the Section B – Pricing attachment.

Failure to submit a price for each NSN requiring a price may result in an unacceptable price proposal and thus, the offeror may not be considered for award.

Note: For CLIN 0001, evaluation for award is on an all or none basis for the entire population of NSNs identified. Failure to submit a price for each NSN on CLIN 0001 may result in an unacceptable price proposal and may not be considered for award.

While evaluation is based on the entire population under CLIN 0001, the actual award may be made for less than the entire population of NSNs in CLIN 0001.

Offerors shall use the Estimated Annual Demand Quantity (ADQ) of items identified in the Section B – Pricing attachment. The estimated quantities provided throughout the CCAD IPV Gen II RFP and its Attachments are based on historical demand and operating conditions. These estimates may not reflect the quantities realized during the CCAD IPV Gen II contract performance.

M.4.3.1.1 Material Price Formula – This component shall represent the price(s) for material and related material costs only and shall consist of the following elements. Material unit prices shall be carried to two decimal places only.

• The price(s) obtained by the offeror/contractor for its vendor(s) for the parts

• If transportation is not included in the above parts price, transportation expense to move the parts from the vendor’s facility to the specific customer site or any destination within the continental limits of the U.S., excluding Alaska, as specified in the delivery order. (FOB Destination)

• Expenses related to the preparation for delivery requirements (preservation, packaging, packing, marking and bar coding). The site requirements follow best commercial packaging (i.e., no bar coding). The packaging requirements for any worldwide demand orders for DLA Distribution shipments will be in accordance with the delivery order

• Profit

M.4.3.2 Material Management CLIN. The material management fee includes all the cost elements for supporting the CCAD customer. This price is to be stated as a total dollar amount for the base and option period. Fixed pricing is established for the level of performance to support demands over a ten-year ordering period, to include a five-year base ordering period, and one five-year option period. Material management is inclusive of all incidental services including, but not limited to:

• Bin Management o Direct labor associated with material management and distribution of parts to the customer site bins.

o Direct costs to establish the contractor’s on-site facility used as a central receiving or storage area for bin replenishment support at specific customer site.

• Overhead (OH) and General and Administration (G&A) expenses

• Profit

M.4.4 Kitting Support. Kitting will be proposed and evaluated based on a fixed percentage applied to each kit to cover any associated labor costs to assemble and deliver kits as described in the PWS. The Kitting Surcharge element of the TEP is calculated as follows: =sum of items in each kit [extended kit unit price after surcharge % applied – extended kit unit price before surcharge % applied] * max annual kit order qty. The formula for the kitting surcharge element is shown in Attachment x.

M.4.5 Transition CLIN. Fixed Pricing is established for the level of performance to support efforts during the first six-month period to cover transition, inventory build-up, and implementation costs. These costs should include, but are not limited to, staffing, inventory, site activation. Payment for this CLIN will occur monthly during the transition period as milestones are reached in accordance with the proposed transition milestone submitted by the offeror.

Transition costs will be included in the total contract price. However, transition costs will not be evaluated as part of the TEP. All proposed transition costs will be evaluated for price reasonableness and should be supported by other than formal cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR.15.403-3.

M.4.6 Total Contract Proposal Price. The total contract proposal price will be calculated using the following formula:

(CLIN 0001 * 10 years) + CLIN 0002 + CLIN 0003 (Transition) + (CLIN 0004 * 10 years) + CLIN 1002 = Total contract Price.

While the TEP does not include CLIN 0003 (Transition), CLIN 0003 is included in the total contract proposal price. CLIN 0003 (Transition) will be evaluated for reasonableness and must be supported by other than formal cost and pricing data submitted in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]