FA8126-15-R-0002-0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) ADDENDUM

General Information

1. Basis for Contract Award:

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 <http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3834> , as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated cost or price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

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

3. Rejection of Unreasonable Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

4. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

5. Evaluation Factors

Factor 1—Technical Proposal

Factor 2—Cost/Price

a. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all technical factors concurrently for the three (3) lowest priced proposals. Should one of those three (3) proposals not be found technically acceptable, the next one (1) lowest priced offeror will be reviewed for technical acceptance. Then, price will be evaluated and the proposals will be listed from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price either initially or as a result of discussions.

Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

b. Technical Factor:

Acceptable – The proposal meets specified minimum technical evaluation requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Unacceptable – The proposal fails to meet specified minimum technical eavluation requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Technical acceptability will be based on an evaluation of proposals against the criteria stated below and other technical specifications in the Equipment Specification Sheet. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instructions to Offerors, FAR 52.212-1. The minimum technical evaluation requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential criteria:

“CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE A PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET AND A WRITTEN TECHNICAL APPROACH ADDRESSING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT IS NOT MENTIONED OR COVERED IN THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET. THIS INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR YOUR QUOTE TO BE RESPONSIVE AND BE REFERRED FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW.”

Criteria

1.0 Multi‐Material Composit Additive Manufacturing Machine:

1.1 Build Volume:

>= 20in. x 15in. x 9in.

1.2 Resolution:

>= 750 x 750 x 890 dpi in Fine Mode

1.3 Electrical:

240VAC, 6 ‐ 10 amps

1.4 Input File Format:

SLT, CTL

1.5 Multi‐Material in single build

1.6 Dual Build modes (Rapid, Fine)

1.7.0 Build Material Properties:

ABS

1.7.1 Physical Property:

White

1.7.2 Tensile Strength (ksi):

8 – 8.4

1.7.3 Tensile Modulus (ksi):

350 – 355

1.7.4 Elongation at Break (%):

8 – 9

1.7.5 Flexural Strength (ksi):

9.4 – 10

1.7.6 Shore D:

80 ‐ 85

1.8.0 Build Material Properties:

Polycarbonate

1.8.1 Physical Property:

Clear

1.8.2 Tensile Strength (ksi):

8.4 – 9

1.8.3 Tensile Modulus (ksi):

350 – 355

1.8.4 Elongation at Break (%):

12 – 15

1.8.5 Flexural Strength (ksi):

9.2 – 9.5

1.8.6 Shore D:

80 ‐ 85

1.9.0 Build Material Properties:

Rubber

1.9.1 Physical Property:

Black

1.9.2 Tensile Strength (ksi):

0.3 – 0.35

1.9.3 Tensile Modulus (ksi):

0.1 – 0.15

1.9.4 Elongation at Break (%):

290 – 295

2.0 Full Color Gypsum based Additive Manufacturing Machine:

2.1 Build Volume:

>= 20in. x 15in. x 9in

2.2 Resolution:

>= 600 x 540 dpi w/ .004 inch layer thickness

2.3 Number of Print Heads:

>= 5

2.4 Electrical:

240VAC, 6 ‐ 10 amps

2.5 Input File Format:

STL, CTL

2.6 Build Material:

Plastic or Powder w/ epoxy

2.7 Full CMYK Color

2.8 Automatic Build Platform Clearing

2.9 Cleaning / Recycling Station

3.0 Finishing Oven:

3.1 Chamber size (usable space):

>= 30in. x 15in. x 20in.

3.2 Temperature rating:

35°C to 204°C

3.3 Temperature stability:

+/‐ 1°C (minimum)

3.4 Interior material:

304 Stainless Steel

3.5 Electrical:

240VAC, 6 ‐ 11amps

3.6 Insulated gloves

3.7 Cushion tip tongs

3.8 Cleaning wipes

4.0 Other:

4.1 Machine set‐up (installation)

4.2 Transportation

4.3 Training

4.4 Starter kit 7000 cu in. or greater gypsum based

c. Cost/Price Factor:

Cost/Price Evaluation: The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for basic requirements (basic award).

Total Evaluated Price: Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) unit/extended prices plus other associated factors such as: first article testing cost, transportation cost, price evaluation adjustments for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, and application of labor hours to labor hour rates, , etc.

Unreasonably Low Costs or Prices: Unreasonably low proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalance pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6. Determination of Contractor Responsibility

To be eligible for award, an offeror must be determined responsible. A Determination of Contractor Responsibility will be conducted in accordance with FAR 9.1 (CCR, EPLS and ORCA). Past performance information may be gathered from both Government (such as PPIRS, CPARS) and commercial sources. Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available. Past performance will either be satisfactory, neutral, or unsatisfactory. Offerors rated as satisfactory or neutral equals a determination of responsibility. Offerors rated as unsatisfactory equals a determination of non-responsibility. Any unsatisfactory rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and 19.6 for resolution. An offeror who receives a determination of non-responsibility will not be eligible to receive the contract award.

7. Past Performance:

Past performance information may be gathered from both Government (such as PPIRS, CPARS) and commercial sources. Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available. Past performance will either be satisfactory, neutral, or unsatisfactory where satisfactory equals a neutral or determination of responsibility, and unsatisfactory equals a determination of non-responsibility. Any unsatisfactory rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and 19.6 for resolution.

8. Discussions:

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If a request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to EN notices must be included in the FPR in order to be consider in the final evaluation.

9. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors, and all technical specifications of the item description. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. In the case that a discrepancy exist between the Instruction To Offerors (ITO) and the evaluation factors for award, the evaluation criteria in 52.212-2 will take precedence

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)