M-900.pdf

- 1 -

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

RFP FA8532-18-R-0003

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation:

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

2. Factors and Subfactors: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Factors and Subfactors:

Factor I: Price Factor II: Technical o Subfactor 1) Trailer Design o Subfactor 2) Service Brake Design o Subfactor 3) Human Factors Design o Subfactor 4) Technical Services

Factor III: Past Performance

- 2 -

a. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price.

3. Evaluation Process:

Gating:

Gate 1: All proposals received will be ranked from lowest to highest total evaluated price (TEP).

The five offerors with the lowest TEP will move to Gate 2.

Gate 2: A complete evaluation of the technical factor and complete evaluation of the cost/price factor will be conducted for the five (5) offerors with the lowest TEP. The offeror(s) with the lowest TEP that is technically acceptable will then move to Gate 3.

Gate 3: A complete past performance evaluation will be conducted for the lowest TEP with a technically acceptable proposal. If the lowest TEP with an "Acceptable" technical rating receives a "Substantial Confidence" rating, then a recommendation will be presented to the SSA for award. If the lowest TEP with an "Acceptable" technical rating does not result in a "Substantial Confidence", the evaluation will continue until there is a reasonable pool of offerors that can be presented to the SSA for award consideration in Gate 4.

Gate 4: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award.

NOTE 1: The Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process at any stage to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision.

NOTE 2: Discussions may be conducted as deemed necessary during the gate evaluation process. If discussions are conducted, notifications will be issued accordingly to those offerors eliminated from the competitive range.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be reviewed to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required.

The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

- 3 -

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of PD15WRWNZEA05 and SOW (including any revisions), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. NOTE: In accordance with Section L, each portion/section of the technical proposal shall be clearly delineated between the MHU-110V2 and the MHU-141V2 trailer. For example, Subfactor 1, Trailer Design, shall be clearly delineated by the offeror to segregate MHU-110V2 content from MHU-141V2 content.

The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail:

Subfactor 1: Trailer Design.

The standard for Subfactor 1 is met when the detailed narrative included in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for the design of each trailer and demonstrates through accurate supporting explanations, calculations, and conceptual layout drawings that the design approach meets the requirements mandated in sections

3.5 (all), 3.8.1, 3.8.3, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.9, and 3.8.14 (all) of PD15WRWNZEA05. The conceptual drawings sufficiently outline the completed trailer assembly from all sides, to include top and bottom views. The layout sufficiently details the proposed location of main components such as axles, suspension, brake components, drawbar, etc. Sufficient estimated center of gravity calculations for the complete (empty) trailer are provided.

Sufficient wheel/tire/hub manufacturer’s data sheet(s) with offeror‘s supporting analysis for weight rating are provided. Sufficient spring/shackle/shock data with offeror’s supporting analysis for weight rating are provided. Sufficient design data indicating the trailer design is capable of supporting the required static and dynamic loads over the required terrains at the required speeds is provided.

Subfactor 2: Service Brake Design.

The standard for Subfactor 2 is met when the detailed narrative included in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for the design of each trailer and demonstrates through accurate supporting explanations, calculations, and conceptual layout drawings that the design approach meets the requirements mandated in sections 3.8.3.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.7, and 3.8.7.2 of PD15WRWNZEA05. Additionally, the narrative shall sufficiently detail the rotor/caliper/master cylinder design criteria (as it pertains to stopping ability of the gross vehicle weight rating of the trailer); includes sufficient manufacturer’s data sheets for selected components; and sufficiently details that the selected service braking system is compatible with the required hub/wheel/tire package.

Subfactor 3: Human Factors Design.

The standard for Subfactor 3 is met when the detailed narrative included in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for the design of each trailer and demonstrates through accurate supporting explanations, calculations, and conceptual layout drawings that the design approach meets the requirements mandated in section

3.7.4 and 3.8.7 of PD15WRWNZEA05. Sufficient design details of the component selection as it pertains to the “push-ability” of the trailer design regardless of the environmental conditions defined in section 3.4 (all) of PD15WRWNZEA05 are provided.

- 4 -

Subfactor 4: Technical Services.

The standard for Subfactor 4 is met when the detailed narrative provided in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for technical design services encompassed with building each trailer and through accurate supporting explanations, calculations, and conceptual layout drawings that the approach meets the requirements mandated in sections 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, and 3.6.4.1 of the SOW. Sufficient details regarding the contractors approach to meeting the finite element analysis, finite element analysis correlation, fatigue analysis, and modernized technical data package (3D iPDFs) mandated in the statement of work are provided.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts (to include DoD, other Federal Agencies, Foreign Military Sales, and/or commercial contracts) performed within the past eight (8) years (with at least one year of performance history) from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

- 5 -

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror and/or joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Critical Subcontractors The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ past performance WILL NOT include the past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

d) Key Personnel: In considering past performance, the Government Will Not consider “Key Personnel” of the offeror/joint venture member even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

- 6 -

• The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government is seeking a contractor that can display experience with both the design and manufacture of products comparable to those sought by this acquisition. Therefore, offerors may present up to four (4) contracts concerning design AND manufacture of trailers;

OR alternatively, offerors may submit up to two (2) contracts concerning relevant design, redesign, or modification tasks for end item trailers, major trailer components, or similar items AND the offeror may submit the balance of the contracts concerning relevant features of manufactured trailers.

NOTE: no more than four (4) contracts shall be submitted for Government review and of the four (4), no more than two (2) efforts shall be stand alone relevant design, redesign, or modification tasks for end item trailers, major trailer components, or similar items.

NOTE: The Very Relevant and Relevant criteria contain two components: Section A and Section B. Section A addresses manufacturing features and Section B addresses design, redesign or modification tasks. For all efforts submitted, the offeror must identify if and how the submitted effort satisfies the criteria of Section A and/or Section B.

- 7 -

The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must include aspects of manufacturing features AND/OR design efforts for trailers.

To be considered very relevant, the manufacturing features of the trailer shall have included 7 of the following 9:

Section A:

o 8,000 pounds or greater Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) o Ackerman style steering o Breakaway brakes o All aluminum construction with the exception of limited attachments and running gear o Enhanced corrosion protection such as powder coating, MWAS, etc.

o SAE AS8090 Type II, Group C compliant suspension o Designed for carrying munitions, weapons, or other similar hazardous payloads o Tandem towing capability o Moveable or reconfigurable decks; no wooden deck structure

To be considered very relevant, design, redesign, or modification tasks for end item trailers, major trailer components, or similar items shall have included 3 of the 4 following :

Section B:

o Finite element analysis, including fatigue analysis o Dynamic load testing o Military use or equivalent mobility testing o Military style technical data package creation (technical orders/manuals, spare parts data, and/or 2D/3D drawings)

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must include aspects of manufacturing features AND/OR design efforts for trailers.

To be considered relevant, the manufacturing features of the trailer shall have included 5 of the following 9:

Section A:

o 5,500 pounds or greater Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) o Kingpin, fifth wheel, Ackerman style steering or any other style of steering

- 8 -o Hydraulically actuated service brakes o Ferrous or aluminum construction o Powder or Liquid type corrosion protection o Any type suspension o Designed for carrying hazardous payloads o Tandem towing capability o Moveable or reconfigurable decks; no wooden deck structure

To be considered relevant, design, redesign, or modification tasks for end item trailers, major trailer components, or similar items shall have included 2 of the 4 following :

Section B:

o Finite element analysis o Dynamic load testing o Any type of mobility testing o Technical data package creation or revision (technical orders/manuals, spare parts data, and/or 2D/3D drawings)

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered somewhat relevant, efforts must include manufacturing features of trailers and shall have included all of the following:

o Minimum 2,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) o Parking brakes o Ferrous or aluminum construction o Powder or Liquid type corrosion protection o Deck structure designed for carrying non-palletized cargo

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

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

- 9 -

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Small Munitions trailers. They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Quantities: 1,325 Duration of Time: 7 Years Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

Type of Data Deliverables: Finite element analysis, including fatigue analysis, test reports, Department of Defense (military style) technical data package creation (technical orders/manuals, spare parts data, and 2D/3D drawings)

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

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

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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past

- 10 -performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: On the four (4) contracts submitted in Volume III, Past Performance, include relevant information in the PPI Tool concerning the offeror’s/joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. When subcontracting possibilities existed on the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member, address whether or not the offeror/joint venture member awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Volume IV, Price

1. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used 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 information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated

- 11 -to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 7 ‘Small Munitions Pricing Model’. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices of each CLIN (including Base and Option periods) will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices (for each of the various pricing structures) will be calculated as explained below:

i. For CLINs with a fixed quantity (0001, 0002, 0004AA, 0005AA, 0006AA, and 0006AB), the evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit/lot price times the respective quantity.

ii. For sub-CLINs (0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 0003AD, 0003AE, 0003AF, 0003AG, 0003AH, 0003AJ, 0003AK, 0003AL, 0003AM, 0003AN, 0003AP, 0003AQ, 0003AR, 0003AS, 0003AT, 0003AU, 0003AV, 0003AW, 0003AX, 0003AY, 0003AZ, 0003BA, 0004AB, 0004AC, 0005AB, 0005AC, 0005AD, 0005AE, 0006AC, and 0006AD) that are Not Separately Priced (NSP), the price will not be part of the TEP calculation.

iii. For CLINs that may have multiple quantity ranges (1001 - 1002, 2001 - 2002, 3001 – 3002, 4001 – 4002, and 5001 – 5002), the evaluated price will be calculated by one of the following methods:

Single Quantity Range: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the total quantity for that range, yielding the evaluated price for that CLIN.

Multiple Quantity Range: Each proposed unit price under the same CLIN will be multiplied by its corresponding quantity per range, yielding a total price.

The sum of the total prices for each quantity range will be the evaluated price for that CLIN.

NOTE: A maximum quantity applies to CLINs x001 and x002, combined, in each option period.

iv. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Pictured below is an example of the RFP Attachment 7 ‘Small Munitions Pricing Model’. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only, but is inclusive of all contract periods. The Government estimated dollars, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers.

While the CLIN structure below is included in the RFP, the actual total requirements may vary from the example below. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

- 12 -

BASIC PERIOD

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

0001 MHU 110 3 EA 10,000$ 30,000$

0002 MHU 141 3 EA 10,000$ 30,000$

0003* Data, Various Reporting 1 LO NSP

0004* NSP

0004AA Technical Manual 1 LO 5,000$ 5,000$

0005* NSP

0005AA Product Drawings 1 LO 500$ 500$

0006* NSP

0006AA Logistics Product Data 1 LO 1,000$ 1,000$ 0006AB Engineering Data for Provisioning 1 LO 1,000$ 1,000$

TOTAL FOR BASIC PERIOD 67,500$

* Not Separately Priced, CLINs 0003AA - 0003BA, CLINs 0004AB - AC, CLINs 0005AB - AE, and CLINs 0006AC - AD In the example for the Basic Period, the offeror inputs the unit price for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0004AA, 0005AA, 0006AA, and 0006AB. The offeror will propose as shown in the example for these CLINs.

OPTION I

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

1001 MHU 110

From To

1 125 125 EA 10,000$ 1,250,000$

1 0 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal -$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 1001 1,250,000$

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

1002 MHU 141

From To

1 125 125 EA -$

1 25 25 EA 30,000$ 750,000$

26 50 25 EA 25,000$ 625,000$

51 75 25 EA 20,000$ 500,000$

76 100 25 EA 18,000$ 450,000$

101 125 25 EA 15,000$ 375,000$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal 2,700,000$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 1002 2,700,000$

NOTE: CLINs 1001 and 1002 may be ordered in any combination, but the total quantity ordered between the two CLINs is NOT TO EXCEED 125.

Multiple Ranges

Range

OR:

Multiple Ranges

Range

OR:

- 13 -

For Option I only, CLIN 1001, the Offeror may either: 1) enter a unit price for the range of 1 to 125 OR 2) create quantity ranges (starting with 1 and ending with 125) and provide the unit price for each quantity range. In this example, the Offeror chose to provide a unit price for the range of 1 to 125 of $10,000.

For Option I only, CLIN 1002, the Offeror may either: 1) enter a unit price for the range of 1 to 125 OR 2) create quantity ranges (starting with 1 and ending with any number between 1 and

125) and provide the unit price for each quantity range. In this example, the Offeror chose to provide a unit price for quantity ranges of 1 to 25, 26 to 50, 51 to 75, 76 to 100, and 101 to 125.

When range pricing is used, the range quantities must amount to a total quantity of 125.

For CLINs x001 and x002 in each option period, the format, instructions, and unit price input area remains the same; however, the quantity changes from 125 to 300 in the remaining option periods. The Total Evaluated Price is calculated by summing the basic and each option period total.

- 14 -

OPTION II

2001 MHU 110

From To

1 300 300 EA 11,000$ 3,300,000$

1 0 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal -$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 2001 3,300,000$

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

2002 MHU 141

From To

1 300 300 EA -$

1 25 25 EA 31,000$ 775,000$

26 50 25 EA 26,000$ 650,000$

51 75 25 EA 21,000$ 525,000$

76 100 25 EA 19,000$ 475,000$

101 125 25 EA 16,000$ 400,000$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal 2,825,000$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 2002 2,825,000$

NOTE: CLINs 2001 and 2002 may be ordered in any combination, but the total quantity ordered between the two CLINs is NOT TO EXCEED 300.

TOTAL FOR OPTION II 6,125,000$

Range

OR:

Multiple Ranges

Range

Multiple Ranges

- 15 -

OPTION III

3001 MHU 110

From To

1 300 300 EA 12,000$ 3,600,000$

1 0 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal -$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 3001 3,600,000$

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

3002 MHU 141

From To

1 300 300 EA 18,000$ 5,400,000$

1 0 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal -$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 3002 5,400,000$

NOTE: CLINs 3001 and 3002 may be ordered in any combination, but the total quantity ordered between the two CLINs is NOT TO EXCEED 300.

TOTAL FOR OPTION III 9,000,000$

OR:

Multiple Ranges

Range

OR:

- 16 -

OPTION IV

4001 MHU 110

From To

1 300 300 EA 26,000$ 7,800,000$

1 0 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal -$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 4001 7,800,000$

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

4002 MHU 141

From To

1 300 300 EA -$

1 25 25 EA 33,000$ 825,000$

26 50 25 EA 28,000$ 700,000$

51 75 25 EA 23,000$ 575,000$

76 100 25 EA 21,000$ 525,000$

101 125 25 EA 18,000$ 450,000$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal 3,075,000$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 4002 3,075,000$

NOTE: CLINs 4001 and 4002 may be ordered in any combination, but the total quantity ordered between the two CLINs is NOT TO EXCEED 300.

TOTAL FOR OPTION IV 10,875,000$

Range

OR:

Multiple Ranges

Range

- 17 -

OPTION V

5001 MHU 110

From To

1 300 300 EA -$

1 25 25 EA 12,000$ 300,000$

26 50 25 EA 11,000$ 275,000$

51 75 25 EA 10,000$ 250,000$

76 100 25 EA 9,000$ 225,000$

101 125 25 EA 8,000$ 200,000$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal 1,250,000$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 5001 1,250,000$

Item No. Description Quantity U/I Unit Price Extended Price

5002 MHU 141

From To

1 300 300 EA 19,000$ 5,700,000$

1 0 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

1 EA -$

Subtotal -$

TOTAL EXTENDED PRICE FOR ITEM NO. 5002 5,700,000$

NOTE: CLINs 5001 and 5002 may be ordered in any combination, but the total quantity ordered between the two CLINs is NOT TO EXCEED 300.

TOTAL FOR OPTION V 6,950,000$

GRAND TOTAL (BASIC & OPTIONS) 36,967,500$

Multiple Ranges

Range

OR:

Multiple Ranges