H92222-17-R-0003-0009.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to: a) amend Section M to allow discussions if all offerors w ithin the competitive range fail Phase III, First Article Testing, and b) amend FAR Clause 52.211-9 Delivery Schedule. Revisions are in red, all other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Jun-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X H92222-17-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Apr-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-Jun-2018

CODE

HQ USSOCOM

SOF AT&L-KR

7701 TAMPA POINT BLVD

TAMPA FL 33621-5323

H92403 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H92222-17-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The standard size code 500 has been added.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following have been modified:

52.211-9 DESIRED AND REQUIRED TIME OF DELIVERY (JUN 1997)

(a) The Government desires delivery to be made according to the following schedule:

DESIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

DESIRED DELIVERY

SCHEDULE CLIN

Number

Desired Quantity Per Month

Desired Delivery Schedule/ After Receipt of Order (ARO)

Ship To Address

1001-1024 3,500 90 Days After Receipt of First Order under IDIQ

30 Days ARO for all orders after the First Order under IDIQ

UIC: H92231

HQ USSOCOM SOFSA

SPEAR WAREHOUSE MGR

BLDG 221, DOOR 12

LEXINGTON, KY 40516-

FOB: DESTINATION

If the offeror is unable to meet the desired delivery schedule, it may, without prejudicing evaluation of its offer, propose a delivery schedule below. However, the offeror's proposed delivery schedule must not extend the delivery period beyond the time for delivery in the Government's required delivery schedule as follows:

REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

REQUIRED DELIVERY

SCHEDULE CLIN

Number

Required Quantity Per Month

Required Delivery Schedule/ After Receipt of Order (ARO)

Ship To Address

1001-1024 2,500 90 Days After Receipt of First Order under IDIQ

30 Days ARO for all orders after the First Order under IDIQ

UIC: H92231

HQ USSOCOM SOFSA

SPEAR WAREHOUSE MGR

BLDG 221, DOOR 12

LEXINGTON, KY 40516-

FOB: DESTINATION AOR1 and AOR2 Helmet

Covers (AOR1 and AOR2 helmet covers have a required delivery of 60 days; all other items have a required delivery of 30

60 Days days)

Offers that propose delivery of a quantity under such terms or conditions that delivery will not clearly fall within the applicable required delivery period specified above, will be considered nonresponsive and rejected. If the offeror proposes no other delivery schedule, the desired delivery schedule above will apply.

OFFEROR'S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

PROPOSED DELIVERY

SCHEDULE CLIN

Number

Proposed Quantity Per Month

Proposed Delivery Schedule/ After Receipt of Order (ARO)

Ship To Address

1001-1024 UIC: H92231

HQ USSOCOM SOFSA

SPEAR WAREHOUSE MGR

BLDG 221, DOOR 12

LEXINGTON, KY 40516-

FOB: DESTINATION

(b) Attention is directed to the Contract Award provision of the solicitation that provides that a written award or acceptance of offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror results in a binding contract. The Government will mail or otherwise furnish to the offeror an award or notice of award not later than the day the award is dated. Therefore, the offeror shall compute the time available for performance beginning with the actual date of award, rather than the date the written notice of award is received from the Contracting Officer through the ordinary mails. However, the Government will evaluate an offer that proposes delivery based on the Contractor's date of receipt of the contract or notice of award by adding (1) five calendar days for delivery of the award through the ordinary mails, or (2) one working day if the solicitation states that the contract or notice of award will be transmitted electronically. (The term "working day" excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays.) If, as so computed, the offered delivery date is later than the required delivery date, the offer will be considered nonresponsive and rejected.

(End of clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The Government intends to award a single five year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Items (CLINs) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror conforming to the solicitation who is determined to represent the best value with appropriate consideration given to the major Factors listed in descending order of importance: Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Price. Technical/Management is significantly more important than Past Performance, which is significantly more important than Price. When combined, Technical/Management and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. The Government reserves the right to make multiple contract awards. The Government reserves the right to not make any awards.

In addition to other factors, offers will be evaluated on the basis of advantages and disadvantages to the Government that might result from making an award, particularly the risk to the Government from a technical integration, logistics, and administrative cost perspective. The Government will make appropriate tradeoffs when required and select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror. Each proposal will be evaluated on technical merit and best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Absent an immediate award, a competitive range determination will be made in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) to limit discussions to the number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offerors.

Proposals must provide adequate information to enable the Government evaluators to determine the offeror’s capability to meet the Government’s requirements. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified. Offeror’s are cautioned that mere repetition of the Government’s requirements without explanation or demonstration of how the proposal shall meet the Government’s requirements may be considered a deficiency. Offerors are cautioned that a deficiency in the factor, subfactor, element, or other element of the evaluation may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration for award.

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation areas described in Section M. This may result in awards being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced offeror(s).

M.1.2 EVALUATION PHASES, FACTORS, SUBFACTORS, and ELEMENTS: Proposals will be evaluated in three phases.

PHASE I: Go/No-Go Criteria and Product Demonstration Models (PDMs).

PHASE II. Only the proposal(s) and PDMs passing the Go/No-Go Criteria in Phase I will be evaluated in this phase. The Technical/Management Factor (Factor 1) is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor (Factor 2), which is significantly more important than the Price Factor (Factor 3). With regard to Factor 1, Subfactor 1 (Ballistic Helmet) is more important than Subfactor 2 (Non-Ballistic Helmet). With regard to Subfactor 1, Element 1 is significantly more important than Element 2 which is significantly more important than Element 3 which is significantly more important than Element 4. With regard to Subfactor 2, Element 1 is significantly more important than Element 2 which is significantly more important than Element 3 which is significantly more important than Element 4:

FACTOR 1 –TECHNICAL / MANAGEMENT

Subfactor 1 – Ballistic Helmet

Element 1: Ballistic Helmet Limited User Evaluation Element 2: Ballistic Helmet Weight Element 3: Ballistic Helmet Technical Approach and Independent Test Data Element 4: Ballistic Helmet Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability

Subfactor 2 – Non Ballistic Helmet

Element 1: Non Ballistic Helmet Limited User Evaluation Element 2: Non Ballistic Helmet Weight Element 3: Non Ballistic Helmet Technical Approach and Independent Test Data Element 4: Non Ballistic Helmet Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

PHASE III: Government Ballistic/Non-Ballistic Testing. Only proposals determined to be within the Competitive Range will be evaluated in this phase. Only offerors that pass FAT will remain eligible for award. If no offerors pass FAT, discussions may be entered by the Contracting Officer to discuss failures of all offerors that completed FAT. The SSA will then decide if it is in the best interest of the Government to re-test all offerors after submission of offeror responses to discussions. If the SSA decides it is in the best interest of the Government to re-test each of the remaining offerors, the re-test costs and PDMs will be at the expense of each offeror. At this point, each offeror may decide to remain in the solicitation or remove themselves before re-testing is complete, ultimately, removing themselves from the entire solicitation.

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.2.1 PHASE I: Go/No-Go Criteria and Product Demonstration Models (PDMs). (Volume 1) Phase I is a Go/No-Go evaluation conducted in accordance with RFP Attachment 2 Go/No-Go Matrix criteria. The Government will evaluate the content of the offeror’s Go/No-Go proposal and PDMs to determine whether it meets the Government requirements in accordance with the criteria identified in RFP Attachment 2. Any proposal not meeting all Go/No-Go Criteria characteristics will constitute failure of the entire proposal and will be removed from further consideration of award without Phase II and Phase III Government evaluation. If an offeror fails a single Go/No-Go characteristic, the Government will immediately eliminate the offeror without completing the remaining Go/No-Go evaluation. Only proposals passing all of the Go/No-Go criteria will be considered for a Phase II evaluation.

M.2.2 PHASE II

M.2.2.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT (Volume 1) The Technical Area proposals shall be evaluated and rated using the evaluation ratings in accordance with 2016 DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016 using a combined technical and risk rating. Element ratings will be rolled up to overall Subfactor ratings; Subfactor ratings will be rolled up to an overall Factor rating.

M.2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Ballistic Helmet

• M.2.2.1.1.1 Element 1: Ballistic Helmet Limited User Evaluation (LUE). Under this element, the PDMs shall be examined to determine the extent to which they meet operational suitability and effectiveness in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets, sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.7, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.19.1, 3.20.1, 3.20.3, and

3.21. The PDMs shall be evaluated in the Ballistic Helmet System configuration as specified in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 1.2, Table 3.

In addition, the retention, suspension, accessory rails and VAS shroud shall be examined to ensure they are compatible with the non-Ballistic Helmet System. The Government will conduct a LUE in accordance with Attachment 03 Test Plan. PDMs will be rated on an Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable basis in the following areas in accordance with Attachment 03:

• Equipment integration/compatibility

• Comfort/stability/weight distribution/adjustability

• Sizing/fitting

• Visual Augmentation System eye alignment

• Ability to effectively accomplish mission/task

• Ability to use in all relevant operational scenarios

• Durability

• Situational awareness

• Maintenance at operator level

• Signature Management

M.2.2.1.1.2 Element 2: Ballistic Helmet PDM Weight. Under this element, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s PDMs meet the Government weight requirements. The PDMs will be examined by technical representatives and each PDM selected will be weighed in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.9, and Appendix F. A Government representative will randomly select 3 PDMs of each size supplied by the offeror and an average weight shall be calculated for each size in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets, section 3.9 and Appendix F. An average PPAH shall be calculated for each size in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.15.1, and Appendix A. The Government shall assign a color rating for each size in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.9 and Appendix F, as well as Table 1 below. The overall color rating for this element shall be the lowest rating of all sizes.

Table 1: Weight Evaluation Banding Weight Banding

Red-Unacceptable Weight > Baseline

Green-Acceptable 0-5% Weight Reduction Purple-Good 5.1-10% Weight Reduction

Blue-Outstanding 10.1% Weight Reduction and greater

M.2.2.1.1.3 Element 3: Ballistic Helmet Technical Approach and Independent Test Data.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal, PDMs, and independent laboratory test data, literature, and technical specification sheets related to the performance of these items to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in the RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets, sections 1.2, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.7, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.8, 3.8.1, 3.8.1.1, 3.8.1.2, 3.8.2, 3.8.2.1, 3.8.2.2, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14.1, 3.14.2, 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.20, 3.20.1, 3.20.2, 3.20.3, Appendix A, Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E .

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s independent test data to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in the Performance Specification. All data must be complete and in accordance with the above sections in the RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Configuration Management Plan meets the requirements in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification, section 3.26. In addition, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance Plan meets the requirements in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification, section 3.27. The plan will be evaluated for its maturity and effectiveness at assuring defect free products are manufactured and delivered to the Government throughout the life of the contract. The inspection plans, Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) and audits will be evaluated to ensure adequate, clear and effective procedures are in place that can distinguish a conforming product from a non-conforming product. Inspections will be further evaluated to ensure that the offeror has a clear and systemic process in place to aid in the inspection of materials, production lines and implementing corrective actions.

M.2.2.1.1.4 Element 4: Ballistic Helmet Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has the necessary facilities, resources, supply chain, and processes in place to consistently, continually, and successfully manage, manufacture, and make required on-time delivery in accordance with the requirements of this RFP throughout the contract period of performance and any warranty periods.

The offeror’s proposal and PDMs will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in RFP Section F, FAR clause 52.211-9 and RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets section 3.19.2, 3.19.3, 3.22, 3.25.1, 3.25.2, 3.25.3, 3.30, and 4.1.

Additionally, the Government will evaluate the extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in the proposal, the extent of commitment to small business firms, and the complexity and variety of the work small business firms are proposed to perform.

M.2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Non Ballistic Helmet M.2.2.1.2.1 Element 1: Non Ballistic Helmet Limited User Evaluation (LUE). Under this element, the PDMs shall be examined to determine the extent to which they meet operational suitability and effectiveness in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.19.1, 3.20.1, 3.20.3, and 3.21. The PDMs shall be evaluated in the Non-Ballistic Helmet System configuration as specified in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 1.2, Table 3. In addition, the retention, suspension, accessory rails and VAS shroud shall be examined to ensure they are compatible with the Ballistic Helmet System. The Government will conduct a LUE in accordance with Attachment 03 Test Plan. PDMs will be evaluated on an Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable basis in the following areas in accordance with Attachment 03:

• Comfort/stability/weight distribution/adjustability

• Sizing/fitting

• Visual Augmentation System eye alignment

• Ability to effectively accomplish mission/task

• Ability to use in all relevant operational scenarios

• Durability

• Situational awareness

• Maintenance at operator level

• Signature management

M.2.2.1.2.2 Element 2: Non Ballistic Helmet PDM Weight. Under this element, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s PDMs meet the Government weight requirements. The PDMs will be examined by technical representatives and each PDM selected will be weighed in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.9 and Appendix F. A Government representative will randomly select 3 PDMs of each size supplied by the offeror and an average weight shall be calculated for each size in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets, section 3.9 and Appendix F. An average PPAH shall be calculated for each size in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.15.1 and Appendix A. The Government shall assign a color rating for each size in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.9 and Appendix F, as well as Table 2 below. The overall color rating for this element shall be the lowest rating of all sizes.

Table 2: Weight Evaluation Banding Weight Banding

Red- Unacceptable Weight > Baseline

Green- Acceptable 0-5% Weight Reduction

Purple-Good 5.1-10% Weight Reduction Blue-

Outstanding 10.1% Weight Reduction and greater

M.2.2.1.2.3 Element 3: Non Ballistic Helmet Technical Approach and Independent Test Data.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal, PDMs, and independent laboratory test data, literature, and technical specification sheets related to the performance of these items to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in the RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets, sections1 .2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.7, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.10, 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.20, 3.20.1, 3.20.2, 3.20.3, Appendix A, Appendix C, Appendix D, and Appendix E.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s independent test data to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in the Performance Specification. All data must be complete and in accordance with the above sections in the RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Configuration Management Plan meets the requirements in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification, section 3.26. In addition, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance Plan meets the requirements in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification, section 3.27. The plan will be evaluated for its maturity and effectiveness at assuring defect free products are manufactured and delivered to the Government throughout the life of the contract. The inspection plans, Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs), and audits will be evaluated to ensure adequate, clear and effective procedures are in place that can distinguish a conforming product from a non-conforming product. Inspections will be further evaluated to ensure that the offeror has a clear and systemic process in place to aid in the inspection of materials, production lines, and implementing corrective actions.

M.2.2.1.2.4 Element 4: Non Ballistic Helmet Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has the necessary facilities, resources, supply chain, and processes in place to consistently, continually, and successfully manage, manufacture, and make required on-time delivery in accordance with the requirements of this RFP throughout the contract period of performance and any warranty periods.

The offeror’s proposal and PDMs will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in RFP Section F, FAR clause 52.211-9 and RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non- Ballistic Helmets section 3.19.2, 3.19.3, 3.22, 3.25.1, 3.25.2, 3.25.3, 3.30, and 4.1.

Additionally, the Government will evaluate the extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in the proposal, the extent of commitment to small business firms, and the complexity and variety of the work small business firms are proposed to perform.

M.2.2.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume 2). The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s (including prime and subcontractor) demonstrated record of performance in providing similar and/or related contracts, in terms of size, scope, and technical complexity, for the last three years. Emphasis will be placed on recent, relevant experience as defined in Section L. Those efforts that do not receive a Somewhat Relevant rating or above will not be evaluated further. During the source selection process, the Government will assess the relative risk associated with each offeror’s past performance.

M.2.2.2.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement. The performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by information sheets, questionnaires, Individual Subcontracting Report data base (eSRS), and/or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government is not limited to these resources. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may also use data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving good past performance rests with the offeror. If no relevant historical or current data exists then the procedures of FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) will apply.

M.2.2.2.2 The Government will evaluate the past performance efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in Section L) in order to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort. In the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s proposal, the following aspects will be considered: Schedule Planning and Control, Quality Assurance, and Customer Service. This includes administrative aspects of performance, offeror’s history for reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction and the offeror’s professionalism and concern for customer interests, as well as, the offeror’s ability to meet delivery schedules. The results of this evaluation will form the basis of the offeror’s Confidence Rating. The Confidence Ratings and Performance Assessment Ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within the 2016 DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016.

M.2.2.2.3 Contractor must clearly state in the proposal if they have no relevant prior past performance. If left blank, the proposal will be considered “deficient” and may result in exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from consideration from award.

M.2.2.3 FACTOR 3: PRICE (Volume 3). Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is complete and balanced, as well as fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 to include ensuring it is commensurate with the Technical proposal and the price is not unrealistically low or unreasonably high without valid explanation.

M.2.2.3.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes and the proposal will be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. For purposes of calculating a TEP, a quantity of 1 each is identified within Attachment 05 for each system variant. Therefore, the proposed price for each color variant of a system (CLIN) will be added together then divided by the number of sizes proposed in order to calculate an average price for each color item. For example, CLIN 1002 within Attachment 05 has variants identified as items 100201- 100235. Proposed prices for items 100201-100205 (Ballistic Helmet, 3-hole, Carc tan) will be added together and divided by the number of sizes proposed to give an average price for Ballistic Helmet, 3-hole, Carc tan. This will be repeated for all other colors for each CLIN. The average color prices of each CLIN will be added together to derive a total CLIN price for a given year. If there are no color variants of a certain CLIN, the average price of all the items within that CLIN shall be calculated. If a CLIN only has one item within it, the price of that item is the total CLIN price for a given year. The total CLIN price for each year will be added together (across years 1-5) in order to derive a total CLIN TEP. Each total CLIN TEP will be added together to derive the overall proposal TEP.

M.2.2.3.1.1 Complete and Balanced Pricing: The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that prices are submitted for all CLINs. The Contracting Officer shall ensure the proposal contains prices for all data items (even those not separately priced). All proposals will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

Offerors are cautioned that unbalanced prices may be grounds for exclusion of a proposal from consideration for award.

M.2.2.3.1.2 Price Realism. The Government will use price realism in the competition to assess the risk of poor performance in an offeror’s approach and/or to measure an offeror’s understanding of the solicitation’s technical requirements and risks inherent in the performance specification. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is not unrealistically low.

M.2.2.3.1.3 Price Reasonableness. Since adequate competition is anticipated, the Government will conduct a price analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine reasonableness. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 to include ensuring the price is not unreasonably high without valid explanation.

In the event the Government requires other than cost and pricing data, it shall be evaluated IAW FAR 15.404-1.

M.2.2.4 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION & ATTACHMENTS (Volume 4)

M.2.2.4.1 Contract documentation and attachments shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the RFP. The entire proposal (Volume 1 through 4) will be evaluated to determine the extent to which Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements including terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has clearly identified any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale and that all volumes are accounted for. All volumes must be perfectly cohesive (i.e., the Price volume must be consistent with the Technical Volume and shall reflect the understanding and ability to perform according to the statement of work of the contract). Any notable findings affecting Technical, Past Performance, and Price factors from the Government’s assessment of the Contract Documentation & Attachments Volume will be captured under the applicable Factor above. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions or inconsistencies as unacceptable.

M.2.2.4.2 Prices For Technical Data. The estimated prices with the basis for each report/data identified in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) is required in order to evaluate the cost to the Government of data items in terms of their management, product, or engineering value in accordance with DFARS 215.470.

M.2.2.4.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements in FAR Part 19.704 addressing every subpart (a) (1) through (a) (11) and minimum mandated percentages in Section L. This plan will become part of any resultant contact award as an attachment.

M.2.3 PHASE III: Government Ballistic/Non-Ballistic Testing.

M.2.3.1 In accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(5), only the most highly rated proposals will subjected to test and evaluation in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets Appendix C, First Article Test Matrix. Failure to meet the threshold requirements for any test condition may result in removal of the entire proposal from further consideration for award. In addition, failure to meet a threshold requirement may result in the Government terminating remaining testing and not testing the remainder of the PDMs and removal of the Proposal from further consideration for award. If all offerors that were tested, fail, the Government may open discussions. If the SSA decides it is in the best interest of the Government to have offerors that were originally included in the Government Ballistic/ Non-Ballistic Testing re-submit PDMs and re-test, any cost incurred for redesign, manufacture, building, and re-FAT shall be borne solely by the offeror. An offeror must pass FAT to be considered for award. If the Government requires additional PDMs, the Offeror must be able to supply them within 30 days of being notified.

(End of Summary of Changes)