H92222-17-R-0005-0006.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 correct solicitation section M.2.2.3.1 TEP to reflect the same CLIN structure as Section B.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-May-2017

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-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Mar-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

11-May-2017

CODE

HQ USSOCOM SOF-AT&L-K

ATTN: KELLY L. MCNEILL

7701 TAMPA POINT BLVD

MACDILL AFB FL 33621

H92222 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

H92222-17-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The Government may award a single one year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Items (CLINs) or make multiple contract awards resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) 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 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 only one 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. If multiple awards are made, contractors will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for delivery orders. 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. Offerors 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 any factor, subfactor, or element of the evaluation may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration for award.

M.1.2 EVALUATION PHASES, FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS: 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 is significantly more important than Subfactor 2 which is significantly more important than Subfactor 3 which is significantly more important than Subfactor 4:

Factor 1 –TECHNICAL / MANAGEMENT

Subfactor 1: Weight

Subfactor 2: Soft Armor Limited User Evaluation Subfactor 3: Technical Approach and Independent Ballistic Test Data Subfactor 4: Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 3 – PRICE

PHASE III: Government Ballistic Testing. Only proposals determined to be within the Competitive Range will be evaluated in this phase.

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.2.1 PHASE I: Go/No-Go Criteria and Product Demonstration Models (PDMs). Phase I is a Go/No-Go evaluation conducted in accordance with RFP Attachment 3, 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 3. Any proposal not meeting all Go/No- Go Criteria characteristics constitutes failure of the entire proposal and shall be removed from further consideration of award without Phase II and Phase III Government evaluation. Only proposals passing 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 Factor proposals shall be evaluated and rated using the evaluation ratings in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, using a combined technical rating and risk rating.

M.2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Weight. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s PDMs meet the Government weight requirements. The proposal shall include a 44” x 44” PDM, in accordance with Attachment 1 – Appendix C Table C-4, representative of the finished soft armor design. The 44” x 44” PDM will be examined by technical representatives and weighed in accordance with RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification, paragraph 3.4.1, and an aerial density will be calculated. The Government will assign a color rating for this subfactor based on the aerial density of the 44” x 44” PDM. The color rating shall be determined using Table 1, below.

Table 1 – Average Aerial Density Ratings

M.2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Soft Armor Limited User Evaluation (LUE)

The Government will conduct a LUE to evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed design meets the requirements in Attachment 1, Performance Specification, sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.9.

The LUE will be rated according to the following scale:

Blue Outstanding PDM meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any

Red - Unacceptable

Yellow - Marginal

Green - Acceptable

Purple - Good Blue -

Outstanding Avg AD > 0.72 lbs Avg AD 0.72 -

0.70 Avg AD 0.699 -

0.67 Avg AD 0.669-

0.64 Avg AD < 0.64

lbs

Average AD Ratings weaknesses.

Purple Good PDM meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. PDM contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses.

Green Acceptable PDM meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. PDM strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Yellow Marginal PDM does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The PDM has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Red Unacceptable PDM does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

M.2.2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Technical Approach and Independent Ballistic Test Data.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal, PDMs, and independent ballistic test data (ballistic and non-ballistic), 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, sections 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.4.2, 3.4.4, 3.4.5.1, 3.4.8, and 3.5.

The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s NIJ certified Ballistic-Resistance Armor Laboratory or a Government Laboratory (Aberdeen Test Center or Army Research Laboratory) independent ballistic test data to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in section 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and Attachment 1 – Performance Specification, Appendix A and Appendix C.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Configuration Management Plan and Quality Assurance Plan meets the requirements in the Performance Specification and solicitation. 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 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 systematic process in place to aid in the inspection of materials, production lines, and implementing corrective actions.

M.2.2.1.4 Subfactor 4: Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has the necessary facilities, resources, 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 warranty periods.

The offeror’s proposal and PDMs will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in sections 3.4.5, 3.7.2, 3.7.5, 3.7.6, 3.7.7, 3.7.8, 3.8.1, 3.8.2 and 3.8.2.1 of Attachment 1 – Performance Specification.

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. 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, SF 294/295s, eSRS reports, 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 with definitions that will be utilized are contained within the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016.

(a.) Contractor must clearly state in the proposal if they have no relevant prior past performance. If left blank, the proposal will be considered “not responsive” and may result in exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from consideration from award.

M.2.2.3 FACTOR 3: Price Evaluation (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 TEP

A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes and the proposal will be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. The Government will calculate the TEP as follows:

CLIN ITEM

DESCRIPTION

Est Qty Over 5 Years Equally

Distributed

UNIT

PRICE CLIN TEP

X001 RBAV, Size Small 1,000

X002 RBAV, Size Medium

2,000

X003 RBAV, Size Large

X004 RBAV, Size X- Large

X005 Modular Body Armor Vest

(MBAV), S-M

X006 Modular Body Armor Vest

(MBAV), L-XL

X007 Simulant/Surrogate Shoot Pack

X008 MSAP 6x9 Insert

X009 MSAP 6x6 Insert

X010 SPEAR Plate Shaped Soft Armor

Insert, Sm

X011 Spear Plate Shaped Soft Armor Insert, Md

X012 Spear Plate Shaped

ML

X013 Spear Plate Shaped

Lg

1,000

X014 Spear Plate Shaped Soft Armor Insert, XL

X015 Groin Insert, Size Small-Medium

X016 Groin Insert, Size Large-XLarge

Total Price

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.2.3 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION & ATTACHMENTS (Volume 4)

M.2.3.1 Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors. Contract documentation and attachments shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the RFP. The entire proposal (Volume I through IV) 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.

M.2.3.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements. 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 complete and consistent. 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 Performance Specification 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 Area above. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions or inconsistencies as unacceptable.

M.2.3.3 Prices For Technical Data. The estimated prices with the basis for each report/data item 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.2.3.4 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.2.4 PHASE III: Government Ballistic Testing.

M.2.4.1 Only the most highly rated proposals will proceed to Phase III and be subjected to ballistic testing and evaluation. The PDMs will be tested and evaluated in accordance with Attachment 1, Appendix D, Government Ballistic Testing of Product Demonstration Models. Failure to meet the threshold requirements for any threat shall result in removal of the entire proposal from further consideration for award. Failure of any subtest in Attachment 1, Appendix D will constitute immediate failure of the proposed design; further testing will not be performed and the proposal will be removed from further consideration for award.

M.3 Basis of 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).

(End of Summary of Changes)