H92222-18-R-0004.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 update paragraph M.2.4.1, Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in section M, Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items (Oct 2014) and update table M-5. Update attachments to incorporate Exhibit B, ASR Pricing Workbook.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 13

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 03-Jul-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 H92222-18-R-0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-May-2018

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, 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

03-Jul-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:

H92222-18-R-0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0005

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

The PPL is intended to be a complete list of all parts at the unit, component, and complete end item level priced annually on a firm fixed price level.

To:

The PPL is intended to be a complete list of all parts at the unit, component, and complete end item level priced annually on a firm fixed price level (Provide in Exhibit B).

CLIN 1001

Please use Exhibit B for step ladder pricing

CLIN 2001

CLIN 2008

The kit shall include .300 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the vendor to meet the accuracy standard by caliber

The kit shall include .300 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the vendor to meet the accuracy standard by caliber. Please use Exhibit B for step ladder pricing

CLIN 2010

The kit shall include .338 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

The kit shall include .338 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

CLIN 3001

CLIN 3008

The kit shall include .300 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

The kit shall include .300 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

CLIN 3009

The kit shall include 7.62mm barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the vendor to meet the accuracy standard by caliber

The kit shall include 7.62mm barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the vendor to meet the accuracy standard by caliber. Please use Exhibit B for step ladder pricing

CLIN 3010

The kit shall include .338 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

The kit shall include .338 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

CLIN 4001

CLIN 4008

The kit shall include .300 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

The kit shall include .300 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

CLIN 4010

The kit shall include .338 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

The kit shall include .338 Norma Magnum barrel, bolt of the appropriate caliber, and 5 magazines tested by the

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Performance Specification 40 30 April 2018

Attachment 2 Statement of Work (SOW) 13 21 June 2018

Attachment 3 Go/No-Go Matrix 1 30 April 2018

Attachment 4 Past Performance

Questionnaire

4 N/A

Exhibit A CDRLS (A001-A017) 17 21 June 2018

Exhibit B ASR Pricing Workbook 4 02 July 2018

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M

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

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The Government may award a single five 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, Past Performance, and

Price. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance, which is significantly more important than Price. When combined, Technical and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. The Government reserves the right to not make any awards.

Table M-1: Evaluation Methodology

Proposal Submissions Evaluation Method GO / NO GO Criteria Pass/Fail Technical Factor 1 Color/Risk

Past Performance Factor 2 Confidence Rating Price Factor 3 Total Price (All Years) Contract Documentation & Attachments Acceptable/Unacceptable

Evaluation of offers will be taken into consideration the 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. 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 shall 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 or parroting 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 area, factor, sub-factor, or element of evaluation may be grounds for exclusion of the proposal from further consideration for award.

M.1.2 EVALUATION PHASES, FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

PHASE I (A-C): GO/NO GO PS’s - Measurements, Technical Testing and Destructive

Testing

PHASE I (D). Only the proposal(s) evaluated as passing the Go/No-Go Criteria in Phase I A-C will be evaluated in Phase I D. The Technical Factor (Factor 1) is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor (Factor 2), Past Performance Factor (Factor 2) is significantly more important than the Price Factor (Factor 3).

Factor 1 –TECHNICAL Technical Approach, Configuration Management, Quality Assurance, Delivery Schedule and

Production Capacity/Capability

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 3 – PRICE

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.2.1 PHASE I (A-C)

M.2.1.1 VOLUME 1 - GO/NO-GO PS. Phase I (A-C) is a Go/No-Go evaluation conducted in accordance with RFP Attachment 03, Go/No-Go Matrix criteria. The Government will evaluate the content of the offeror’s Go/No-Go proposal and PS to determine whether it meets the

Government requirements in accordance with the criteria identified in Request for Proposal

(RFP). 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 I (D)

Government evaluation. At the first point of failure, offerors proposal will be removed from further consideration. Only proposals passing all the Go/No-Go criteria will be considered for a

Phase I (D) evaluation.

M.2.2 PHASE I (D)

M.2.2.1 VOLUME 1 - FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Technical Approach, Configuration Management, Quality Assurance, and Delivery Schedule and

Production Capability/Capacity

1. Technical Approach. The Government will evaluate offeror’s proposal based on the extent to which the offeror capabilities meet the performance specification and the extent to which the bid sample articles met or exceeded the go/no-go test criteria. The Government will determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements per the definitions contained within

Table M-3. The Technical Factor proposals shall be evaluated and rated using the evaluation ratings of a combined technical rating and risk rating. If information regarding evaluation factors is contained elsewhere in the proposal the Government will evaluate such information, but the Government has no responsibility to research and find improperly referenced information.

The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, similar to the example below, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the Government’s review of the Offeror’s proposal. The CRM should be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volume and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information. The Offeror’s CRM may be identical to the example below or revised such as to add columns to indicate the page number on which information may be found, identify where other relevant information in the proposal is located, or provide other comments. The CRM does not count against any of the proposal page limitations.

Table M-2: Example of a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM)

Section L.

Proposal Inst

Government Performance

Specification

Section M.

Evaluation

Factor

Offeror’s

Proposal

Reference

CLIN

Reference

Volume I

Technical

Example: Para 3.1 Note: This column addresses all paragraphs in

Section’s xx and yy of the P-Spec

2.A Refer to proposal page # and para

CLIN 0001

2. Configuration Management. The configuration management plan will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror’s potential to successfully complete this contract. The contractor’s ability to manage changes to the system configuration, document those changes and notify the USG will be evaluated. The system or methods to document, approve and distribute these CM changes both internally and externally, will be evaluated. The offeror’s identification of high risk areas and solutions or mitigation strategies which are clearly described by providing supporting documentation regarding proposed solutions/actions to avoid high risk areas/actions to minimize performance risk will be evaluated.

3. Quality Assurance. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed 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 systemic process in place to aid in the inspection of materials, production lines, and implementing corrective actions. The Government will evaluate the submitted ISO 9001:2008

(or equivalent Quality Management System) certifications to ensure validity and currency from the prime Offeror, significant partners, and subcontractors.

4. Delivery Schedule and Production Capacity/Capability. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated by the extent to which the offeror has described 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 any warranty periods.

Table M-3: Combined Technical (Color) and Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

M.2.3. VOLUME 2 - FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE. 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.2.3.1 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, Electronic Subcontracting Evaluation System (eSRS) data base, and/or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS), and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS). 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.2.3.2 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

01 May 2016. The definitions found in Table M-4 will be utilized.

Table M-4: Performance Confidence Assessments

M.2.3.3 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 be excluded from further consideration for award.

M.2.4 VOLUME 3 - FACTOR 3: PRICE EVALUATION. 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.2.4.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Price will not receive a color rating or score. A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes and the proposal will be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness. Partial proposals are not permitted, the TEP will be calculated for the entire requirement, based on pre-set quantities each year as laid forth in the Source Selection

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

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

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.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

The offeror has stated they have no recent/relevant performance record.

Plan (SSP) (these pre-set quantities will not be disclosed to offerors). Step-ladder pricing will be applied to the pre-set quantities established in the source selection plan and will be used to generate CLIN series XXX3 TEP. *The comprehensive spare parts pricing will be evaluated using the contractor's proposed step ladder pricing under CLIN XXX5 (using Exhibit B) to an undisclosed pre-determined quantity. The resulting price will be appplied to the pricing provided for CLIN XXX5. Offerors shall propose range/stepladder order quantities and unit pricing. This will be combined to the other (0001, 0002, XXX4, XXX5, 0006, 0007, XXX8, XXX9, XX10) TEPs for an overall TEP as follows:

Table M-5: Total Evaluated Price Matrix

Proposed prices must be entered in Exibit B CLINs Item Description Base Year

Qty x

Offeror =

Price

Contract

Year 2

Qty x

Offeror =

Price

Contract

Year 3

Qty x

Offeror =

Price

Contract

Year 4 Qty x Offeror =

Price

Contract

Year 5

Qty x

Offeror =

Price

Total

Quantity

0001 ASR Production

Qualification Test

Units

10 10

0002 ASR User

Assessment Units

20 20

1001-

ASR Production

Systems (QTY)

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

0003-

Train the trainer

NET training

FFP on a per class basis

FFP on a per class basis

FFP on a per class basis

None required

None required

Contract Data

Deliverables

0005 *Provisioning

Parts List

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

0006 Engineering

Services

0007 First Article

Testing

2008 .300 Norma

Magnum Barrel

Kit

None required

None required

See**

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

Stepladder

Pricing

See

Exhibit B for

3008 .300 Norma

Kit

4008 .300 Norma

3009 7.62mm Barrel

2010 .338 Norma

3010 .338 Norma

4010 .338 Norma

TEP $

**For all Calibers of Barrell Kits

NOTE: All quantities are for evaluation purposes only and should not be construed as guaranteed contract quantities. Prices are in relation to estimated quantity the Government intends to purchase in the outlined Table M-5. For evaluation purpose only, the Government reserves the right to adjust an offeror’s proposed quantity (and the subsequently related price).

Price reasonableness shall be determined through competitive commercial market prices and

IAW the guidelines set forth in FAR 15.404-1. The table M-5 reflects the maximum quantities for each CLIN that the offered price(s) will be based. The Government is not obligated to purchase anything other than the minimum as set forth in the solicitation.

M.2.5 VOLUME 4 - CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION & ATTACHMENTS. 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. 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 cohesive. All volumes must be 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.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)