Amendment_03_Coxswain_RFP_H92403-18-R-0001.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 extend the proposal submission date from 29 Aug 18 to 12 Sep 18.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Aug-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 H9240318R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

06-Jun-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

27-Aug-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:

H9240318R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 29-Aug-2018 04:00 PM to 12-Sep-2018 04:00 PM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION

lSECTION L

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS.

L.1.1 All Electronic Solicitation Release. This is an all-electronic solicitation release. No Government paper hard copies will be mailed. Amendments to the solicitation will be posted to www.fedbizopps.gov. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review the webpage for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information. The exclusive responsibility for the source selection will reside with the Government. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. 423) as implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The proposal and corresponding program will be unclassified and treated as Source Selection Sensitive Information.

L.1.2 All proposals must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of the solicitation.

Any commitments made in the proposal shall become part of the resultant contract. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding and/or ability to perform under a contract.

Mere parroting of the requirements without explanation or demonstration of how the proposal meets the Government’s requirements is unacceptable. In no case shall words like “we will comply with the requirements of the contract,” or equivalent statements, be acceptable to meet the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that any deficiency in any factor or subfactor of the evaluation may be grounds for exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from further consideration for award. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in an offeror’s proposal being rejected and excluded from further consideration for award.

L.1.3 Proposals must provide adequate information to enable Government evaluators to determine the offeror’s capability to meet the Government’s requirements. All submission Volumes contained in this Section L will be evaluated IAW the processes, procedures, and evaluation Factors and Subfactors set forth in Section M. Volume submission instructions prescribed in this Section L refer to the applicable evaluation criteria in Section M. All evaluation criteria set forth in Section M refers back to the applicable submission instructions in this Section L.

Offerors are encouraged to thoroughly review both sections when preparing Volumes for submission.

L.1.4 Mailing Instructions for Proposals.

L.1.4.1 Hand carrying proposals is not permitted. Electronic proposals shall be clearly marked and mailed to the following address and received by the date specified in Table 1 - Proposed Contents and Instructions of Subsection L.1.7:

USSOCOM – Directorate of Procurement Attn: Stephanie Simpson, SOF AT&L-KR Re: Solicitation Number H92403-18-R-0001 7701 Tampa Point Blvd.

MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5323

L.1.4.2 Product Demonstration Models (PDMs) shall be mailed or delivered to the following address and received by the date specified in Table 1- Proposal Contents and Instructions of Subsection L.1.7:

USSOCOM/NSRDEC

PM-SOF SSES

ATTN: RDNS-SEW-PS, Nicholas Tsantinis Bldg 4, Room D017 15 General Greene Avenue Natick, MA 01760-5019

L.1.5 Page Size and Format. Format of the proposal volumes (and any resulting responses to Evaluations Notices (ENs)) shall be as follows: a page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Foldouts shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches and may be used only for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics, not for pages of text. Pages shall be single spaced.

Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 12 point, uncompressed font. Tracking, kerning and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 1 inch on the side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. Embedded tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical and shall be uncomplicated and legible. For tables, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point.

L.1.6 Electronic Format.

L.1.6.1 Electronic copies shall be mailed on CD-ROMs/DVDs, read-only memory. A proposal submitted in other than read-only memory format will not be evaluated. Changes, as a result of negotiations, shall be conformed on CD-ROMs/DVDs and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin. Modeling and Simulation data must be provided on separate CD-ROMs/DVDs and marked accordingly directly onto the media (i.e., permanent marker). These media discs must not have adhesive labels attached. All appropriate markings including those prescribed IAW FAR 52.215-1, Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor's Bid or Proposal Information, Source Selection Information, and classification will be applied.

L.1.6.2 For the electronic copy, indicate on each CD-ROM/DVD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007, MS Office Excel 2007, MS Office Project 2007, and MS Office Power Point 2007, pdf as applicable. Video files should not be embedded in other files. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

a) Submit Picture documentation in JPEG (*.jpg) or PNG (*.png) compatible format.

b) Submit Video media in Microsoft Windows Media File (*.wmv) compatible format

L.1.7 Submissions. Volumes 1, 3, 4a and 4b must contain the following information which is not included in the page count:

a) Cover and title page

b) Offeror’s name, address and Point of Contact (POC) information (name/telephone/email)

c) Solicitation number

d) Proposal volume number

e) Table of Contents: must provide sufficient detail to enable easy location of important elements

An offeror’s proposal must comply with the instructions set forth in the following table:

Table 1- Proposal Contents and Instructions Vol. Description Maximum Number of Pages Due by: Format

1 Qualifying Criteria No Limit 4:00 PM EST 12 Sep 18

Electronic via Mail

IAW L.1.4.1

2 PDMs NA 4:00 PM EST 12 Sep 18

Mail or Deliver PDMs IAW L.1.4.2;

Mail or Deliver Electronic build sheets IAW L.1.4.1 3 Technical Technical - 60 pages (does not include test data, Configuration Management Plan, and Quality Control Plan)

4:00 PM EST

12 Sep 18

Electronic via Mail

IAW L.1.4.1

4a Past and Present Performance

(Summary Sheet)

Summary sheet as described in L.2.4.2.

- 5

4:00 PM EST

12 Sep 18

Electronic via Mail IAW L.1.4.1 - PPQs via email IAW L.2.5.2 4b Past and Present

Performance 20+ Consent Letters

+ Explanation if required

4:00 PM EST

12 Sep 18

5 PDMs for testing (**Note: contingent upon evaluation, see L.2.6)

NA To be determined after evaluations

Mail or Deliver

IAW L.1.4.2

L.1.8 Notice of Intent (NOI). An NOI is required by each offeror that intends to submit a proposal. Only those offerors who submit an NOI will receive the solicitation attachments and may submit a proposal. Offerors may submit the NOI at any time after the release of this solicitation to gain access to the supporting documents. The date of the NOI nor the date offerors receive the solicitation attachments shall not impact the proposal due date.

The NOI shall be submitted in contractor format and emailed to laura.fuller@socom.mil and stephanie.simpson@socom.mil. The NOI shall include the following:

a) Company name, cage code number, DUNS number, state of incorporation, corporate license number,

b) POC name, phone number and email to receive solicitation attachments,

c) Identify if foreign owned or a controlled company with full identification of the parent corporation,

d) Country of affiliation, and

e) Identify whether subcontractors are foreign, identify vendor, foreign country of affiliation and what constitutes the foreign content of their product(s).

L.2 Proposal Content by Volume:

L.2.1 Volume 1 – Qualifying Criteria. (Evaluated IAW M.2.1) Contents of this Volume shall contain:

L.2.1.1 Completed Standard Form (SF 33) & Attachments. (Evaluated IAW M.2.1.1) Volume 1 shall include a completed and signed copy of the Standard Form (SF) 33 to include Sections A through K with appropriate “fill-ins” completed and each amendment, if applicable, either acknowledged (SF 33 block 14) or signed and returned. With respect to Section B, offerors shall fill in all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) pricing, however, if an offeror is proposing a four-size helmet suite, size five in the proposal shall be marked as N/A. Offerors are required to complete RFP Attachment 05, Total Evaluated Price Spreadsheet, in addition to Section B of the SF-33. The offeror shall complete the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) spreadsheet with unit prices for all sizes/ colors of all CLINs across all years. The formulas embedded within the TEP will be used to calculate the averages and summation.

mailto:laura.fuller@socom.mil mailto:stephanie.simpson@socom.mil

L2.1.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements and Consistency. (Evaluated IAW M.2.1.2) Proposals are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to volume contents as specified in this Section L. Each exception, if taken, shall be specifically stated and related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Offerors shall provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. The proposal shall be consistent across all volumes (i.e., the PDMs in Volume 2 must be consistent with the technical proposal in Volume 3) and shall reflect the understanding and ability to perform according to the requirements of the contract. Any apparent inconsistency between the promised performance and price must be explained.

L.2.1.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP). (Evaluated IAW M.2.1.3) Small businesses are exempt from providing a SBSP IAW FAR 19.702(b)(1). Offerors other than small businesses shall submit a SBSP that complies with all 15 sections of FAR Clause 52.219-9(d) contained in the solicitation. The offeror’s SBSP submission must provide sufficient information to support the Government’s review to determine if it is acceptable. Otherwise, an offeror will be ineligible to receive the contract award.

L.2.1.4 Negotiation POC. (Evaluated IAW M.2.1.4) Offerors shall submit a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.

L.2.2 Volume 2 – Product Demonstration Models (PDMs). (Evaluated IAW M.2.2) At no cost to the Government, the offeror shall submit production representative PDMs in the quantities listed below in Table 2 and Table 3. The PDMs shall be marked IAW paragraphs 3.22, 3.22.1, and 3.22.2 of Attachment 01– Performance Specification Family of Tactical Headborne Systems (FTHS) Coxswain Helmet System (PSpec). Printed instructions shall be submitted physically with each PDM and shall be IAW Section 3.21 of the PSpec. The PDMs shall be packaged IAW PSpec Section 4 with the exception that the RFP number will be used instead of the contract number and a DD Form 250 and copy of the Government production lot test approval is not required. The vendor shall also electronically submit “build sheets” detailing information on the build and layup of the PDMs including all materials, and quantities of such materials, their layup and processing parameters/conditions used in their manufacture IAW L.1.4.1.

Table 2: Volume 1 PDM Submission Quantities; 4-Size Suite

Table 3: Volume 1 PDM Submission Quantities; 5-Size Suite

Size 1 Quantity

(QTY)

Size 2

QTY

Size 3

QTY

Size 4

QTY

Coxswain Helmets 8 each 8 each 5 each 4 each Ballistic Appliques 5 each 5 each 2 each 1 each

Non-Ballistic Mandibles

5 each 5 each 2 each 1 each

Ballistic Mandibles 5 each 5 each 2 each 1 each Helmet Cover 1 each

ONE SIZE

Clear Visors 13 each

Smoke Visors 13 each

Night Shields** 13 each

**If Offered

Size 2

QTY

Size 3

QTY

Size 4

QTY

Size 5

QTY

L.2.3 Volume 3 – Technical

L.2.3.1 Weight of PDMs. Submission is of PDMs IAW L.2.2 will be used for this subsection (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.1)

L.2.3.2 Technical Approach, Schedule and Production Capability/Management. (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.2) Proposals shall thoroughly discuss and demonstrate how the proposed item(s) meet the requirements of Sections 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.7, 3.7.1, 3.8, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.8.4, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.22.1, 3.22.2, 3.26, 4, and 5 of the PSpec. The proposal shall provide technical detail sufficient to address each performance parameter, such as (but not limited to) independent test data, design considerations, product literature, and technical specification sheets related to the performance of these items. Technical detail shall be sufficient to allow the Government to properly evaluate the proposed items’ ability to meet these sections in the PSpec. The offeror shall identify any high risk area(s) and area(s) of non-compliance with the PSpec or RFP requirements. Offerors shall provide clear explanation for any risk and area of non-compliance identified, along with demonstration of ability to comply with all requirements during item production.

L.2.3.2.1 Independent Test Data. (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.2) Offerors shall submit independent test data IAW RFP Attachment 02, Vendor Data. The test data shall be from Chesapeake Testing (4603B Compass Point Road, Belcamp, MD 21017), except for the visor data submission which shall be from ICS Laboratories (1072 Industrial Parkway North, Brunswick, OH 44212). The test data shall clearly demonstrate to the Government that the proposed design will meet the requirements of RFP Attachment 02, Vendor Data. Only test data generated at Chesapeake Testing and ICS Laboratories will be accepted.

L.2.3.2.2 Configuration Management Plan (CMP). (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.2) Offerors shall submit a CMP in accordance with Section 3.23 of the PSpec.

L.2.3.2.3 Quality Control Plan (QCP). (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.2) Offerors shall submit a QCP IAW Section 3.24 of the PSpec.

L.2.3.2.4 Schedule and Production Capability/Management. (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.2) The proposal shall thoroughly discuss and clearly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the proposed delivery schedule as stated in FAR Clause 52.211-9 and the impact facilities, equipment and personnel has on the desired, required and proposed delivery schedules. The proposal shall provide detailed description of the facilities and the equipment capacity and capability to be used in production. The proposal shall clearly demonstrate the offeror’s monthly capacity and clearly explain its ability to meet the required delivery schedule, and as an objective, the desired delivery schedule.

The proposal shall include the offeror’s appointed Program Manager’s education, experience, and dedication to demonstrate successful management of the program throughout the contract period of performance and warranty period. The proposal shall include a thorough description of the offeror’s proposed management of the Coxswain Helmet System production to include the roles and responsibilities of personnel charged with

(QTY)

Coxswain Helmets 8 each 8 each 8 each 5 each 4 each Ballistic Appliques 5 each 5 each 5 each 2 each 1 each Non-ballistic Mandibles

5 each 5 each 5 each 2 each 1 each

Ballistic Mandibles 5 each 5 each 5 each 2 each 1 each Helmet Cover 1 each

ONE SIZE

Clear Visors 13 each Smoke Visors 13 each

Night Shields** 13 each implementing production, quality assurance, lot testing, and overseeing delivery. The offeror shall provide sufficient detail to indicate adequate supply chain management to meet the contract delivery requirements as outlined in FAR Clause 52.211-9 of the solicitation. The offeror shall discuss in detail the proposed warranty IAW Sections 3.18 and 3.19 of the PSpec.

L.2.3.2.5 Small Business Participation. (Evaluated IAW M.2.3.2) IAW DFARS 215.304, both LARGE AND SMALL businesses shall address small business participation. This requirement is separate from the SBSP required by FAR 19.702(a)(1) and in Section L.2.1.3. Offers shall specifically identify small business firms and the complexity and variety of work those small business firms are to perform. Additionally, offerors shall state their extent of commitment to use such firms.

a) Note for Small Businesses: Small businesses should consider their own self-performance in addition to subcontracting to small businesses.

b) Note for Large Businesses: Small business firms specifically identified shall also be listed in the SBSP submitted IAW L.2.1.3.

L.2.4 Volume 4a – Past and Present Performance Summary Sheet. (Used to evaluate Past and Present Performance IAW M.2.4)

L.2.4.1 Limitations. Offerors may propose a maximum of 5 recent Government contract efforts as prime and a maximum of 5 recent contract efforts total for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and or/joint ventures.

a) Recency as evaluated in M.2.4.3.1 is defined as within three years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Note, if a contract effort proposed does not meet the definition of recency, it will not be evaluated.

b) Major is defined as subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint ventures who are projected to perform 25% or more of the total contract effort. Each ballistic and non-ballistic impact raw material supplier shall also be considered a major subcontractor.

L.2.4.2 Contents. As stated in Table 1- Proposed Contents and Instructions, both Vol 4a and 4b Past and Present Performance are due on 12 Sep 18 and shall include the following information for each contract effort proposed for Past and Present Performance evaluation:

a) Contract Number

b) Contract Name

c) Name of Contracting Organization

d) Customer Supported

e) Contracting Officer name, email address, and phone number

f) Period of Performance

g) Name, phone number, organization, and email of individual sent the PPQ

Additionally, for prime contract efforts only by other than small businesses, state a yes/no answer to the following question: Was a SBSP required for the contract effort by the offeror?

L.2.5 Volume 4b – Past and Present Performance. (Used to evaluate Past and Present Performance IAW M.2.4 Contents include:

L.2.5.1 Contract Efforts for Past and Present Performance Evaluation. Contract efforts submitted for this Volume 4b shall match exactly the contract efforts and order proposed in Volume 4a. Information on each contract effort shall be clearly separated in the volume and logically presented in the table of contents. The beginning of each contract effort information proposed shall encompass the following in bullets:

a) Contract Number

b) Contract Name

c) Total Value

d) Current Value

e) Period of Performance

f) Total items delivered to date

Additionally, include the name, phone number, organization, and email of any individual sent the PPQ if not included in Volume 4a’s submission.

L.2.5.1.1 Relevance Information. (Used in the evaluation of Relevancy IAW M.2.4.3.2, M.2.4.3.2.1, and M.2.4.3.2.2) Each Past and Present Performance effort proposed for evaluation shall include specific descriptions on how the scope, magnitude, and complexity of work involved for each contract effort was/is similar to this requirement. Information provided shall contain at least the following:

a) Scope: detail how the product/service of the contract effort is/was similar in type of product to that of the

Coxswain Helmet.

b) Magnitude: detail how the total value, current value, and production demands is/was similar to this requirement.

c) Complexity: detail how the technical similarities of the design, manufacture, and construction of the proposed effort is/was similar to this requirement.

d) Relevancy for proposed major subcontractors is defined by that which reflects experience in the area of expertise the major subcontractor is proposed to actually perform under this contract

L.2.5.1.2 Compliance with Small Business Subcontracting Plans. For each contract effort proposed for evaluation that required a SBSP by the offeror, the offeror shall include SF 294s and SF295s for those contract efforts in this volume. If goals were not met on SF 294/295s, offerors shall specify reasons goals were not met.

L.2.5.1.3 Consent Letters. If contract efforts proposed for evaluation were for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and or/joint ventures, offerors shall include in this volume consent letters from those companies authorizing their release of adverse Past and Present Performance so the offeror(s) can respond to such information.

L.2.5.1.4 No Past or Present Performance Statement. If the offeror does not have any recent contract efforts for evaluation as the prime or for subcontractors/teaming partners/joint venture partners, the offeror shall indicate so in this volume. Failure to indicate no prior recent past performance will be considered a deficiency in the proposal.

L.2.5.2 Past and Present Performance Questionnaires – Not Submitted by Offeror (Used in the evaluation of Quality IAW M.2.4.3.3). For each contract effort proposed for Past and Present Performance evaluation, the Contractor shall send RFP Attachment 04 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the end user/customer of the contract. Instruct the end user/customer to email the complete PPQs to stephanie.simpson@socom.mil prior to 12 Sep 18 in accordance with the instructions in the PPQ. PPQs will not be accepted if sent by the offeror in response to the solicitation, they must come directly from the responder.

L.2.6 Volume 5 – PDMs for First Article Testing (FAT). Offerors will submit this volume only when notified IAW Section M.2.6. The notification will include the due date and time for this volume to be submitted. Once notified, offerors, at no cost to the Government, shall submit production representative PDMs in the quantities listed below in Table 4 and Table 5. These PDMs shall be of the exact same design and manufacture and shall be exactly the same as those submitted with Volume 2. The PDMs shall be marked IAW Paragraphs 3.22, 3.22.1, and 3.22.2 of the PSpec. Printed instructions shall be submitted physically with each PDM and shall be IAW Section 3.21 of the PSpec. The PDMs shall be packaged IAW PSpec Section 4 with the exception that the RFP number will be used instead of the contract number and a DD Form 250 and copy of the Government production lot test approval is not required. The vendor shall also electronically submit “build sheets” detailing information on the build and layup of the PDMs including all materials, and quantities of such materials, their layup and processing parameters/conditions used in their manufacture.

mailto:stephanie.simpson@socom.mil

Table 4: Volume 5 PDM Submission Quantities; 4-Size Suite

Table 5: Volume 5 PDM Submission Quantities; 5-Size Suite

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION

SECTION M

M.1 BASIS

FOR AWARD.

This is a competitive, best value source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215. The Government intends to award a single award Firm-Fixed-Price, Indefinite-Delivery- Indefinite-Quantity contract to the responsible offeror whose acceptable proposal, conforming to the requirements of the solicitation, is determined to represent the best value for the Government. This may result in award(s) being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced offeror(s). The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or no awards.

M.1.1 Best Value Evaluation. The Government will first evaluate all proposals against the pass/fail Qualifying Criteria to determine qualification for award. The Government will then use a color rating to evaluate Factor 1 – Operational Assessment, Factor 2 -Technical and the encompassing Subfactors: 1 - Weight, 2 - Technical Approach, Schedule, and Production Capability/Management. Factor 3 – Past and Present Performance will result in assigning a Confidence Assessment Rating to each offeror. Factor 4 – Price will not be given a color rating or scored.

(QTY)

Size 2

QTY

Size 3

QTY

Size 4

QTY

Coxswain Helmets 53 each 57 each 57 each 55 each Ballistic Appliques 32 each 35 each 36 each 35 each

Non-Ballistic Mandibles

7 each 7 each 7 each 7 each

Ballistic Mandibles 35 each 40 each 40 each 43 each Clear Visors 30 each One Size

Smoke Visors 30 each One Size Night Shields** 10 each One Size

**If offered

(QTY)

Size 2

QTY

Size 3

QTY

Size 4

QTY

Size 5

QTY

Coxswain Helmets 46 each 46 each 48 each 49 each 46 each Ballistic Appliques 25 each 24 each 26 each 28 each 25 each

Non-Ballistic Mandibles 7 each 7 each 7 each 7 each 7 each

Ballistic Mandibles 31 each 31 each 36 each 36 each 32 each Clear Visors 30 each One Size

Smoke Visors 30 each One Size Night Shields** 10 each One Size

M.1.2 Evaluation Factors. The Government will evaluate all acceptable proposals as determined in M.1.3 against the following Factors and Subfactors:

a) Factor 1 – Operational Assessment

b) Factor 2 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Weight Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach, Schedule and Production Capability/Management

c) Factor 3 - Past and Present Performance

d) Factor 4 - Price

M.1.2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is significantly more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is significantly more important than Factor 4. When combined, Operational Assessment, Technical/Management, and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. Factor 1 is more important than the combination of Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 4. Under Factor 2: Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2.

M.1.3 Requirements for an Acceptable Proposal. The contractor shall furnish a proposal in strict accordance with Section L. Failure to meet the following requirements will constitute immediate rejection of an offeror’s proposal without consideration for evaluation:

a) A Notice of Intent submitted in strict accordance with Subsection L.1.8.

b) Independent Ballistic/Non-Ballistic Testing Data submitted in strict accordance with Subsection L.2.3.2.1.

Data must at a minimum meet the requirements presented in RFP Attachment 02, Vendor Data.

c) PDMs submitted in strict accordance with Subsection L.2.2.

d) Three of each size Coxswain Helmet System PDMs submitted IAW Subsection L.2.2 will be randomly selected by a Government representative and weighed IAW RFP Attachment 03, Weight Analysis. Three individual data points for each size will be analyzed and each must meet at least the green weight band as calculated with RFP Attachment 03.

e) Berry Amendment Certificates of Conformance (CoC) submitted in strict accordance with L.2.3.2. The CoCs shall be from the material supplier and shall confirm that the materials used in the helmet system/accessories are Berry Amendment Compliant.

In the event a proposal is determined unacceptable and thereby rejected, a notice will be sent to the offeror IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1) stating the reason(s) the proposal will not be considered for further evaluation under this solicitation.

M.1.4 Completion and Accuracy of Volumes. Before evaluating the contents of each volume, the Government will first inspect each volume for completion and accuracy in regards to the submission instructions in Section L.

For any volume exceeding the number of allotted pages as IAW L.1.7 Table 1, the Government will remove any pages subsequent to the number which is allotted and any pages removed will not be evaluated as part of the proposal.

M.1.5 Deficiencies and Unacceptable Ratings. A deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001, or an unacceptable rating in any part of the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal may result in the elimination of the proposal from further consideration without discussions.

M.1.6 Discussions. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Because award may be made on the basis of initial offers received, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms in relation to the factors. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range determination will be made IAW FAR 15.306(c) and offerors excluded from the competitive range will be notified IAW FAR 15.503.

M.1.7 Pass/Fail Gate Prior to Award. After completion of evaluations, offerors remaining in the evaluation will receive a notification to submit Product Demonstration Models (PDMs) for Government Ballistic Testing/ First Article Testing (FAT) IAW L.2.6. Only offerors that pass FAT will remain eligible for award. If no offerors pass, discussions may be entered by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) 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. After completion of FAT, the SSA will decide which remaining passing offeror’s proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon a comparative assessment of proposals against all evaluation criteria.

M.2 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS. This Subsection applies to only those proposals that were determined to be acceptable IAW Subsection M.1.3.

M.2.1 Qualifying Criteria. (Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.1) The Government will evaluate the contents of Volume 1 of the offeror’s proposal on the basis of acceptable or unacceptable. To receive an acceptable rating, the offeror’s proposal must comply with the following:

M.2.1.1 Completed Standard Form (SF 33). (Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.1.1) The Government will evaluate if the offeror submitted a completed and signed copy of the Standard Form (SF) 33 to include Sections A through K with appropriate “fill-ins” completed and each amendment, if applicable, either acknowledged (SF 33 block 14) or signed and returned. The Government will evaluate if the offeror filled in all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) pricing. If an offeror proposed a four-size helmet suite, the Government will evaluate if size five in the proposal is marked as N/A. The Government will also evaluate if the offeror completed RFP Attachment 05, Total Evaluated Price Spreadsheet. Price will be evaluated in Factor 3, Price.

M.2.1.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements and Consistency. (Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.1.2) The Government will evaluate if the offeror identified any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions. If an exception is proposed, the Government will evaluate if the contractor specifically identified the paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. The Government will evaluate if the offeror provided accompanied rationale in support of the exception(s) that fully explains its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate if the proposal is consistent across all volumes. If an apparent inconsistency exists between the promised performance and price, the Government will evaluate if the offeror explained.

M.2.1.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP). (Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.1.3) Not applicable to small businesses IAW FAR 19.702(b)(1) and Subsection L.2.1.3. The Government will evaluate if an offeror identified as other than a Small Business submitted a SBSP that complies with all 15 sections of FAR Clause 52.219-9(d) contained in the solicitation. Failure to submit a SBSP shall make the offeror ineligible for award of the contract.

M.2.1.4 Negotiation POC. (Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.1.4) The Government will evaluate if the offeror submitted a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.

M.2.2 Factor 1 – Operational Assessment of PDMs Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.2. Using the offeror’s PDMs, the Government will conduct an Operational Assessment IAW RFP Attachment 06, Coxswain Helmet Test Plan. Based upon a consensus of the ratings, the Government will assign one of the following ratings to each offeror:

Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating - Factor 1 Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and or/risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M.2.3 Factor 2 – Technical. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall approach to support the Coxswain Helmet System effort and the degree to which the offeror understands the requirements. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of an offeror’s proposal. Assessment of risk is inherent to the evaluation of this factor. The Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies that will enhance contract performance and benefit the Government.

To assign a rating to this Factor, the Government will first evaluate the two Subfactors IAW Subsections M.2.3.1 and M.2.3.2. Based upon the ratings of the two Subfactors and their relative importance as stated in M.1.2.1, the Government will assign one of the following ratings to each offeror:

Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating - Factor 2

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and or/risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating - Factor 2

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

M.2.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Weight of PDMs Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.2. Three of each size Coxswain Helmet System PDMs submitted IAW Subsection L.2.2 will be randomly selected by a Government representative and weighed IAW RFP Attachment 03, Weight Analysis. An average PPAH and weight will be calculated for each size and assigned one of the following ratings from Table 3 below in accordance with RFP Attachment 03. The size with the highest weight will determine the final rating.

Table 3: Weight Banding Table

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.2.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach, Schedule and Production Capability/Management (Submitted IAW Subsection L.2.3.2, L.2.3.2.1, L.2.3.2.2, L.2.3.2.3, L.2.3.2.4, and L.2.3.2.4.1). Based upon the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal submitted IAW L.2.3.2, the Government will assign one of the following ratings:

Table 4 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating - Factor 1

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and or/risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

M.2.4 Factor 3 - Past and Present Performance: The Past and Present Performance evaluation factor evaluates the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the Coxswain Helmet as outlined in this solicitation. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

M.2.4.1 Limitations. Offerors are restricted to the limitations prescribed in L.2.4.1. If an offeror exceeds the maximum number of proposed Past and Present Performance contract efforts allotted, the Government will remove any contract efforts proposed subsequent to the number which is allotted and any contract efforts removed will not be evaluated as part of the proposal.

M.2.4.2 Sources of Past and Present Performance Information: Sources of Past and Present Performance Information to be used for evaluation include:

a) Past and Present Performance Information provided by the offeror in Volumes 4a and 4b IAW Section

L.2.4 and L.2.5.

b) Past and Present Performance Information obtained from PPQs submitted IAW Section L.2.5.2.

Additionally, Past and Present Performance Information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include but not limited to:

a) The Past and Present Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS),

b) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS),

c) Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or

d) Other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

M.2.4.3 There are three aspects to the Past and Present Performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

M.2.4.3.1 Recency. Recency of the offeror’s Past and Present Performance will be evaluated first. Past and Present Performance Information will be determined ‘Recent’ if the effort was performed within three years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. If an effort is not determined recent, it will not be evaluated further or considered in assigning a meaningful confidence assessment rating for the offeror.

M.2.4.3.2 Relevancy. For all efforts determined recent, the Government will determine if the effort is relevant or not relevant to the effort required in this solicitation.

M.2.4.3.2.1 Evaluators will use the Information submitted IAW L.2.5.1.1. along with any other Past Performance Information gathered by the Government as described in M.2.4.2 to determine relevancy.

Recent efforts determined ‘Not Relevant’ will not be evaluated further for quality. Each recent Past and Present Performance be determined to be Relevant or Not Relevant as defined in the following Table 5

Table 5: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

M.2.4.3.2.2 Information used to determine scope, magnitude and complexity include but are not limited to:

a) Scope: how the product/service of the Past and Present Performance effort is/was similar to this product.

b) Magnitude: how the total value, current value, and production demands is/was similar to this requirement.

c) Complexity: how the technical similarities of the design, manufacture, and construction of the proposed effort is/was similar to that of this requirement.

M.2.4.3.3 Quality. For all efforts determined recent and relevant, the Government will assess the overall quality of the offeror’s Past and Present Performance for that effort gathered from PPQs submitted IAW L.2.5.2 and any other quality rating received by the Government through other sources described in M.2.4.2. If a PPQ is not submitted for recent, relevant contract efforts and a quality assessment cannot be gathered through other means described in M.2.4.2, the effort will not be considered in assigning a meaningful confidence assessment rating for the offeror. The evaluation team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s present and past performance IAW Table 6 below:

Table 6 Performance Rating Definitions Exceptional/Blue Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good/Purple Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory/Green Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal/Yellow Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory/Red Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear.

M.2.4.3.3.1 Compliance with Small Business Subcontracting Plans. For each contract effort proposed and determined recent and relevant that required a SBSP by the offeror, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s SF 294s and SF295s submitted IAW L.2.5.1.2. This along with any available eSRS reports will be used to assess the offeror’s compliance with small business subcontracting plans which will impact the overall confidence assessment rating of the offeror.

M.2.4.3.4 Performance Confidence Assessment. The Past and Present Performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Past and Present Performance Evaluation Team will review all Past and Present Performance Information collected and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable performance confidence assessment rating to each offeror:

Table 7 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.2.4.3.4.1 Note on Neutral Confidence: In the case of offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably, or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.503(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.” and Present Performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of Acceptable.

M.2.5 Factor 4 – Price. SF 33, Section B and RFP Attachment 05, Total Estimated Price (TEP) Spreadsheet will be used to evaluate price (submitted IAW L.2.1.1). 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. The Government will calculate the TEP by averaging all unit prices of each size per color. All averaged unit prices will be added to equal a total unit price for each year. The total CLIN price per year will be added to equal the overall CLIN Price for all 7 years.

M.2.6 Testing of PDMs. After complete evaluation of proposals, the Government will conduct FAT IAW PSpec Appendix B using the offeror’s Volume 5 PDMs.