Item 4 120MM Sections LM 28 August 2026_DRAFT.docx

II. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS (SECTION L) L.1 General Instructions:

This section contains general proposal submission instructions as well as specific proposal requirements for the 120mm Tank Training Ammunition (M1002 TPMP-T Cartridge and M865A1 TPCSDS-T Cartridge) acquisition. For the purposes of this proposal submission, the term “Offeror” is defined as the prime contractor. Offerors should thoroughly review Sections L and M prior to submitting a proposal.

This procurement is conducted utilizing a Sequential Two-Phase Evaluation Process:

· PHASE I (Pass/Fail Gate): Offerors must receive a "PASS" to be eligible to advance to Phase II:

· Gate 1: Relevant DD250 OR Capability Statement

· PHASE II (Best Value Trade-Off): Only offerors who pass Phase I will be evaluated under the trade-off factors:

· Factor 1: Technical Approach (Written IMS & Supplier Table and Oral Presentation Slide Deck)

· Factor 2: Past Performance

· Factor 3: Cost/Price (Total Evaluated Price)

· Factor 4: Small Business Participation Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with (IAW) the information in this section. Clarity and completeness are essential, and proposals should be clear, consistent, and concise. The Government cautions Offerors that merely repeating the technical requirements or Technical Data Package (TDP) specifications with stated assertions DOES NOT reflect an understanding of the requirement or substantiate capability to perform.

L.2 Use of Automated Evaluation Tools and Formatting Restrictions:

L.2.1 Readability and Automated Analysis: Offerors shall submit proposals that are clear, concise, and readily readable. To ensure accurate analysis by automated evaluation tools and maintain the integrity of the source selection process, the restrictions in L.2.2 through L.2.5 apply.

L.2.2 Visible Text Only: All proposal content must be presented as visible text. The inclusion of any concealed text is strictly prohibited. Concealed text includes, but is not limited to:

· Micro-text (text with a font size below 8pt);

· White text on a white background;

· Text utilizing colors that render it indistinguishable from the background;

· Text hidden within images, graphics.

L.2.3 Font and Size Requirements: Proposals must adhere to the following font and size requirements:

Written Narrative

· Font Family: Arial

· Font Size: No smaller than 12-point.

Presentation Slide Deck

· Font Family: Arial

· Font Size: No smaller than 14-point L.2.4 Formatting Consistency: All text must apply uniform formatting throughout the proposal. Variations in font size, color, or style that the Government deems manipulate or obscure the readability of content are prohibited.

L.2.5 Compliance Verification: The Government may conduct technical verification to ensure compliance with these requirements. Proposals found to contain concealed or manipulated text will be considered non-compliant and may be rejected.

(Note: DFARS 252.227-7991, Rights in Bid or Proposal Information, applies to this solicitation).

L.3 Program Structure and Award Intent:

L.3.1 Contract Structure: Awards will include a base year, inclusive of a fixed quantity and evaluated option period with quantity ranges, and four additional one-year evaluated options with quantity ranges, for a total of five 12-month evaluated option periods.

L.3.2 Number of Awards: The Government intends to award up to two (2) contracts resulting from this solicitation.

L.3.3 Base Awards: The Government intends to split the firm base quantity award, with the Large Share Base Award quantity of 60% of the M1002 and M865A1requirements going to the overall best value / most advantageous Offeror for each CLIN, and the Small Share Base Award quantity of 40% going to the second-best value most advantageous Offeror for each CLIN. If the Government later decides to exercise an option, then at the time of option exercise, the Government will conduct an analysis and exercise option quantities based on the Government's best interest considering price, performance, and industrial base considerations.

L.3.4 Phased Evaluation: This requirement utilizes a Phased Gate approach. Gate I is evaluated strictly on an Acceptable/Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) basis. Only Offerors passing the Phase I gate will be evaluated for Best Value trade space using Factor 1(Technical), Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 3 (Cost/Price), and Acceptable/Unacceptable for Factor 4 (Small Business Participation).

L.4 Proposal Submission Requirements:

L.4.1 Submission Portal and Due Date: Proposals shall be submitted via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) solicitation module (https://piee.eb.mil) and are due no later than the date and time stated in block 9 of the Standard Form (SF) 33. Proposals submitted by any other method than PIEE will not be evaluated. Late proposals will be handled IAW RFO FAR 52.215-1. Offeror proposals must remain valid for 365 days after the closing date of the RFP as stated in Item 9 of SF 33.

L.4.2 Award with negotiations Notice: In accordance with RFO FAR 52.215-1 Alt 1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting negotiations with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

L.4.3 General Submission Rules: All proposals shall use the English language. Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. The Offeror shall include its company name, date, RFP number, and page numbers on all documents of its proposal. The Offeror shall not lock, or password protect any file. All files shall be virus-scanned, searchable, reproducible, accessible, and printable.

L.4.4 Page Limits and Exclusions: The Government will not read or evaluate pages exceeding the prescribed page limitations. Excess pages will be removed from the proposals. Page limitations do not include volume title pages, table of contents pages, cross referencing pages, list of figures, acronym lists, section bookmarks/page dividers, or indices. No material may be incorporated in the proposal by reference, attachment, appendix, videotape, audiotape, or other electronic media as a means to circumvent the page limitation. No electronic video or audio material will be reviewed or considered in the evaluation. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Additionally, the Government will not evaluate any oral presentation information or content (slides) that exceeds the allowed slide limit for the technical presentation.

L.4.5 Content Confinement: All information shall be confined to the appropriate Volume. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation strictly from a technical standpoint. Volume III shall clearly cross-reference and identify the applicable Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph in the Narratives and during the Oral Presentation.

L.4.6 Hybrid Approach: The Government will utilize a hybrid approach requiring both detailed written narratives and oral presentation slide packages. At the start of each Oral presentation subfactor section the Offeror shall synopsize information provided in the written narratives prior to presenting or expanding on the required elements within the subfactor. The offeror’s presentation shall be clearly detailed and concise to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional clarifications. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

L.4.7 The Government does not desire verbiage, unnecessary and elaborate brochures, lengthy, repetitious, disorganized presentations, or any information beyond that sufficient to present and complete an effective offer. Deficiencies, whether informational or technical, may be cause for elimination from the competitive range and/or rejection of an offer. Unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements are not sufficient. The proposal shall not merely reiterate the contractual specifications but rather shall provide convincing documentary evidence of how contract requirements will be met. The Government presumes the Offeror’s proposal represents its best effort to respond to the solicitation. Submission shall therefore be thorough and complete.

L.4.8 The Government may include some or all of an Offerors proposal into a final contract.

L.4.9 The Offeror’s proposal shall be signed and submitted by an individual who has authority on behalf of the Offeror to enter into a contract based on the submitted proposal.

L.4.10 Proposal Organization and Volume Table: A complete proposal shall include the following volumes, strictly adhering to the page limitations below. Pages exceeding the maximum limits will not be evaluated.

Capability Statement

Capability Statement – Max 5 pages (.docx or .pdf only)

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

Supplier Table

Technical Approach (Oral Presentation Slide Deck)

IMS - No Maximum (.mpp AND .pdf) Supplier Table - No additional Template Sheets (.xlsx Format) Oral Presentation – 60 slide maximum (.pptx format only)

Phase II

Phase II

Phase II

Phase II

L.5 VOLUME A – GATE 1: RELEVANT DD250 OR CAPABILITY STATEMENT

To identify qualified Systems Contractors having capability to deliver ammunition, Offerors shall submit an approved 120mm Tank Training Ammunition DD250 acceptance document or may provide a Capability Statement of its ability to successfully deliver 120mm Tank Training Ammunition to the USG in lieu of a DD250.

L.6 VOLUME I – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ORAL PRESENTATION) To effectively evaluate the Technical Factor without imposing an undue narrative reading burden, the Government will conduct a hybrid process with Written Submissions and Oral Presentations.

L.6.1 SUBFACTOR 1 – Contract Management (Written Narrative) – This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Contract Management Strategy. The Offeror will provide a written narrative to substantiate the following L.6.1.1 – Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) – The offeror shall submit an IMS (.mpp and .pdf formats) detailing the schedule of events needed for Base Award and Option Year 1 of this contract. For this IMS, the offeror shall utilize hypothetical option quantities of 2 lots of 8,000 cartridges of M1002 and 2 lots of 8,000 cartridges of M865A1 per option period. The IMS shall include any CDRLs and documentation submissions required by the RFP. Offerors shall assume all FAATs must be executed in the Base Year. The IMS shall include a realistic breakdown of the 120mm Tank Training Cartridges in substantial detail showing specific piece-parts, sub-assemblies, components, and tests required. The IMS shall include the manufacturing and testing facilities detailing where and how material will be fabricated and transferred to next downstream processes. It should also identify the critical path for each production build.

L.6.1.2 – In addition to the IMS the Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the resourcing assumptions and how the offeror plans to manage shared resource allocations (both internally with multiple delivery items on its contract and externally against competing competitor resourcing), discuss parts and assemblies that have long lead times and demonstrate how the offeror intends to manage both M865A1 and M1002 production through each option period of the contract L.6.1.3 Supplier Table – The offeror shall provide a completed “Supplier Table” spreadsheet (see Attachment XX) detailing its intended supply base for this contract. Supporting the Offerors provided Supplier Table, the offeror shall identify its key producers, identify single points of failure (SPoF), and any raw materials or components coming from China or restricted sources and how it intends to obtain these items from non-restricted sources, or it shall certify all raw materials and components are not obtained from any restricted sources L.6.1.4 – The Offeror shall provide a narrative detailing its risk management tools and business processes that it will use in contract execution to control performance, technical, and schedule risk.

L.6.1.5 – The Offeror shall present its comprehensive Tank Training Integrated Product Team (IPT) structure, providing working level and managerial functional organizational charts mapping essential positions to key program risks and critical capabilities as a Systems Contractor. The Offeror must present the planned roles and responsibilities for the specific internal functional subject matter expertise which will actively perform physical audits and troubleshoot subcontractor floor operations describing how it will enforce and validate the quality acceptance and other Technical Data Package (TDP) requirements throughout the supply chain.

L.6.2 SUBFACTOR 1 – Contract Management (Oral Presentation). This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Contract Management Strategy. At a minimum the oral presentations must provide information to substantiate the following:

L.6.2.1 – From the Offerors submitted IMS the offeror shall present its scheduling process methodology, justification of key milestones, and discuss how it manages risk, builds margin into the schedule, and assesses changing critical path items. It should identify specific tasks in the IMS as examples to further explain its process and schedule development strategy.

L.6.2.2 – From the Offerors submitted Supplier Table, it shall provide a narrative of how it will address reducing or eliminating the number of SPoF suppliers, and its plan to expand and strengthen the supply base to ensure continuity of operations and supply chain.

L.6.2.3 – Supporting the Offerors risk management structure, the Offeror shall present how risks are identified, defined, tracked, and overcome, and how the offeror’s risk reduction methodology addresses technical setbacks that may occur during the life of the contract, i.e. test failures, performance and/or reliability issues, etc. Specific examples shall be presented clearly demonstrating how the offeror’s risk management processes were executed and validated reducing risk through supplied mitigation strategies.

L.6.2.4 – Supporting the Offerors functional IPT roles and responsibilities, the Offeror shall present how its IPT will balance speed, supply chain, quality control, risk reduction and mitigation, and shifting priorities ensuring acceptable high quality product and on time deliveries. Additionally, the Offeror shall present its methodology of how it flows down, monitors and manages key characteristics to subcontractors ensuring the assembled end item meets performance requirements.

L.6.3 SUBFACTOR 2: Quality Management System (Written Narrative). This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Quality Management System. The Offeror will provide a written narrative to substantiate the following:

L.6.3.1 – The offeror shall describe how it oversees and manages how the Offerors suppliers flags, quarantines, segregates, and determines disposition of non-conforming product, presenting its plans and procedures to ensure no non-conforming product is reintroduced into the product stream. It shall present the functional decision authority tree and product disposition flow chart and a detailed description of how it intends to incorporate feedback mechanisms to improve decision timeline, minimize production impact, and ensure accountability that non-conforming material does not make its way into good product streams.

L.6.3.2 – The offeror shall describe its end-to-end material traceability system. To further validate that system, it shall present an example of a finished major subassembly item or relevant cartridge from production, providing specific material lot number information identifying how a defect was inspected, determined, and flagged. It shall present evidence of how the material was physically and electronically segregated and quarantined. From the example provided, the Offeror shall present the flow chart and decision path to material dispositioning and how it was reworked or scrapped.

L.6.3.3 – The offeror shall detail its Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) methodology for a critical tank ammunition sub-component process (propellant, primer, projectile sub-assembly, etc). It shall present an example of how its PFMEA was utilized and linked to a control plan used by operators on the manufacturing floor.

L.6.3.4 – The Offeror shall detail a synopsized Root Cause Corrective Action (RCCA) event for a significant relevant ammunition-based failure from the last 18 months or a theoretical example. Detail the failure, its RCCA process, and how data and results from this event identified the specific root cause and drove to auditable and permanent corrective actions and/or process updates.

L.6.4 – SUBFACTOR 2: Quality Management System (Oral Presentation). This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Quality Management System. At a minimum the oral presentations must present information to substantiate the following:

L.6.4.1 – The Offeror shall present its methodology for integrating, enforcing, and monitoring Statistical Process Control (SPC) as outlined in the SOW. The Offeror shall detail how it will monitor, manage, and improve, if necessary, manufacturing and measurement controls for inspection requirements across its supplier base for critical manufacturing nodes and key SOW-defined characteristics. The Offeror should present how it intends to ensure suppliers execute data capture, review, frequency, and feedback mechanisms and how the supplier-level inspection data is transmitted back and incorporated into the Offeror’s overarching quality management system. Finally, the Offeror shall present how it will validate supplier measurement precision and prevention of out of calibration or non-conforming inspection equipment and the feedback loops employed between the Offeror and the supplier to drive immediate corrective actions on the supplier's production line.

L.6.4.2 – The Offeror shall present its supplier development and audit methodology to its lowest levels, explicitly describing how audit schedules and supplier development scopes are determined, executed, and tracked for improvements and corrective actions across their supply base. The Offeror shall present how these audits will be integrated into the Production Quality Program (PQP) methodology. The Offeror shall present examples of key trigger points that caused out of cycle supplier process reviews or audits, a synopsis of the issue and corrective action close out during the audit cycle, and how this process was annotated on a suppler performance scorecard.

L.6.4.3 – Supporting the Offerors provided end-to-end material traceability system, the Offeror shall present how it will use, update, and continuously improve upon its material disposition process to include how often this process is reviewed, updated, and re-evaluated focusing on continuous improvements and flow down of updated material handling and segregation documentation requirements to operators. The Offeror shall also present at least one (1) example of how its suppliers were audited using the presented system confirming it followed procedures based on material disposition decisions and if the offeror reviewed the process to identify any potential improvements.

L.6.4.4 – Supporting the Offerors provided PFMEA Process methodology, the Offeror shall present how it intends to continue using PFMEAs, and how changes to the control plans are influenced by active production and the PFMEA. The Offeror shall present how it intends to incorporate and validate updates into the control plans and how those are integrated into the supply base and provided to the machine operators.

L.6.4.5 – From the Offerors RCCA event provided, the Offeror shall present evidence of how the PFMEA and quality control documentation was updated based on results of the RCCA. Discuss the methodology for reviewing and updating the RCCA process based on lessons learned, and any actions taken to reduce or eliminate a similar event from happening again.

L.6.5 SUBFACTOR 3: Technical, Manufacturing, and Engineering Capability (Written Narrative). This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Technical, Manufacturing, and Engineering Capability. The offeror will provide a written narrative to substantiate the following:

L.6.5.1 – The Offeror shall detail its engineering teams’ process for conducting a comprehensive 'scrub' of a Government-provided TDP prior to soliciting bids or authorizing supplier production. It shall present its Configuration Management process to include a process flow chart and up and downstream communication mechanisms L.6.5.2 – The Offeror shall detail their engineering methodology, collaboration engagement, and technical expertise for identifying opportunities and enforcing lean manufacturing principles and continuous line optimization across their subcontractor network to maximize throughput and First Pass Yield (FPY).

L.6.5.3 – The Offeror shall detail and list their organic, in-house and outsourced laboratory and engineering analysis facilities utilized to support independent product assessments, root-cause failure investigations, and continuous process improvement activities it intends to use for this contract L.6.6 SUBFACTOR 3: Technical, Manufacturing, and Engineering Capability (Oral Presentation). This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Technical, Manufacturing, and Engineering Capability. At a minimum the oral presentations must present information to substantiate the following:

L.6.6.1 – From the Offerors description of its Configuration Management process, the offeror shall present a specific example of an event triggering an internal corrective action with a supplier requiring execution of formal configuration management procedures. The Offeror should synopsize the details triggering the event, data acquisition, corrective actions, and / or RFVs requiring USG review. Finally, the Offeror shall present its process for ensuring all updates were provided, understood by the supplier, and independently verified and validated prior to and during production at a supplier site.

L.6.6.2 – The offeror shall present its methodology for independently validating a subcontractor's actual production capacity and capability and provide an example of how the offeror’s manufacturing experts conducted an on-site 'Run-at-Rate’ and capability validation assessment at a Tier 1 supplier either proving capability and throughput or addressing production inconsistencies prior to authorizing full-rate production. It shall present its supplier capacity validation cycle for its intended industrial base. Identify areas of capacity risk based on Supplier Table (Tier 1&2) and planned improvements to mitigate capacity risks.

L.6.6.3 – Supporting the Offerors Lean Manufacturing narrative, the Offeror shall demonstrate a proactive, data-driven approach describing the tools it intends to use and / or implement detailing its forcing function to suppliers for implementing process optimization activities. The Offeror shall also present and explain how it will utilize the feedback mechanism from the PQP tying that into lean manufacturing and continuous improvement principles.

L.6.6.4 – Supporting the Offerors provided laboratory and engineering capability, the Offeror shall present evidence of how these in-house diagnostic assets will be leveraged to rapidly dissect supply-chain defects, independently verify supplier data, accelerate closed-loop corrective actions, and engineer systemic manufacturing improvements across the supply chain.

L.7 VOLUME II FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

L.7.1 Submission Limit: Limit Past Performance submissions to a 2-page spreadsheet (.xlsx). Offerors shall only provide the Contract Number, Total Value, Dates of Performance, and a maximum 3-sentence description of relevance for up to four (4) recent and relevant Government supply contracts awarded within the past three (3) years of the issue date of this RFP. Relevant contracts include prime or subcontract manufacturing of ammunition.

L.7.2 Data Source: Do not submit lengthy past performance narratives. The Government will independently query the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) to evaluate performance quality, focusing heavily on historical First Article Test (FAT) failures, Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs), and on-time delivery metrics.

L.8 VOLUME III – FACTOR 3: PRICE

L.8.1 Offerors shall prepare their proposals in accordance with the instructions provided in this section. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all information requested. Offeror shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in the proposal being rejected without evaluation.

L.8.2 In accordance with FAR 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required based on the fact that adequate competition is expected for this procurement. If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data. Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, "Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data" and DFARS 252.215-7009 entitled, "Proposal Adequacy Checklist" into the RFP and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume, which is not directly related to Cost/Price, will be disregarded.

L.8.3 Files contained in the Volume III Cost/Price submission shall not be password protected. The Offeror shall provide a completed Attachment 0001 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix, also known as the Price Matrix.

The five Option Periods (OPs) for this requirement run consecutively as follows:

· Option Period 1: 12 months from the date of award

· Option Period 2: 12 months from the end of Option Period 1

· Option Period 3: 12 months from the end of Option Period 2

· Option Period 4: 12 months from the end of Option Period 3

· Option Period 5: 12 months from the end of Option Period 4

L.8.4 PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

L.8.4.1 The Offeror shall submit a complete Price Proposal. The Price Proposal shall include the completed Price Matrix (Attachment 0001).

L.8.4.2 Price Matrix: The Offeror shall complete all BLUE cells within the ‘Proposal’ tab of the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix. The Offeror shall also complete the BLUE sections within the ‘Summary’ tab of the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix. The ‘Summary’ tab automatically populates with information from the applicable ‘Proposal’ tab. The Offeror shall enter its Name, CAGE Code, and Date on the Summary Tab in the cell highlighted in BLUE. The Offeror is not required to complete anything additional on the ‘Summary’ tab.

For CLINS 0001 and 0004, the Offeror is required to propose a Firm Fixed Price for First Article Acceptance Testing (FAAT) within the Base Period and each applicable Option Period.

For CLINS 0002 and 0005, the Offeror shall propose a Firm-Fixed unit price for the quantities as depicted for each the Large Share (60%), Small Share (40%), and Total Base (100%).

For CLINS 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0006, the Offeror shall enter Firm-Fixed unit prices for each of the quantity ranges listed for Option Period 1 through Option Period 5.

The Offeror will only be required to propose on the FFP CLINs as depicted in the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix.

L.8.4.3 Currency and Rounding: All proposed pricing will be binding for the 120mm Tank Training contract(s). The Offeror shall state all proposed prices in current U.S. dollars and cents and are limited to two decimal places.

L.8.4.4 Firm-Fixed-Price: The proposed prices will be the basis for a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. The Offeror agrees that its proposed prices include all costs, profit, and any other expenses necessary for the performance of all requirements of the contract.

L.8.4.5 Compliance: The Government has highlighted each area that requires the Offeror's input in BLUE. Failure to complete the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix in its entirety may result in the Offeror not being eligible for award. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to the Cost/Price factor.

The Government reserves the right to require the submission of any data necessary to validate the reasonableness of an offer, including certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403.

The Offeror is not to add any other information to the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix, nor shall Offerors make any changes to the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix. The Price Matrix will be locked to prevent inadvertent changes to the 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix by the Offeror.

L.9 VOLUME IV FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

L.9.1 Other Than Small Business Offerors must demonstrate a commitment to providing maximum practicable opportunities for small business participation by addressing the requirements of this factor. In accordance with 13 CFR 125.3(g)(3), Small Business Offerors shall receive an Acceptable rating and are not required to submit any information in connection with this factor. An Offeror is considered a Small Business if it can certify its Small Business status under [PRIMARY_NAICS_CODE 332993].

L.9.2 The Offeror shall provide its proposed overall Small Business goal along with proposed goals for each of the five socioeconomic categories that include Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone Certified Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses by using RFP Attachment 00XX, Small Business Participation Commitment Document. The proposed goals shall be based on total contract value to include all Option Periods.

L.9.2.1 Please note that the proposed overall Small Business goal and the proposed socioeconomic category goals will ultimately be incorporated into the resultant contract to include all applicable Option Periods. Performance of these goals will then contribute to the determination of the awardee’s CPAR rating for Small Business during contract execution.

NOTE: Offerors shall use the following to formulate a Table of Contents to create a uniform document. This will assist evaluators in conducting an efficient evaluation process.

(a) Small Business Participation Commitment Methodology: Describe the most effective and efficient methods for establishing its proposed goals /or MQR (if applicable) to include business techniques (e.g., interviews, outreach, small business onboarding website(s)…etc.); use of specific data sources/systems (both government and internal); and relevant data elements (e.g., contract value, subcontracting data, NAICS, etc.) used to create an informed, reasonable, and achievable goal. The Offeror shall identify any risks associated with the requirements (e.g., labor market, performance location(s), socioeconomic marketplace, etc.) and actions the Offeror will take to mitigate the potential risks.

(b) Industrial Base Growth Initiatives: Describe, if any, methods to maximize small business participation during execution and enhance industrial base resiliency such as, but not limited to: Mentor Protégé relationships (formal DoD/SBA or informal), complexity and variety of small business work portion, providing facility clearance sponsorship to small business(es), leveraging new entrant small businesses, use of regional/local small business subcontractors, or providing performance assessment to small business teaming partners whether it be through joint ventures or first tier subcontractors to facilitate 13 CFR 125.11 on future procurements. Offerors should not limit themselves to the aforementioned example and are encouraged to identify and describe out-of-the-box methods and techniques that can support industrial base growth.

(c) Binding Agreements: Describe the extent to which binding agreements are in place with small business team members/subcontractors and method(s) of substitution should relationships/marketplace change during execution while sustaining proposed goals.

(d) Demonstrated Small Business Participation History: Describe, if any, recent procurement history of demonstrated success or good faith efforts in meeting or exceeding small business participation goals on similar work/contracts. The Offeror shall submit subcontracting reports (Individual or Summary Subcontracting Reports) or DCMA audits of subcontracting plans for their recent contracts that required a subcontracting plan. Offerors are limited to submitting one report for each contract and an aggregate maximum of three (any combination of reports/audits). Offerors who do not have subcontracting past performance shall indicate so.

L.10 VOLUME V – SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS

L.10.1 Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. For any fill-ins not applicable, the Offeror must acknowledge by indicating “N/A.” The Offeror shall provide acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation and submit all continuation sheets to be filled in as directed. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

· Section A: Standard Form 33 (SF 33) and continuation sheets (Sections A through M) signed by the authorized personnel to enter into the proposed Solicitation/Award on behalf of the Offeror.

· Sections A through J: Fill-ins as required.

· Section K: Representations, Certification and Other Statements of Offerors.

· For Other Than Small Business Offerors ONLY: A Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted with this volume in accordance with RFO FAR 52.219-9.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (SECTION M)

M.1 General / Basis for Award Statement This acquisition will be conducted utilizing Best Value Trade-Off Analysis Procedures in accordance with RFO FAR 15.103-1. The award(s) will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The Government reserves the right to make a single award. To receive consideration for award, an offeror must receive a "PASS" rating on Phase I Gate(Technical Capability/DD250), and its Phase II Technical Approach must achieve a rating of no less than "Acceptable". Additionally, any Other Than Small Business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award IAW RFO FAR 19.109(a)(1)(i).

M.1.1 Awards: The Government intends to split the firm base quantity award, with the Large Share Base Award quantity of 60% of the M1002 and M865A1requirements going to the overall best value / most advantageous Offeror for each CLIN, and the Small Share Base Award quantity of 40% going to the second-best value most advantageous Offeror for each CLIN. If the Government later decides to exercise an option, then at the time of option exercise, the Government will conduct an analysis and exercise option quantities based on the Government's best interest considering price, performance, and industrial base considerations.

M.1.2 Phased Evaluation Workflow: The Government will evaluate proposals using a sequential, two-phase process:

· Phase I Evaluation: Proposals submitted for Gate 1 (Technical Entry-Gate) will be evaluated on a strictly Pass/Fail (Acceptable/Unacceptable) basis. An offeror must receive a rating of "PASS" on Phase I Gate to be eligible for Phase II. A "FAIL" on Phase I Gate will render the entire proposal ineligible.

· Phase II Evaluation: Only offerors that successfully pass Phase I Gate will have their Volume I - Factor 1 (Technical Approach), Volume II - Factor 2 Past Performance, Volume III - Factor 3 (Price), and Volume IV - Factor 4 (Small Business Participation) volumes evaluated.

M.1.3 Relative Importance of Factors: The source selection and final trade-off decision are strictly restricted to the Phase II evaluation factors: Factor 1 (Technical Approach), Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 3 (Price), and Factor 4 (Small Business) Participation. Within Phase II, Factor 1 (Technical Approach) is more important than Factor 2 (Past Performance), both non price factors are more important than Factor 3 (Price). Factor 4 (Small Business Participation) is pass/fail and not part of the trade-off. The Technical subfactors are of equal importance. All Phase I Gate is excluded from the trade-off. The Government reserves the right to make an award to an offeror with a higher-priced proposal that is determined to be technically superior under Factor 1.

M.2 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in Proposal Evaluation M.2.1 Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

M.2.2 Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision-making authority to any AI tool.

M.2.3 Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH & FINDINGS DEFINITIONS

M.3.1 The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content, with the exception of past performance, for which the Government may also use independent data. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare the proposals to determine the offers that represent the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP.

M.3.2 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting negotiations with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint..

M.3.3 Pursuant to RFO FAR 9.103, the Government will only award contracts to Offerors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Separate from the best value source selection criteria, Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in RFO FAR 9.104. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey on any Offeror considered for award, to assist in the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsibility.

M.3.4 The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

· Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP.

· Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.3.5 For the purpose of evaluating proposals, the following terms and definitions are relevant:

· Significant Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

· Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

· Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

· Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear.

· Risk: Assesses the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.4 PHASE I EVALUATION CRITERIA (PASS/FAIL GATES)

M.4.1 Gate 1: Technical Entry-Gate / Threshold Criteria: Evaluated on a strictly Acceptable/Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) basis. The Government will verify active explosive storage licenses/site plans, ISO 9001:2015 certifications, DD Form 2345s, and NTIB compliance. Any Offeror failing to provide valid proof for a single criterion receives a FAIL and is eliminated from the competition.

M.5 PHASE II EVALUATION CRITERIA (TRADE-OFF FACTORS)

M.5.1 FACTOR 1: Technical Approach (Written Narrative & Oral Presentation):

The Technical Factor is divided into three (3) subfactors evaluated across both Written Narratives and Oral Presentations: (1) Contract Management; (2) Quality Management System; (3) Technical, Manufacturing, and Engineering Capability. The subfactors are of equal importance. The Government will holistically assess both the written narratives and oral presentations to determine the proposed Key Personnel's practical, in-depth comprehension of the requirements and the Technical Data Package (TDP).

M.5.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1 – Contract Management (Written Narrative) M.5.1.1.1: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to assess the schedule of events needed for Base Award and Option Year 1. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the IMS based on the required hypothetical option quantities, inclusion of CDRLs/documentation, and Base Year FAAT assumptions. The Government will assess the realistic breakdown of the 120mm Tank Training Cartridges, evaluating the specific piece-parts, sub-assemblies, components, tests, manufacturing/testing facilities, material transfer processes, and the identified critical path for each production build.

M.5.1.1.2: The Government will evaluate the offeror's resourcing assumptions and plans to manage shared resource allocations (both internally across multiple delivery items and externally against competing competitor resourcing). The Government will assess the offeror's approach to managing parts and assemblies with long lead times and their demonstrated intent to manage both M865A1 and M1002 production through each option period.

M.5.1.1.3: The Government will evaluate the completed Supplier Table to assess the intended supply base. The Government will evaluate the identification of key producers, Single Points of Failure (SPoF), and the offeror’s strategy to either obtain raw materials or components currently sourced from China/restricted sources from non-restricted sources, or its certification that no raw materials and components are obtained from restricted sources.

M.5.1.1.4: The Government will evaluate the documented risk management tools and business processes the offeror will use in contract execution to control performance, technical, and schedule risk.

M.5.1.1.5: The Government will evaluate the comprehensive Tank Training Integrated Product Team (IPT) structure. The Government will assess the working level and managerial functional organizational charts mapping essential positions to key program risks and critical capabilities as a Systems Contractor. Furthermore, the Government will evaluate the planned roles and responsibilities for internal functional subject matter expertise to actively perform physical audits, troubleshoot subcontractor floor operations, and enforce and validate quality acceptance and TDP requirements throughout the supply chain.

M.5.1.2 SUBFACTOR 1 – Contract Management (Oral Presentation) M.5.1.2.1: The Government will evaluate the presented IMS scheduling process methodology, the justification of key milestones, and how the offeror manages risk, builds margin into the schedule, and assesses changing critical path items using specific IMS tasks as examples.

M.5.1.2.2: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative on how it will reduce or eliminate the number of SPoF suppliers, and the feasibility of its plan to expand and strengthen the supply base to ensure continuity of operations and supply chain.

M.5.1.2.3: The Government will evaluate how risks are identified, defined, tracked, and overcome. The Government will assess the risk reduction methodology regarding technical setbacks (e.g., test failures, performance/reliability issues) and evaluate specific examples demonstrating how risk management processes were executed and validated to reduce risk through supplied mitigation strategies.

M.5.1.2.4: The Government will evaluate how the functional IPT roles and responsibilities balance speed, supply chain, quality control, risk reduction and mitigation, and shifting priorities to ensure acceptable high-quality product and on-time deliveries. The Government will also assess the methodology of flowing down, monitoring, and managing key characteristics to subcontractors to ensure the assembled end item meets performance requirements.

M.5.1.3 SUBFACTOR 2: Quality Management System (Written Narrative) M.5.1.3.1: The Government will evaluate how the offeror oversees and manages how its suppliers flag, quarantine, segregate, and determine the disposition of non-conforming product. The Government will assess the plans, procedures, functional decision authority tree, and product disposition flow chart to ensure no non-conforming product is reintroduced, including how feedback mechanisms improve decision timelines, minimize production impact, and ensure accountability.

M.5.1.3.2: The Government will evaluate the end-to-end material traceability system.