13R1017_Amendment_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 provide responses to Industry questions as w ell as updates to the solicitation as applicable. Updates to the solicitation are highlighted for the offerors' convenience. Offerors are advised that due date for proposals remains 2:00PM, local time, 19 August 2013. Please see page 2 for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 24

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 14-Aug-2013

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 M67854-13-R-1017

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jul-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 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

14-Aug-2013

CODE

MARCORSYSCOM CESS

2202 LESTER STREET

QUANTICO VA 22134

M67854 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

M67854-13-R-1017

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The standard size code 1000 has been added.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERICAL ITEMS ADDENDUM

1 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

The Government anticipates awarding up to two, 36-month, Firm Fixed Priced (FFP), Indefinite Delivery /

Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts as a result of this solicitation. Each Offeror shall submit its proposal for the

RAT Boot in accordance with the instructions presented herein.

Evaluation of offers for the IDIQ contracts will be conducted in two (2) separate phases. At the conclusion of the first phase, the Government anticipates establishing a competitive range and engaging in discussions. For purposes of efficiency and the limited availability of Government evaluation resources, a maximum of 5 offers will be included in the competitive range.

2 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

2.1 Address and Due Date

Sealed proposals, including Volumes I, II, III, PDMs and additional price quotation shall be received at the following location no later than 2:00 PM LOCAL TIME 19 AUGUST 2013.

Commander

Contracts Directorate, CT02.1

Marine Corps Systems Command

2201A Willis Street

Quantico, VA 22134-6050

Attn: Peggy Smith, RFP: M67854-13-R-1017

2.2 Package Labeling

All packages/boxes submitted in response to this solicitation shall reflect the following on the address label:

Solicitation Number: M67854-13-R-1017 RAT Boot

The legend "TO BE DELIVERED UNOPENED TO PEGGY SMITH”

The volume and copy number of written material contained in each package/box

Quantity of PDM

2.3 Additional Price Quotation (Factor 1, Subfactor 4)

Offerors shall submit a separate price quote, priced per pair of boots, for a one time purchase of up to 55 pairs TW and 55 pairs HW RAT boots, for the same boots offered, and in any size required, by the solicitation for the IDIQ contract at a total possible maximum price not to exceed $25,000. The Government will make purchases against these separate price quotes only from offerors who are included in the competitive range. These purchases will be accomplished as separate actions prior to the award of the IDIQ contracts. The boots offered shall be identical to those offered for the IDIQ contract and the boots purchased against the separate quotes shall then be evaluated and the results of the evaluation of these boots considered in the second phase of evaluating offers for IDIQ contract awards. Offerors will be required to provide these RAT boots no later than 10 days after receipt of purchase order.

During Phase II of evaluations, the TW and HW RAT boots purchased will be field tested to verify that they meet the Government’s TW and HW RAT boot performance requirements as well as those requirements not perceptible through laboratory developmental testing, to include, but not limited to, fit and comfort.

2.4 Offer Acceptance Period

The minimum offer acceptance period is 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals.

3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 General Proposal Format Offeror shall submit technical, past performance and business proposals as separate volumes in loose-leaf three ring binders. Offeror shall submit one original technical proposal, one original past performance proposal and one original business proposal. Each copy shall have a cover sheet marked with the copy number (e.g., Copy 1 of 1), title, RFP identification, and classification (i.e., RAT boots) and Offeror's name. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal

Information and Source Selection Information. Documents shall be stamped “For Official Use Only and Source

Selection Sensitive - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Original and numbers of copies required are provided below:

VOLUME CONTENT COPIES

Volume I RAT boot Technical Proposal

(1) Original

(1) Duplicative Copy

(1) Electronic Copy (CD/DVD)

Volume II RAT boot Past Performance Proposal (1) Original

(1) Electronic Copy (CD/DVD)

Volume III RAT boot Business Proposal

(1) Original

(1) Electronic Copy (CD/DVD)

3.2 Volume I – Technical Proposal(s)

3.2.1 Technical Proposal Submission

Each Offeror may submit only one full and complete proposal for the RAT boot. Each technical proposal must include the required number of PDMs and all required written technical documentation.

3.2.2 Product Demonstration Models (PDMs) (Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 2)

Each Offeror shall submit the following items as part of its technical proposal to demonstrate form, function, aesthetic/uniform requirements and technical effectiveness:

RAT Boot Proposal: 15 TW RAT boot PDMs and 15 HW RAT boot PDMs per the following tariff:

Size TW RAT HW RAT

7.5R 3 pairs 3 pairs

10R 3 pairs 3 pairs

10.5R 3 pairs 3 pairs

11R 3 pairs 3 pairs

12R 3 pairs 3 pairs

Each PDM shall be identified on the inner surface of the respective boot using an easily removable label that identifies the Offeror submitting the proposal. This label identification shall be such that it does not affect the performance or evaluation of the design. PDMs shall be branded with the Marine Corps Eagle, Globe and Anchor

Emblem as set in the specification. No company identifying information or marking shall be on the PDM other than the removable label.

Each PDM shall be assembled in accordance with the respective TW and HW RAT boot PD dated 6 May 2013 and packaged in accordance with Section D of the solicitation.

PDMs will be used in the evaluation of Factor 1, Subfactor 2 (Evaluation of PDMs for Quality and Workmanship) to determine the quality of overall construction, cleanliness and identification of any patent defects. PDMs will also be used in the evaluation of Factor 1, Subfactor 2 (PDM Lab Testing) to determine compliance with the TW and HW

Purchase Descriptions, respectively.

PDMs shall be retained by the Government until the procurement and any post-award debriefings are complete.

Offerors not selected for award may request that their PDMs be returned, at their expense, by submitting their return address, shipping instructions, and shipping account number for Government use. Requests for PDMs to be returned must be received within 120 days of contract award or they will be destroyed at the Government’s discretion.

3.2.3 Written Technical Proposal (Factor 1, Subfactor 3)

Each written technical proposal shall convey the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed designs meet or exceed the requirements specified in the TW and HW Purchase Descriptions as well as articulate the designs’ capabilities (e.g., flexibility, strength, ventilation, durability). The Technical Proposal shall consist of no more than 30 pages, with each page numbered sequentially from 1 to 30. One electronic version of the proposal (CD/DVD Microsoft Word or compatible) shall be provided in addition to the hard copies. Should conflicts arise between the material presented in the hard copy and the electronic copy, the hard copy marked “Original” will govern. Evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages specified-all information on pages past the maximum number will not be evaluated. Proposal type shall be no smaller than a font size of 11, Courier New, and may be single-spaced. Page size shall not exceed 8½” x 11”. Drawings, pictures, fabric certifications, and other written documentation provided shall be counted in 8½” x 11” increments (e.g., an 11” x 17” document will count as two pages). Items like title pages and tables of contents will not count towards the overall page limit; however, such items shall be limited in use. Offeror will be required to ensure each page indicates proper identification in the header or footer.

3.2.3.1 Raw Material Written Information (Factor 1, Subfactor 3)

Offeror shall provide a concise list/table/matrix of all raw material and sub-component materials used in the fabrication of the PDMs as well as Berry Amendment compliance. Offerors shall reference all test data and provide

Certificates of Conformation (CoC) which demonstrate compliance with the requirements. The list/table/matrix and

CoCs do not count against the technical proposal page limit and shall be submitted as an appendix. The list/table/matrix may be incorporated in the final contract and be used for quality assurance purposes.

3.2.3.2 Manufacturing Capability (Factor 2)

Offeror shall discuss, in detail, its ability to provide both pre-production units and production quantities in accordance with solicitation paragraph F.1, Delivery Schedule.

The written proposal shall include below information to substantiate the Offeror’s claim of its ability to deliver a maximum quantity of 150,160 Berry Amendment Compliant TW RAT boots and 150,160 Berry Amendment

Compliant HW RAT boots that conform to all of the requirements within the delivery schedule above.

A Manufacturing Plan that includes a detailed process flow chart of material input, output and production steps in sequential order to be used in the production of the RAT boots that includes subcontractor participation. It shall also include the detailed program mangement plan, including 3PL support, which outlines the Offeror’s plans to coordinate all contractor activities related to this contract. This shall not include raw material supplier production processes. The Manufacturing Plan is a single document that incorporates the details of relevant subcontractors’ manufacturing plans. The manufacturing plan does not count against the technical proposal page limit and shall be submitted as an appendix. The Manufacturing Plan may be incorporated in the final contract and be used for quality assurance purposes.

Evaluators will review the detailed program management plan, which includes 3PL support, provided for the

Offeror’s plans to coordinate all contractor activities related to this contract.

A Supply Chain Management chart which demonstrates use of Berry Amendment Compliant materials in the construction of the RAT boots. The Supply Chain Management chart does not count against the technical proposal page limit and shall be submitted as an appendix. The chart may be incorporated in the final contract and be used for quality assurance purposes.

Signed manufacturing agreement(s)/partnership plan(s) with principal subcontractor(s) where applicable. This information does not count against the technical proposal page limit and shall be submitted as an appendix.

A Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) that details the internal processes and procedures for establishing and controlling quality of raw materials works in process, and end items including procedures for notification and quarantine of defective raw materials and finished items. The QAP is a single document that incorporates the details of relevant subcontractors’ QAPs. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide its commercial warranty provisions against defects in workmanship, materials, design and performance. Neither the QAP nor the commercial warranty provisions count against the technical proposal page limit and shall be submitted as an appendix. The QAP and/or the commercial warranty provisions may be incorporated in the final contract and be used for quality assurance purposes.

Failure to provide this information may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined as non-responsive.

3.3 Volume II – Past Performance Proposal (Factor 3)

Offerors are advised that the Government may use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) data and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), as well as recent and relevant past performance data provided by the Offeror. Therefore, the Government requests that

Offerors provide past performance information that adequately supports its stated capabilities to accomplish the work defined in the solicitation. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of any past performance data provided.

Furthermore, the Government does not assume the duty to search for data to explain or remedy any inconsistencies it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror. All past performance information required is applicable to all proposed first-tier subcontractors with whom the Offeror is teaming, as well as the Offeror. The Offeror shall submit with its proposal its first tier subcontractors’ letter(s) of consent allowing the Government to disclose the subcontractors’ past performance to the Offeror if necessary.

At a minimum, proposals shall include the following information for work similar in size, scope, and/or complexity to the TW RAT boot and HW RAT boot: technical relevance of the referenced effort to this procurement, demonstrated technical and schedule performance, general responsiveness to contract requirements, management aspects of the effort to include problem resolution, quality of the products and services, and overall customer satisfaction with products and services. For any contracts which did not/do not meet the original requirements with regard to original cost, schedule, or technical performance, the Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. Provide a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action taken.

Offeror shall submit past performance citations within the past three years that are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. PLEASE SUBMIT NO MORE THAN THREE CITATIONS PER CONTRACTOR and TWO

PER MAJOR SUBCONTRACTOR. Pages are limited to no more than three pages per citation. In addition, any and all contracts terminated in whole or in part during the past five years, to include those currently in the process of such termination are considered relevant and the Offeror shall provide past performance information for those contracts.

In order to support the above criteria, the Offeror shall complete the first block (contractor name, address, contract number) of the PPQ, Attachment J.5 to the solicitation, and provide it to Program Managers, Procuring Contracting

Officers (PCO), and Administrative Contracting Officers (ACO) with whom it has had previous experience with regard to past performance. Those individuals are requested to complete the evaluation portion of the PPQ and email it to the point of contact indicated on the form itself prior to the closing of the solicitation. The Offeror is also required to complete and submit with its proposal the Past Performance Participant Summary, Attachment J.6, identifying those points of contact to which PPQ were submitted.

3.4 Volume III – Business Proposal

The Business Proposal shall include a completed, signed copy of the entire solicitation, with all appropriate “fill-in” sections and statements completed. Failure to provide a complete business submission may result in disqualification of an Offeror’s proposal from competition. If any exceptions are taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, they shall be clearly set forth in a cover letter; and they shall be explained by the Offeror with the understanding the exceptions may render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable to the Government. Should conflicts arise between the hard copy written material, marked “original,” presented in the Business Proposal and the electronic version submitted, the hard copy written material, marked “original,” in the Business Proposal shall govern. There is no restriction on page count for the Business Proposal. The Business Proposal shall include the following:

3.4.1 The Offer - a completed, signed copy of the entire solicitation, with all appropriate “fill-in” sections completed as applicable. Additionally, Offerors shall also execute and include the following Certification in the

Business Volume:

I hereby certify our offer dated (INSERT DATE) in response to solicitation M67854-13-R-1017 meets and/or exceeds all of the requirements delineated in solicitation M67854-13-R-1017. In addition, I hereby certify our offer dated (INSERT DATE) in response to solicitation M67854-13-R-1017 does not take any exception to, deviate from, or otherwise request a waiver for any of the requirements delineated in solicitation M67854-13-R-1017. Moreover, I hereby certify our offer dated (INSERT DATE) in response to solicitation M67854-13-R-1017 does not include any ground rules, assumptions, or any other verbiage which conditions or otherwise limits our offer dated (INSERT

DATE) in response to solicitation M67854-13-R-1017.

Company:

Authorized Signature/Title/Date:

3.4.1.1 Pricing (Factor 5)

In accordance with solicitation paragraph B.3, Offerors are instructed to follow the below instructions for particular

CLIN pricing. Offerors are advised that pricing for each ordering period shall be effective twelve months in accordance with the timeline provided in solicitation paragraph B.2.

(a) Pre-Production Items (CLINs 0001 and 0008): Fill-in unit price and the total amount.

(b) Production Items (CLINs 0002-0007 and 0009-0014): Fill-in unit price and the total amount based upon the maximum ordering quantity for said CLIN. Step-ladder pricing is not authorized. Contractor is advised that unit prices shall include the possibility that female sizes may be ordered at the offered price (reference paragraph C.1). Contractor is also advised that FOB Destination prices are inclusive of the possibility of shipping to any CONUS location in the contiguous United States.

(c) Contract Data Requirements (CLIN 0015): Not Separately Priced.

3.4.2. Subcontracting Plan (Factor 4)

3.4.2.1 Small Business (SB) as the Prime: Per FAR 19.702(a)(2), small businesses are NOT required to submit

SB Subcontracting Plans. However, SB shall indicate the amount of effort proposed to be done by a SB either at the prime level or at the first tier subcontract level.

SB shall describe/address the following in their proposal:

- The extent to which SB firms are specifically identified in proposals

- The extent for commitment to use SB firms,

- The complexity and variety of the work SB firms are to perform

- The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition

3.4.2.2 Large Business as the Prime: Per FAR 19.702(a)(1), Large Business Offerors with a price proposal over the $650,000 threshold requirement shall submit a subcontract plan with their proposal in accordance with FAR

Clauses 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 Alternative II.

Subcontracting Plan. This solicitation contains FAR clause 52.219-9 SB Subcontracting Plan and its Alternate II.

The plan described and required by the clause including the associated subcontracting percentage goals and subcontracting dollars, shall be submitted with your proposal. Offerors must make certain that their subcontracting plan addresses all requirements stated under FAR Clause 52.219-9 Alternative II.

In accordance with FAR 52.219 Alt II, paragraph (d)(1), Offeror’s shall express subcontracting goals “in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars.” To this end, Offerors are advised that current FY13

Department of Defense (DoD) subcontracting goals for this contract are 36.7% percent. Of that 36.7% goal, at least

3% is to be placed with HUBZone SB, 3% with SDVOSB, 5% with SSDB [per DFAR 219.704, DFAR clause

252.219-7003, and the FY13 DoD Procurement Goals - to include, as applicable, historically black colleges and universities or minority institutions] and 5% with WOSB. The percentage goals for this solicitation apply only to the total dollar value of the work being subcontracted.

Offerors are advised that a proposal will not be rejected solely because the submitted plan does not meet the stated goals above. USMC will consider the amount of work being retained for performance by the prime contractor in house when determining whether a subcontracting plan is acceptable. The Offeror shall discuss the rational for any goal proposed that is less than the Procurement Goals listed above.

(1) Offerors shall ensure that the Subcontracting Plan provide the following types of firms identified in your proposal by name, address, point of contact and telephone number.

Small Business

(b) Veteran Owned Small Business

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

HUBZone Small Business

Small Disadvantaged Business

Women-Owned Small Business Firms

(2) Fill out the table below which provides a breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed goals by small business category, expressed in terms of both a percent of Total Contract Value and a percent of Total Planned Subcontracts. In the below exhibit, Offerors shall demonstrate the proposed subcontracting goals for the HW and TW RAT boot requirement expressed in terms of the maximum contract value for 150,100 HW and 150,100 TW RAT boots purchased over three separate years: 50,100 TW and 50,100 HW RAT boots on delivery order one in year one of the contract; 50,000 TW and 50,000 HW RAT boots on delivery order two in year two of the contract; and 50,000 TW and 50,000 HW RAT in year three of the contract (equals maximum contract value with quantity of 150,100 TW and 150,100 HW RAT boots). For total contract value in support of the subcontracting plan submission, Offerors should use their corresponding offered pricing for CLINs 0002 through 0007 and 0009 through 0014 for the applicable aforementioned quantities in the given contract year.

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN GOALS

Total Contract Value in terms of dollars (see paragraph 2, above)

Column A Column B Column C

Business Category

Goal as Percent of

Contract Value

Dollar Value to be subcontracted per

Category

Goal as Percent of

Subcontracting

Value

Small Business Concerns

Large Business Concerns n/a

Total Dollars to be

Subcontracted n/a

The Following small business subcategories do not necessarily add up to the percentage and dollar amount in the "Small Business Concerns" category above, since some small businesses do not fall into any of the subcategories below, while others will fall into more than one subcategory below.

Subcategories of Small Business Concerns

Veteran Owned Small Business

(VO)

Service-Disabled Veteran

Owned Small Business

(SDVO)_

HUBZone Small Business

Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

Women Owned Small Business

Concerns (WOSB)

Historically Black Colleges and

Universities/Minority

Institutions

*Although DFAR 219.704(1) states that “subcontracts with historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions do not have to be included in the small disadvantaged business goal in commercial items subcontracting plans” (as is the case with this IWPS-2 solicitation), the small disadvantaged business category of “Historically

Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions” is included to satisfy DFAR 215.304(c)(i) which states that the aforementioned small business category “shall be addressed in the solicitation.”

It is recommended that Offerors first complete Column B by entering the dollar amount the Offeror proposes to subcontract to each business category and subcategory.

To complete Column A, divide the dollar amount in Column B by the total offered price of the proposal (that is, the total contract value).

To complete column C, divide the corresponding amount in Column B by the amount in the “total Dollars to be

Subcontract” cell in Column B.

Note: the “Total Dollars to be Subcontracted” amount in Column C will always be that category divided by itself

(100% if any dollars are subcontracted)

(3) Explain why percentages identified above are realistic for this solicitation. If goals proposed are less than the subcontracting goals stated above, the Offeror shall discuss the rational for not being able to meet that goal.

(4) Provide the required descriptions, statements, and assurances under FAR Clause 52.219-9 Alt II, sections (d)

(1) through (11).

(5) Describe those efforts the contractor plans to undertake to provide assistance to SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUB, SDB, & WOSB concerns [FAR 52.219-9 Alt II (e)(1)-(6)].

3.4.3. Contractor Organizational Chart Offeror shall provide a company organizational chart which includes the Name, Position Title, Address, Telephone Number and Email Address of the Company Principals, as well as all

Principals supporting the TW RAT and HW RAT boot Program.

3.4.4. Electronic Submission In addition to its written Business proposal, Offeror shall provide an electronic version of its offer on either a CD or DVD using MS Excel 2003 or compatible software. As previously mentioned, should conflicts arise between the hard copy material, marked “original,” presented in the Business Proposal and on the CD/DVD, the hard copy written material, marked “original,” in the Business Proposal shall govern.

4 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

All or part of the successful Offeror’s technical proposal may be incorporated in any contract resulting from this solicitation. The successful Offeror’s technical proposal may be incorporated by reference. Nothing contained in the successful Offeror’s technical proposal shall constitute a waiver to any other requirement of the contract. In the event of any conflict between the successful Offeror’s technical proposal and other requirement of the contract, the conflict shall be resolved in accordance with the Order of Precedence clause.

The successful Offeror will provide, as necessary, any updated technical proposal changes that reflect the results/responses to any items of clarification and/or discussions. If, after contract award, it is discovered that changes made as a result of any clarifications and/or discussions were not incorporated in those portions of the technical proposal incorporated into the contact, such changes to the Contractor’s documents shall be considered administrative in nature and shall be made by unilateral modification to the contract, at no change in contract cost or price or other terms and conditions.

5 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

A Pre-Award Survey may be conducted to examine the Offeror's technical ability, production capacity, tailored quality control plan, management structure, financial capability, accounting systems, labor resources, performance record, and ability to meet required schedules.

6 PRE CONTRACT COSTS

Pre contract costs are not authorized.

7 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SOLICITATION

Offerors should read the terms and conditions of this solicitation carefully and refer any questions in writing to the

Contract Specialist, Ms. Peggy Smith via email: Peggy.L.Smith1@usmc.mil no later than 11:00 AM local time on 7

August 2013. Offerors are put on formal notice that questions/comments/concerns received by the contract specialist after that time frame may not be answered. Government responses will be posted via published amendment to the solicitation.

mailto:Peggy.L.Smith1@usmc.mil

8 SERVICE OF A PROTEST

Protests, as defined in Subpart 33.101 of the FAR, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the GAO, shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from:

Commander

Contracts Directorate, CT02.1

Marine Corps Systems Command

2201A Willis Street

Quantico, VA 22134-6050

Attn: S. Leigh D’Lugos, RFP: M67854-13-R-1017

Email: Susan.Dlugos@usmc.mil

A copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one calendar day of filing a protest with the GAO.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

52.212-2 EVALUATION –COMMERCIAL ITEMS ADDENDUM

This acquisition will utilize Best Value – Trade Off source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

Technical tradeoffs will be made and strengths may be recognized for exceeding threshold technical requirements.

Marine Corps Systems Command will award up to two, 36 month, FFP, ID/IQ contracts for the RAT boots to

Offerors whose proposal submissions comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, meet or exceed the stated requirements, and are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. When making the best value determinations, the Government will consider the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Manufacturing Capability

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Small Business Utilization

Factor 5: Price

The evaluation factors above are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, all non-price factors are approximately equal in importance to price. Certain factors include subfactors and the relative importance of the subfactors is described within the description of the criteria for the factors as described below.

The chart below shall be used in the evaluation of Factors 1 and 2 at the factor level. Although strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies will be recognized at the subfactor level, the ratings below will only be applied at the factor level.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Definition

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

mailto:Susan.Dlugos@usmc.mil http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

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

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 1: Technical Capability.

This factor consist of four subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Physical Evaluation of PDMs for Quality and Workmanship

Subfactor 2: PDM Lab Testing

Subfactor 3: Subfactor 3: Evaluation of Technical Proposal Against the Boot Purchase Descriptions

Subfactor 4: Human Factors – User Evaluation of Simulated Operational Use

(Not evaluated until Phase II)

Within the technical capability factor, the first three subfactors are of approximately equal importance. Subfactor 4 will only be evaluated for those offers included in the competitive range after the competitive range is established.

Once evaluated, subfactor 4 is more important than any of the other three Technical Capability subfactors when considered individually.

Subfactor 1: Evaluation of PDMs for Quality and Workmanship

Evaluation of PDMs for Quality and Workmanship, utilizing five pairs (one from each requested size) TW RAT and five pairs (one from each requested size) HW RAT PDMs, shall consist of examining the quality of overall construction, cleanliness and identifying any patent defects. As such, PDMs may be disassembled or destroyed by the technical evaluation board in the process of inspection and/or evaluation. Any or all PDMs used for evaluation purposes may not be returned.

The following criteria will be used for visual inspection of the PDM:

Examine Defect

Upper leather Not a Nubuck

Leather deeply snuffed; i.e., fiber structure damaged

Grub or tick damage, scratches, brands, or bony leather

Fat wrinkles or veins

Not struck through

Stretchy vamp

Leather embossed or printed where not specified

Thickness exceeding the maximum or less than the minimum specified

Slaughter cut

Quarter side panels Not as specified in color or pattern

Any hole, spot, stain, foreign matter, cut, tear, miss weave

Upper Design Not as accepted for contract award and by PDM

Defect

Pairing Not properly mated; i.e., not right and left of same size

Variation in color or appearance

Variation of more than 1/4 inch in height of pair

Box toe malformed

Difference in outsole thickness between left and right Boots or between pairs.

- more than 3/32inch

- more than 1/16 inch but less than 3/32

Cleanness Any non-removable spot, stain, or foreign matter effecting appearance

Color and nap Color not as specified

Shade out of tolerance

Design Not as specified by PDM acceptance photos

Construction and Workmanship

(General)

Any cut, tear, hole, repair or damage

Any component or assembly omitted or misplaced, operation omitted or not properly performed

Wrinkled or bunched area at the back seam

Welt must show uniformity at ¼ inch throughout, with 1/16 tolerance

Seams and Stitching (upper and lower)

Open seams

Repair of open seam not as specified

Stitch not locked, easily pulled out.

Tight tension resulting in puckering or cutting of the leather

Loose tension resulting in a loosely secured seam

Stitching omitted where required

Gage of stitching irregular

Thread ends not trimmed throughout the Boot

Needle holes or needle chew

Stitch count per inch (stitchdown)

Stitch per inch (upper)

One or more run-off stitches

Vamp stitching at outsole junction

One or more rows of defective stitching not repaired

Repaired but first stitch more than 1/4 inch from outsole junction

Repaired with one stitch in lieu of two or more stitches

Outsole, Bottoming, & heel Thickness not as specified by PD

Edge scouring is irregular, effecting appearance

Any malformation, air bubbles, wrinkles, etc.

Welt ¼ inch uniformed throughout , 1/16 tolerance

Any component not uniform in thickness

Incomplete or incorrect bonding of outer sole to cushion midsole (i.e., not securely attached

Incomplete or incorrect bonding of rubber midsole to cushion midsole (i.e., not securely attached)

Insole Any protruding lasting staple or prong

Any protruding shank prong on insole

Eyelet/speed laces Number of eyelets/speed laces not as specified in each row

Not the same number of eyelets/speed laces in each row

Eyelets/speed laces not properly spaced within the row or misalignment between the rows to an extent interfering with proper lacing

Any eyelet/speed lace not securely clinched

Speed laces not perpendicular to edge of quarters or parallel to each other

Marking, instruction tag, care and use manual

Missing, incomplete, incorrect, not applied in the specific manner, misplaced, illegible, or not specified size

Lining Torn, loose, wrinkled, discolored

Not properly mated with upper

Counter Not properly seated

Soft counter /Broken

Bar-code label / tag

Interpretation (HRI) omitted or illegible, bar-coded typed not as specified; code density not as specified

Cushion Insert Missing, wrong size, or wrong side up, NOTE 1: Parts suspected as being shaded shall be examined at a distance of three feet against the background of the other parts and colors of the garment. When the shade difference is readily discernible under these examining conditions, it shall be scored as a shaded part.

NOTE 2: One or more broken or two or more continuous skipped or run-off stitches constitute an open seam. On double stitched seams, a seam is considered open when one or both sides of the seam is open. Raw edge not securely caught in stitching shall be classified as an open seam.

NOTE 3: Evenness can be determined by comparing measurements of companion parts or by aligning parts and measuring the difference in lengths as described below. When evenness defects are found, the uniform shall be laid flat on a measuring surface and the difference in lengths recorded.

Subfactor 2: PDM Lab Testing

PDM lab testing will be utilized to verify and evaluate 15 pairs (three from each requested size) TW RAT and 15 pairs (three from each requested size) HW RAT PDMs for compliance with the Purchase Description characteristics outlined below. PDMs may be disassembled or destroyed by the technical evaluation board in the process of inspection and/or evaluation. Any or all PDMs used for evaluation purposes may not be returned.

Characteristics

Requirements

Paragraph

Requirement Test Method Number of

Determinati ons

Per Sample

Unit

Bond Strength 3.3.5

Solid Midsole to

Upper

3.3.5.1 650 lbs 4.10.3 1

Outsole To

Cushion Midsole

3.3.5.2 140 lbs 4.10.4 1

Solid Midsole to

Cushion Midsole

3.3.5.3 120 lbs 4.10.4 1

Sole Lock-Stitch

Placement

3.6.3 Embedded in the

solid midsole, no more than 1/3 of the way down from the interface with the upper.

4.10.5 6

Weight 3.3.1 2.2 lbs Standard 1

Shock Attenuation 3.3.3 18g FF, 14g RF ASTM F1614 3

Whole Boot MVTR 3.3.7 3 g/hr 10.10.2 1

Drainage Eyelet

Strength

3.4.15 100 lbs ASTM D1683 1

Materials used will be verified by review of the CoC or laboratory testing at the Government’s discretion. All

PDMs will be reviewed in the same manner for each individual material. Should a specified item/material not be commercially available at the time of PDM submission(s), a written corrective action shall be provided at the time of the proposal submission by the Offeror that details its plan to comply with the requirement for pre-production and production. A corrective action plan that will result in an item/material that meets the requirement for pre-production and production units will be determined acceptable. Although a corrective action plan may be an acceptable alternative to submitting samples using the actual material(s) offered, the inability to submit samples using the actual material offered may be considered a weakness or technical risk subject to the Marine Corps' assessment of the corrective action plan. In general, the Marine Corps prefers offers submitted with product samples constructed with actually offered, production representative, materials which pass all lab testing under this subfactor over a correction action plan, because if all other considerations were equal, this circumstance would have a tendency to reduce technical risk during performance.

The Government reserves the right to exclude a component from testing based on receipt of the test data and/or

CoCs provided in accordance with L.3.2.3.1. For those components authorized an exemption, additional testing is not required but may be performed as deemed necessary by the Government. The Government reserves the right not to conduct any or all tests. If exemptions have not been granted, should a test be conducted on one Offeror’s PDM, that test shall be conducted on all other Offerors PDMs.

Subfactor 3: Evaluation of Technical Proposal against the Boot Purchase Descriptions

The written technical proposal will be evaluated for its thoroughness in articulating the characteristics of the

Offerors’ proposed TW and HW RAT boot designs. Evaluators will also review all test data supplied by offerors to make sure the minimum and desired thresholds as specified in the Purchase Descriptions are met or exceeded.

Evaluators will use this written documentation along with the PDMs to determine relative merits of the proposed designs.

The technical proposal will also be evaluated for Berry Amendment compliance of all raw material and sub-component materials which will be used in the production of the boots as well as for Certificates of Conformation

(CoC) which demonstrate compliance with the requirements.

Subfactor 4: Human Factors – User Evaluationof Simulated Operational Use

Offerors’ TW and HW RAT boots will be subject to a user evaluation of simulated operational use to determine the extent to which the proposed TW and HW RAT boots meet or exceed the objective solicitation criteria stated in the

SOW and Purchase Descriptions. In addition, the following qualities will also be considered:

Donning, doffing, fit and size;

Exterior durability of the toe area, stitching of the upper area, heel and sole area;

Comfort while running, walking, hiking in the toe area, arch area, heel area, ankle area, collar area, lace area, lining;

and, Performance and characteristics of the boot: fit, adjustment for p roper kit, appearance, arch support, traction on wet surfaces, breathability, effectiveness in rainy/damp conditions, dry out time, ventilation, ease of care and maintenance, durability, weight, comfort mission suitability, overall.

Marines will be tasked to wear the boots under a variety of garrison and field conditions and then asked to provide feedback on the qualities listed above. The TEB will examine the comments obtained by the user evaluations to help determine user satisfaction with an offered product. The TEB will assess strengths and weaknesses as they relate to the qualities listed above.

Factor 2 – Manufacturing Capability

This factor consists of the three subfactors described below which are of approximately equal in importance within this factor.

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan

The evaluation will focus on the Offerors’ proposed production capability (i.e. RAT boots per month), ramp up to full production, and proposed sustainable monthly delivery schedule for both all ordering periods as specified in paragraph F.1, Delivery Schedule, of the solicitation. Evaluators will review the stated production capability and schedule in conjunction with the resources dedicated to this effort and assumptions on which the stated capability and proposed delivery schedule are based to determine if the schedule proposed is reasonable. Evaluators will also take into consideration the potential factors that may have an adverse impact on the production capacity/schedule and what actions Offerors have taken or plan to take to mitigate that risk. Evaluators will review the detailed program management plan, which includes 3PL support, provided for the Offeror’s plans to coordinate all contractor activities related to this contract.

Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance Plan/Supply Chain Management Chart

Evaluators will review the Offeror’s quality assurance approach (quality assurance plan and corrective action methods) for its effectiveness in minimizing defects, its material and process controls, and ability to provide a reliable product conforming to contract requirements under continuous production. The Offeror’s commercial warranty provisions against defects in workmanship, materials, design and performance shall also be evaluated.

Evaluators will also review the Offeror’s Supply Chain Management Chart to verify use of Berry Amendment

Compliant materials in the construction of the proposed RAT boots.

Subfactor 3: Partnership Plan

Evaluators will review each Offeror's partnering agreements and partnership plans with any and all significant subcontractors as applicable (e.g., manufacturing facility, fabric supplier(s)). Evaluators will assess each Offeror’s plans for resolving quality problems, disruptions, delays, or communication issues within the team, and the Offeror’s strategies to minimize the impact of any issues on product quality, production capability, and/or delivery schedule.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Past Performance, shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305 and will be rated for relevancy and confidence basis using the ratings identified below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

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

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors’ claims of past performance which can not be verified through PPIRS, completed Past Performance

Questionaires or other independent means may be given less weight that past performance which is verifiable.

Factor 4: Small Business Utilization

The Small Business Participation Factor will receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable. For an Offeror’s participation to be acceptable, the proposal must include a reasonable portion of work to be subcontracted to small businesses. Plans for small business utilization shall separately address the categories of SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUB, SDB, & WOSB as described in FAR clause 52.219-9, Alt II. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed small business utilization along with supporting rationale against the total contract value.

Reasonable will be judged as follows:

The extent to which SB firms are specifically identified in proposals

The extent for commitment to use SB firms, The complexity and variety of the work SB firms are to perform

The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition

For large businesses only with a price proposal over the $650,000 threshold-reasonableness will be judged on compliance with FAR clause 52.219-9 Alt II.

The following represents the ratings that will be given for the Small Business Utilization factor set forth in the solicitation:

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal clearly meets minimum requirements of the solicitation and clearly demonstrates a commitment to using Small Business Firms.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet minimum requirements of the solicitation and does not clearly demonstrate a commitment to using Small Business Firms.

Factor 5 – Price

The Government will conduct a price analysis using one or more of the techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) in an effort to determine price reasonableness.

A total evaluated price will be calculated and price will also be evaluated for completeness and balance.

A total…