18R1305_Amendment_0007.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 Amendment 0007 is to update Section M.3.1.4 to add the location of the NIJ certif ied test facility w here ballistic source selection testing w ill occur. In the event an Offeror is unable to include acknow ledgement of Amendment 0007 in the paper propsal, Offerors may email acknow ledgement of Amendment 0007 directly to Keane Butts at keane.butts@usmc.mil w ith a copy to Katy Hurd at kathryn.hurd@usmc.mil and Peggy Smith at Peggy.L.Smith1@usmc.mil.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 29-Mar-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X M6785418R1305

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

01-Feb-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Mar-2018

CODE

COMMANDER, MARCORSYSCOM

ATTN: KATY HURD

2200 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:

M6785418R1305

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M

M.1 GO/NO GO CRITERIA

Offerors must meet “go/no go” entry criteria before the Government conducts a tradeoff evaluation of their proposals. The Government will remove from evaluation any proposal failing to meet any of the following go/no go criteria:

In accordance with Table 1, offerors providing 12 finished base vest inserts (2 X-Smalls, 2 Small-Shorts, 2 Smalls, 2

Mediums, 2 Larges, and 2 Extra-Larges), 4 finished side plate pocket inserts (2 6x6 and 2 6x8), 35 15”x15” shoot packs, and 5 unsewn (areal density) 15”x15” shoot packs will receive a “GO.” Offerors that do not the required source selection samples will receive a “NO GO,” and the proposal will receive no further evaluation.

Table 1: Source Selection Samples

Description Size Quantity

Finished Base Vest Inserts XS 2

SM-S 2

SM 2

MD 2

LG 2

XLG 2

Side Pocket Inserts 6X6” 2

6X8” 2

Surrogate Shootpacks 15X15” 35

Unsewn Shootpacks 15X15” 5

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition uses best value tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. The Marine

Corps System Command (MARCORSYSCOM) will award one, 60-month (consisting of one five-year ordering period), FFP, IDIQ contract for the PC GEN III Soft Armor Insert Sets to an Offeror whose proposal (1) complies with the solicitation’s terms and conditions, (2) meets or exceeds the solicitation’s requirements, and (3) is the most advantageous to the Government based upon the Government’s assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors.

When making the best value determination, the Government will evaluate offers using the following factors and subfactors:

Table 2: Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 Technical Performance

- Subfactor 1 - Areal Density

- Subfactor 2 - Manufacturing

- Subfactor 3 - Design and Workmanship

- Subfactor 4 - Ballistic Performance

Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 3 Small Business Participation

Factor 4 Price

The Government will evaluate requirements without a monetized or defined value based on the relative importance to other factors. The Subfactors under Factor 1 are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Performance is slightly more important than price. The importance of price as a factor in the final award determination will increase with the degree of equality in the non-price factors of the proposal. The Government will evaluate Past

Performance and Small Business Participation as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award on an “initial offer” without discussions. If discussions are necessary, the Government will establish a competitive range and notify all Offerors of their inclusion or exclusion. The Government will hold discussions with Offerors in the competitive range and also notify Offerors eliminated from the competitive range in writing in accordance with FAR 15.503.

The Government will use the following tables in the evaluation of Factor 1 and assess deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses for the Subfactors under Factor 1. The Government will not rate the

Subfactors. The Government will render a consensus rating at the factor level (i.e., Technical Performance).

Subfactors under Factor 1 will not be separately rated but strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies will be assessed.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

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

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

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

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

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

DEFINITIONS

1. 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.

2. Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

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

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.3.1 Factor 1: Technical Performance

This factor consists of four subfactors, which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Areal Density

Subfactor 2: Manufacturing

Subfactor 3: Design and Workmanship

Subfactor 4: Ballistic Performance

M.3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Areal Density

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s PDMs meet the Government’s areal density requirements. The proposal shall include five unsewn 15”x15” shoot packs representative of the finished soft armor design. The shoot packs will be examined by technical representatives and the areal density calculated in accordance with Paragraph 4.9.2 of the Detail Specification.

M.3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Manufacturing

The Government will use the information Offerors submit in response to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2.2 , to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to manufacture quality, Berry Amendment compliant products a rate of at least 6,000 base vest inserts, 6,000 side plate pocket inserts, and 600 cummerbund inserts 120 days after FAT approval. Offerors may assume FAT approval 90 days after contract award. The Government may visit the Offeror’s manufacturing facility to validate Offeror-provided information.

M.3.1.3 Subfactor 3: Design and Workmanship

The Government will evaluate two soft armor inserts of each type and size (12 base vest inserts and 4 side plate pocket inserts) using Table XXV in Paragraph 4.7 of the Detail Specification assessing whether any of the defects listed in Table XXV exist for each individual inserts and calculating a defect rate for each defect.

M.3.1.4 Subfactor 4: Ballistic Performance

The Government will test Source Selection Sample shoot packs at an National Institute of Justice certified test facility to determine the Offeror’s ability to meet the following ballistic PC Gen III Detail Specification

Requirements:

- The soft armor shall meet the requirements set forth in the Detail Specification.

Table 4: Ballistic Tests

Threat/Test Condition PC Gen III Detail Specification

Requirement Paragraph

Test Method Reference in

Detail Specification

Thickness 3.6.3 4.9.3

16gr RCC, V50, Dry, 0° 3.7.1 4.10

16gr RCC, V50, Wet, 0° 3.7.1 4.10

16gr RCC, V50, POL/F-24, 0° 3.7.1 4.10

16gr RCC, V50, age, 0° 3.7.1 4.10

9mm, V0, Dry, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

9 mm, V50, Dry, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

9 mm, V50, Wet, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

9 mm, V50, POL/F-24, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

9 mm, V50, age, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

.357-Sig, V0, Dry, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

.357-Sig, V50, Dry, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

.357-Mag, V0, Dry, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

.357-Mag, V50, Dry, 0° 3.7.2 4.10

The extent of testing may depend on available funding. Although the Government intends to test all of the above requirements, it reserves the right to cancel any or all of the above tests.

Ballistic testing will be performed at the following NIJ certified test facility:

NTS Wichita, a division of NTS

7447 W. 33rd St. N.

Wichita, KS 67205

Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. § 423) (hereinafter "the Act"), as implemented in the FAR, protects proprietary information from unauthorized disclosure. For this procurement, the

Government will use non-Government support services contractors from TBD to conduct ballistic and non-ballistic tests upon the Source Selection Samples Offerors submit to the Government. TBD contractor personnel are procurement officials within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, enter into appropriate non-disclosure agreements with the Government. Contractual organizational conflict of interest and non-disclosure clauses also bind these support contractors to safeguard proprietary information in accordance with law and regulation.

Additionally, Government personnel will receive the Source Selection Samples at the TBD delivery point to remove or obscure each offeror's identifying information, assign random identifiers to each offeror's samples, and independently verify the test results before submitting the results for technical evaluation. TBD support contractors will not analyze or evaluate any proposal. All Offerors may independently attempt to establish non-disclosure agreements with TBD in their discretion as appropriate.

M.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether the Offeror has an acceptable past performance record (including compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Small

Business Subcontracting Plan) using sources provided by the Offeror and other sources available to the Government.

To evaluate past performance, the Government will first determine whether each Offeror’s recent efforts are relevant.

Relevant and Not Relevant efforts are defined as follows:

Relevant: Past/present performance efforts with similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation. For example: helmets, head protective equipment, or protective equipment contracts in similar size or value.

Not Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Contracts completed more than five (5) years prior to the release of the solicitation.

The Government will establish an overall rating per FAR 15.305(a)(2) for the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation’s requirements. Table 4 describes the ratings:

Table 4: Past Performance Ratings

Rating Evaluation Criteria

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the

Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable

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

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the solicitation requirements. Second, the present/past performance evaluation will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior/current contracts. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered acceptable.

M.3.3 Factor 3: SB Participation Plan

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan against the Small Business goals in

Section L.3.2.3.1 as follows:

1) Proposals meeting or exceeding the percentage goals in Section L.3.2.4 will receive an acceptable rating.

2) Proposals not meeting or exceeding the goals stated in Section L.3.2.4 will receive an unacceptable rating unless the proposal explains why and describes what the Offeror will do to increase the percentages for performance under contract. Justifications adequately describing valid actions toward increasing percentage goals will receive an acceptable rating.

Table 5: Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

Rating Evaluation Criteria

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.3.4 Factor 4: Price

The Government will assess the Offeror for completeness and conduct a price analysis using one or more of the techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness and balanced pricing.

The proposed price for the PC GEN III Soft Armor Insert Sets will include production quantities and associated reporting. The total proposed price is the sum of the evaluation quantities for CLINs 0001 through 0013 priced in accordance with Section B Pricing Instructions as follows:

CLIN Description Size Quantity Unit Price Total Price

First Article Test, Ballistic Shootpacks 15” x 15” TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert X-Small TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert Small-Short TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert Small TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert Medium TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert Large TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert X-Large TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert X Small-Short TBD $ $

Base Vest Ballistic

Soft Armor Insert Small-Long TBD $ $

Side Plate Pocket

Insert

6X6 TBD $ $

Side Plate Pocket

Insert

6X8 TBD $ $

0012 Cummerbund Insert Small $ $

0013 Cummerbund Insert Medium $ $

0014 Cummerbund Insert Large TBD $ $

0015 CDRLs

NSP NSP

Total

Proposed

Price

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis, the Government will evaluate, but not rate, the price proposals by comparing solicitation prices among the proposals to establish price reasonableness. The Government will only award to an Offeror whose price is fair and reasonable.

A proposal may be unacceptable if the prices are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items and the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price analysis reveals that the Offeror significantly overstated or understated the price of one or more contract line items. Incomplete pricing may also render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

(End of Summary of Changes)