181015_Lightweight_Plate_Presolicitation_Brief.pptx

Lightweight Plate Pre-Solicitation/ Industry Brief Mr. Nick Pierce Team Lead PM Infantry Combat Equipment (ICE) nick.pierce@usmc.mil

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Hard Armor IPT

POC for Solicitation – Erin Howard, erin.howard1@usmc.mil

Background Current ESAPI is excessively heavy and is an overmatch against prevalent battlefield threats Excess weight increases fatigue and musculoskeletal injury Excess weight decreases mobility, cognitive abilities, amount of ammunition that can be carried and overall survivability Hard Armor Trade Space Study At least 38 vendors currently producing plates capable of defeating certain prevalent threats Extrapolation of study data shows potential for further weight reduction

Solicitation Lightweight Hard Armor Plate Solicitation # M67854-19-R-1500 RFP Release planned for Nov 2018/Proposals due Feb 2019 Unrestricted Full and Open (pending approval from MCSC Small Business Office) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Minimum Quantity: First Delivery Order Maximum Quantity: 170,000 sets (340K front/back and 340K side plates) 5 Year Period of Performance (One 5-year Ordering Period) Best Value, Trade Off, VATEP Testing Locations Source Selection Testing: TBD (NIJ Certified Lab) First Article Testing at Aberdeen Test Center Lot testing at NIJ lab of contractors choice with ATC/MCOTEA witness SOW: Questions?

Section L Volume I: Technical Proposal (no more than 30 pages – First 30 printed pages of the written portion of the Technical Proposal) Source Selection Samples (finished plates/dry layups) Claimed Weights Manufacturing Berry Amendment compliance Volume II: Past Performance Proposal (no page limit) Volume III: Small Business Participation (no page limit) Volume IV: Business Proposal (no page limit)

Section M Evaluation Factors Factor 1: Technical Performance (Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method) Subfactor 1: Ballistic Performance Subfactor 2: Design and Workmanship Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Subfactor 4: Thickness Factor 2: Past Performance (acceptable/unacceptable) Factor 3: Small Business Participation (acceptable/unacceptable) Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan Subfactor 2: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor 4: Price Sub Factors under Factor 1 are in descending order of importance Technical performance is approximately equal to price 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.

Go/No Go Criteria Criteria 1: Offerors with a SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL) at the time of proposal submission will receive a “GO.” Offeror’s without a SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL) at the time of proposal submission will receive a “NO GO” and the proposal will receive no further evaluation.

Solicitation will include a Classified Annex at the SECRET level All classified material must be handled in accordance with the DD254, Classified Annex, the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 5220-22-M), and Industrial Security Regulation (DoD 5220.22-R).

All FCL information will be verified through the Defense Security Service for all Offeror’s and their subcontractors.

Offeror’s without a security FCL will neither be able to discuss nor access key aspects of the program that are classified nor will they be able to pass such information on to their subcontractors.

Criteria 2: Offerors shall provide Source Selection samples in accordance with Table 1. Offerors that do not provide the required source selection samples will receive a “NO GO” and the proposal will receive no further evaluation.

Criteria 3: Source selection samples that do not exceed the threshold maximum weight as specified in Paragraph 3.7.1, Table 1 of the Lightweight Plate Performance Specification (PRF-18001A0010) will receive a “GO.” Source selection samples that exceed the threshold maximum weight requirements as specified in Paragraph 3.7.1, Table 1 of the LITE Plate Performance Specification (PRF-18001A0010) will receive a “NO GO,” and the proposal will receive no further evaluation.

Factor 1: Technical Performance Subfactor 1: Ballistic Performance Subfactor 2: Design and Workmanship Source Selection Samples examined for dimensional conformance, uniform areal density, functional integration Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Ability to produce at least 12,000 plates per month by 120 days after FAT approval (6,000 front/back and 6,000 side) Subfactor 4: Thickness Uniform thickness throughout - 1” (T) and .75” (O) Combined Technical/ Risk Rating Method

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Factor 2: Past Performance

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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Factor 3: Small Business Participation Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan Small Business: 5.25% Small Disadvantaged Business: 0.4% Women-Owned Small Business: 0.4% HUBZone Small Business: 0.4% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 0.4% Subfactor 2: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Only) Small Business: 36.7% Small Disadvantaged Business: 5% Women-Owned Small Business: 5% HUBZone Small Business: 3% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 3% Proposals meeting or exceeding the percentage goals will receive an acceptable rating.

Proposals not meeting or exceeding the percentage goals 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.

Factor 4: Price

Total Proposed Price (TPP) - The Government will calculate an Offeror’s TPP by adding the total price for CLINs 0001 through 0006, including all sub-CLINs.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The Government will calculate the Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) in accordance with Section M.3.4.2.

Offerors shall propose a single blended unit price for all sizes (L.3.2.4.1)

VATEP

New Source Selection Guide:

Best Practices from Peer Reviews Introduces Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) Appendix B, DoD Source Selection Procedures

What is VATEP?

A structured technique for objectivizing how some (or all) of the requirements would be treated in the tradeoff process and then communicating that to offerors in the RFP

Source: MCSC Assistant Commander, Contracts, Mrs. Mosqueira . Feb 2016.

B.2 Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price Tradeoff

The VATEP technique monetizes different levels of performance that may correspond to the traditional requirements process of defining both threshold (minimum) and objective (maximum) performance and capabilities. It identifies in the RFP the percentage price increase (or dollar amount) the Government is willing to pay for measureable levels of performance between threshold (minimum) and objective (maximum) criteria (e.g., Probability of Hit, specific operational ranges, etc.). This amount is based on the value to the Government for above minimum performance or capabilities. Value and cost are completely separate concepts that VATEP links in the RFP to inform industry decisions on what to offer to gain a competitive advantage. As described herein, VATEP is merely a structured technique for objectivizing how some (or all) of the requirements would be treated in the tradeoff process and then communicating that to offerors via the RFP.

VATEP may be appropriate when the RO wishes to optimally balance price and performance/capability above threshold (minimum) requirements to maximize the achievement of program objectives. One of the benefits of this process is that offerors may be more likely to propose innovative solutions which provide higher performance/capability if it is clear to Industry what value the end user places on exceeding the threshold (minimum) performance/capability and how that will influence the evaluated cost/price.

Source: DoD Source Selection Procedures, B-1. March 31, 2016.

No No Yes Yes Yes VATEP Adjustment Example TPP =Total Proposed Price TEP = Total Evaluated Price Offeror A TPP = $450 Offeror B TPP = $510 Offeror C TPP = $500 Offeror B No TPP Adjustment

TEP = TPP

TEP = $510

Offeror C Ineligible for further consideration for award Offeror A Goal Adjustment Applied

TEP = TPP – ($XX)

TEP = $450 – ($XX)

TEP =

Lightweight Plate VATEP Evaluation Steps

Step 1: Offeror submits a claimed weight for each Lightweight Plate size.

Offerors shall propose a claimed weight for each plate size in the written proposal (L.3.2.1.3.). The claimed weights should all match specific weights that are listed on the TEP Adjustment Table (M.3.4.2.) and should achieve the same percentage of reduction for each size of front/back plate and the same percentage of reduction for each size of side plate.

Step 2: Government verifies the claimed weights are shown on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Adjustment Tables.

The claimed weights should all match specific weights that are shown on the TEP Adjustment Tables (M.3.4.2.). To calculate the TEP, the Government will first verify whether the Offeror’s claimed weights from the requirement under paragraph L.3.2.1.3 are within the TEP Adjustment Tables’ parameters (Section M, Tables 10 and 11). In the event an Offeror proposes a claimed weight that is within the TEP Adjustment Tables’ parameters but not one of the specified weights on the table, the Government will adjust the claimed weight to the closest weight shown in the TEP Adjustment Tables. If the claimed weight is exactly in between two weights shown on the TEP Adjustment Tables, the Government will adjust the claimed weight up to the next heavier weight shown on the TEP Adjustment Tables. (M.3.4.2.)

In the example, the offeror proposed a weight of 3.58 lbs for a size Large Lightweight Plate. The offeror should have proposed a claimed weight that is listed on the TEP Adjustment Table. Because 3.58 lbs is not shown in the TEP Adjustment Table, the Government will adjust the claimed weight to the closest weight shown in the TEP Adjustment Table, which in this case is 3.56 lbs.

For Side Plates, the offeror proposed a weight of 1.06 lbs for a size 6x6 Lightweight Plate. Because 1.06 lbs is not shown in the TEP Adjustment Table and 1.06 is exactly in between two weights shown on the TEP Adjustment Tables, the Government will adjust the claimed weight to the next heaviest weight shown in the TEP Adjustment Table, which in this case is 1.07 lbs.

Step 3: Government verifies the claimed weights achieve the same percentage of reduction for each size.

The claimed weight should be shown on the TEP Adjustment Table and should achieve the same percentage of reduction for each size of front/back plate and the same percentage of reduction for each size of side plate (L.3.2.1.3.).

In the event that the Offeror’s claimed weight reduction for one Lightweight Plate size is less than any of the other sizes, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction. (M.3.4.2.).

In the example, the Offeror has a different percentage weight reduction for the Size Large Lightweight Plate. The offeror has a 12% weight reduction for XS-S, SM-S, SM-L, XS, SM, and MD. A 10% weight reduction for LG and a 12% weight reduction for XL. The offeror should have proposed claimed weights that achieve the same percentage of reduction for each size of front/back plate. The Government will adjust the offerors claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction, which in this case is 10%.

In the example, the Offeror has a different percentage weight reduction for the 6x8 Lightweight Plate. The offeror has a 6% weight reduction for 6x6 and an 8% weight reduction for 6x8. The offeror should have proposed claimed weights that achieve the same percentage of reduction for each size of side plate. The Government will adjust the offerors claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction, which in this case is 6%.

Step 4: Government verifies the weight of each Source Selection Sample finished Lightweight Plate.

Next, the Government will weigh each of the 62 Source Selection Sample finished Lightweight Plates to determine whether the sample Lightweight Plates are heavier than the claimed weight (as adjusted, if necessary) (M.3.4.2). Weight shall be taken on a tarred scale and rounded to the nearest .01 pound. If any evaluated Lightweight Plate is heavier than the claimed weight (as adjusted, if necessary), the Government will further adjust the claimed weight to the closest weight in the TEP Adjustment Table associated by size. If the Government verified weight is exactly in between two weights shown on the TEP Adjustment, the Government will adjust the claimed weight up to the next heaviest weight shown on the TEP Adjustment Table. (M.3.4.2)

In the example, the Government verified weight of 4.15 lbs for the X-Large Lightweight Plate exceeds the Offeror’s adjusted claimed weight of 3.98 lbs. The Government will adjust the claimed weight up to the next heaviest weight shown on the TEP Adjustment Table which in this example is 4.16 lbs.

In the event the Government verified weights do not achieve the same weight reduction across all sizes, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s Government verified claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction. (M.3.4.2)

In the example, once the Government adjusted the claimed weight based on the Government verified weight, the X-Large percentage reduction (8%) was lower than the other sizes (10%). Therefore, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s Government verified claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction – 8%.

For Side Lightweight Plates, the Government verified weight of 1.08 for the 6x6 Lightweight Plate exceeds the Offeror’s adjusted claimed weight of 1.07. The Government will adjust the claimed weight up to the next heaviest weight shown on the TEP Adjustment Table which in this example is 1.09 lbs.

In the event the Government verified weights do not achieve the same weight reduction across all sizes, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s Government verified claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction. (M.3.4.2)

In the example, once the Government adjusted the claimed weight based on the Government verified weight, the 6x6 percentage reduction (4%) was lower than the other size (6%). Therefore, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s Government verified claimed weight reduction to the size with the lowest percentage reduction – 4%.

Step 5: Government establishes a TEP adjustment for the unit price based on percentage reduction.

Finally, the Government will establish a TEP adjustment for the unit price based on the offeror’s Government verified claimed weight using Tables 10 and 11 (M.3.4.2).

In the example, for VATEP price evaluation purposes only, the Offeror will receive a $60 reduction in unit price for CLINs 0002 and 0004.

For Side Plates, for VATEP price evaluation purposes only, the Offeror will receive a $10 reduction in unit price for CLINs 0003 and 0005.

Step 6: Evaluate Total Proposed Price (TPP) & TEP

Offerors shall propose a single blended unit price for all sizes. (L.3.2.4.1)

VATEP Summary

The TEP will be used for source selection purposes only. The Government will award a contract to the successful offeror in the amount of the TPP (M.3.4.2).

The awardee’s Government verified claimed weight will be incorporated into the PD and will become the threshold for contract performance (M.3.4.2).

Lightweight Plate VATEP Evaluation Step Questions?

Basic Security Requirement Process

SECRET FCL due NLT proposal submission

Facility Clearance Sponsorship 3 Days 5 Days 15 Days 10- 45 Days Points of Contact

PM ICE SPONSORSHIP

Sean P. Zickert

(540) 845-7427 sean.zickert@gidsolutionsllc.com Samantha Chesley samantha.chesley@gidsolutionsllc.com

EVERYTHING ELSE

Defense Security Service 1-888-282-7682 Option #3 dss.fcb.knowledgecenter@mail.mil Refer to the DSS FCL Orientation Handbook at http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/fac_clear.html for detailed information.

DSS FCL Orientation Handbook describes the general timeline, documentation, and action items for each stage.

Stage 1: D1-10: FCL Orientation Handbook & Telephonic Survey Stage 2: D10-20: Complete e-FCL Upload Stage 3: D20-45: FCL Initial Review Stage 4: Post FCL Initiatives

Discontinuation Points (By Stage) Stage 1: DSS determines FCL justification is not valid Stage 2: Failure to submit all docs and forms into e-FCL within 20 days of FCL Orientation Handbook receipt Stage 3: Failure to submit KMP e-QIPs within 45 days after FCL Orientation Handbook receipt.

Stage 4: Failure to comply with NISPOM requirements or implement a facility security program.

Vendor

Obtains Sponsorship Letter from PM ICE

Provides Required Information & Returns to PM ICE

PM ICE

Reviews Completed Sponsorship Letter

Approves Letter & Provides to HHQ Security Office

MCSC

Validates Sponsorship Letter

Endorses Sponsorship Letter

Forwards Sponsorship Letter to DSS

DSS

Validates Sponsorship Letter

Contacts Vendor for Continuing Actions

Obtains FCL Justification (DD254)

Industry Day Schedule

image2.png image3.jpeg image4.emf

Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx 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.

image5.png image6.png image7.jpg image8.jpg image9.png image1.png