15-R-1535_Amendment_0002.docx

M6785419R1535

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 21-Oct-2019 02:00 PM to 25-Oct-2019 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Q35. Question: Is there a specific format contractors should use for the PSPEC Cross Reference Matrix and the SOW Cross Reference Matrix? We believe a standardized format would ensure consistency across all offerors and make the evaluation process easier on the government.

Response: There is no specific format contractors should use for the PSPEC Cross Reference Matrix and the SOW Cross Reference Matrix.

Q36. Question: If no format will be provided, are these matrices merely required to include page number references to the place where each section of the PSPEC and SOW is discussed within the Technical Volume?

Response: Use of page number references in the PSPEC Cross Reference Matrix and the SOW Cross Reference Matrix that provide traceability to the Offeror’s proposal are acceptable.

Refer to Section L.3.1, paragraph k of the solicitation for PSPEC Cross Reference Matrix.

Refer to Section L.3.1, paragraph l of the solicitation for SOW Cross Reference Matrix

Q37. Question: If not, what information should be included in the matrices? Presumably the 55 pages of the Technical Volume would include the offeror’s responses to the individual sections of the PSPEC and SOW and not within the matrices themselves.

Response: See response to question Q36.

Q38. Question: Clarification on the following requirement in support of the Small Business Participation Plan. In regards to the “Small Business Participation Plan,” the solicitation requires the DUNS number and SAM profile for “each firm included in the plan.” Please confirm that small business subcontractors and material suppliers that are not registered in SAM, or have a DUNS number, will be recognized for an offeror to receive an acceptable rating?

Response: The requirement to include a copy of the System for Award Management (SAM) profile for each firm included in the plan has been removed. All other requirements for the small business participation plan will be required. In order to receive an acceptable rating for small business participation plan the offeror shall meet the criteria referenced in Section M.5.5.1 SB Participation Plan.

Q39: Question: Can a two week extension be granted, in order to be able to offer the government the option of our product to expand the competition for solicitation M67854-19-R-1535?

Response: The Government will grant a 4 day extension for proposal responses.

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

FAR 52.212-1 CLAUSE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items. (DEVIATION 2018-O0018)

L.1 General Instructions

To be considered for award, each Offeror shall submit its proposal in accordance with these Section L instructions. Failing to adhere to these instructions may result in the Government removing the proposal from further consideration in the source selection process. Offerors may submit no more than one proposal in response to this solicitation. Proposals shall not contain classified information.

L.2 Proposal Submission

L.2.1 Proposal Delivery Address

Offerors shall deliver written proposals to the following address:

Marine Corps Systems Command 2201A Willis Street Quantico, VA 22134-6050 Attn: Jaime Arias, RFP: M67854-19-R-1535

The Government will accept proposals from any delivery service allowing independent tracking and receipt verification from both parties. The Government will not accept hand delivered proposals.

L.2.2 Proposal Submission Date

Proposals are due no later than 2:00PM Eastern Local Time on Oct 21 2019.

L.2.3 Package Labeling

All packages and boxes responding to this solicitation shall contain the following information on the address label:

1. Solicitation Number: M67854-19-R-1535 SCO

1. A statement: "TO BE DELIVERED UNOPENED TO JAIME ARIAS”

1. The volume and copy number of the written material in each package/box

L.3 Proposal Preparation Instructions

L.3.1 General Proposal Format

1. Offerors shall submit two proposal volumes. Volume I shall contain the technical information which shall have a page limit of 55 pages. Volume II shall contain the small business participation, past performance information, pricing information, and a recommended spare parts list, which shall have no page limit. No contract pricing information shall appear in the Volume 1.

1. Proposal volumes (both the Original and Paper Copy volumes) shall be in loose-leaf three ring binders in accordance with Table L1 – Proposal Submission Requirements. Each volume (Original and Paper Copies) shall have a cover sheet marked with the either “Original” or the copy number (e.g. Copy 1 of 2), title (e.g., Volume I – Technical Performance Proposal), RFP number (M67854-19-R-1535), classification (i.e., SCO), and Offeror's name.

c. Offerors seeking any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions shall clearly explain the exception and its basis in their cover letter. Exceptions may make the proposal unawardable.

d. Each CD shall be marked with the title, RFP number, and Offeror’s name. Offerors shall apply all appropriate markings, including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

e. Offerors shall also stamp all documents “For Official Use Only and Source Selection Sensitive - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

f. The Government expects the following in each Offeror’s proposal: Clarity, completeness, and conciseness. The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability, resources, and experience required to meet the requirements, to include detailed procedures, plans, and methods to be used. All information shall be presented in sufficient depth for the Government to make a comprehensive evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and of the Offeror’s capability for successful performance. The proposal should demonstrate this understanding and capability in a concise, logical manner and should not contain superfluous material not directly related to this solicitation.

g. A page printed on both sides will count as two pages. Pages containing text shall be on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper.

h. Drawings, foldouts, or other graphics shall be legible. Offerors submitting drawings, foldouts, and other graphics for evaluation shall include them within the first 55 pages. Foldouts will count as two pages. Unless otherwise specified (see Table L2 – Items Not Counted Against The Page Limit), information provided in tabular format will be counted as part of the page count.

i. Each page shall be single-spaced with a minimum of 12-point font and one-inch margins. All pages shall contain appropriate numbering and contain the complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header or footer. 10-point fonts for tables and graphics are acceptable.

j. Table L2 below details the proposal submission requirements for reference purposes only that will not count against the page limit. Items listed in Table L2 shall not count against the 55-page proposal limit. Items listed in Table L2 shall be uniquely identified and printed on a green color of paper to distinguish from the 55-page proposal.

k. Offerors shall provide all information necessary for showing compliance with the evaluation criteria within the Volume I 55-page limit via a PSPEC compliance matrix at the beginning of Volume I. The compliance matrix shall demonstrate adherence to the PSPEC to provide traceability within the Offeror’s proposal. This matrix shall map evaluation criteria to the Offeror’s proposal. The compliance matrix shall not count against the 55-page proposal limit. The compliance matrix shall be uniquely identified and printed on a green color of paper to distinguish from the 55-page proposal.

l. Offerors shall provide all information necessary for showing compliance with the evaluation criteria within the Volume I 55-page limit via a SOW cross reference matrix at the beginning of Volume I. The cross reference matrix shall demonstrate adherence to the SOW to provide traceability within the Offeror’s proposal. This cross reference matrix shall map evaluation criteria to the Offeror’s proposal. The cross reference matrix shall not count against the 55-page proposal limit. The cross reference matrix shall be uniquely identified and printed on a green color of paper to distinguish from the 55-page proposal.

m. CD Requirements: Offerors shall use Microsoft Office 2010 software or higher to create the required .xlsx, .pptx and .docx files as well as Adobe Acrobat Version 7.0 or higher to create .pdf files.

n. Provisions in the hard copy marked “original” in Volumes I and II govern in the case of any conflicts between the hard copy and the electronic version.

Table L1: Proposal Submission Requirements

Volume I Technical Technical Proposal

· Management

· Production/Manufacturing Capability

· Integrated Product Support

(1) Original

(6) Paper Copies

(1) Electronic Copy (CD) 55 pages

Volume II Business

(3) Paper Copies

(1) Electronic Copy (CD) No page limit

Table L2: Items Not Counted Against The Page Limit

Table L3: Evaluation Factors

Performance (PSPEC)

Management (SOW)

Production/Manufacturing Capability

Integrated Product Support (SOW)

L.3.2 Specific Proposal Instructions

L.3.2.1 Volume I – Technical (Evaluated in Section M.5.1, Factor 1: Technical Performance)

The Technical Proposal shall contain NO proposal price information.

The Technical Volume shall address Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Performance as per solicitation Section M. The Technical Volume shall demonstrate an understanding of the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements covered in the SCO SOW (Attachment (1) – Section J) and Performance Specification (Attachment (2) – Section J). The proposal should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate how the Offeror will comply with requirements throughout the performance period. Data previously submitted, or presumed to be known (i.e., descriptions of previous projects performed for the Government) cannot be considered as a part of the proposal unless physically incorporated in the proposal.

The Government expects the following in each Offeror’s proposal: Clarity, completeness, and conciseness. The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability, resources, and experience required to meet the requirements, to include detailed procedures, plans, and methods to be used. All information shall be presented in sufficient depth for the Government to make a comprehensive evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and of the Offeror’s capability for successful contract performance. The proposal should demonstrate this understanding and capability in a concise, logical manner and should not contain superfluous material not directly related to this solicitation.

L.3.2.1.1. Performance (Evaluated in Section M.5.1.1, Performance)

Offerors shall provide a detailed description of their performance approach to meeting the PSPEC requirements. This approach shall address the proposed system’s design parameters as well as threshold and objective performance traits. "Shall" statements referenced in the PSPEC correspond to a threshold characteristic, and "Should" statements referenced in the PSPEC correspond to an objective characteristic. This section shall include a PSPEC Compliance Matrix. The completed PSPEC Compliance Matrix will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

To demonstrate compliance with the weight parameters, the offeror shall provide a table listing the weight of each component listed in the PSPEC.

To demonstrate compliance with the illuminated reticle parameters and non-illuminated reticle parameters the offeror shall provide a Reticle Data Sheet.

For all other PSPEC requirements not mentioned above, the offeror’s proposal shall provide all necessary for showingn compliance with each performance specification requirement, or shall document any variance from the requirement. Examples of information to support performance claims can include design features, test results, and analysis.

L.3.2.1.2 Management (Evaluated in Section M.5.1.2, Management)

This section shall include a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) which demonstrates adherence to the SOW and provides traceability within the Offeror's proposal. The CRM shall NOT be included in the 55 page count limit. A Production Schedule shall be included with this section. The Production Schedule shall be editable and compatible with Microsoft Project 2007. At a minimum, the schedule shall integrate all data items, testing, the first two delivery orders, contract program events/reviews, contract milestones, technical milestones, key decision points and program events.

The Offeror shall describe their quality management system. They shall describe their approach to management techniques, controls, subcontractor and vendor quality management, and quality provisions. The offeror shall provide a description of how they plan to implement configuration management and ensure consistent quality throughout contract performance. The offeror shall describe how their manufacturing processes are designed to minimize defects (including latent defects) in materials and workmanship that degrade system performance.

L.3.2.1.3 Production/Manufacturing Capability (Evaluated in Section M.5.1.3, Production/Manufacturing Capability)

Offerors shall provide an estimated production rate and schedule. Offerors shall also describe their approach to building their proposed product. Offerors shall describe their production resources, including manpower, production facilities and equipment, ability to produce materials and long-lead items. Offerors shall detail their capability to increase their production rate for possible surge requirements as well as identify their maximum production rate.

The Offeror shall submit the following:

BERRY AMENDMENT SELF CERTIFICATION

Offerors are advised the Berry Amendment specifically restricts any funding appropriated or otherwise available to DoD from being used to buy the following end items, components, or materials unless they are wholly of US origin: An article or item of food; clothing; tents, tarpaulins, or covers; cotton and other natural fiber products; woven silk or woven silk blends; spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth; synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric (including all textile fibers and yarns that are for use in such fabrics); canvas products, or wool (whether in the form of fiber or yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured articles); or any item of individual equipment (Federal Supply Class 8465) manufactured from or containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials; and hand or measuring tools.

If the Berry Amendment does NOT apply to a proposed solution, the Offeror shall make an affirmative statement in its proposal that its proposed complete system does not contain any natural fibers or other items subject to 10 U.S. Code § 2533a.

If the Berry Amendment does apply, Offerors shall use the following self-certification:

I, (sign name here), in submitting this offer under solicitation number M67854-19-R-1535, affirm that only products compliant with the Berry Amendment (10 USC 2533a) will be delivered to the Government. As such, all items delivered, either as end products or components, will be grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States (as defined in DFARS 252.225-7012(b) included by reference herein). This certification covers all materials (including those of all components) and components supplied by subcontractors at any tier, and all labor (including that of all intervening processes), whether performed by the offeror or any of its subcontractors at any tier.

L.3.2.1.4 Integrated Product Support (Evaluated in Section M.5.1.4, Integrated Product Support)

The Offeror shall discuss their approach in meeting the maintainability, supportability and systems engineering requirements contained in the SCO SOW.

Offerors shall thoroughly detail their approach to supporting the Marine Corps supportability and maintenance requirements from organizational to intermediate levels of maintenance IAW with the SOW. Offerors shall provide a thorough explanation of their commercial warranty, including its duration, any limitations, and any actions that could void the warranty. The Offeror shall provide a Recommended Spares List identifying individual spares and repair parts necessary for the Government to sustain an operational SCO. This list should include all spare parts to include operator spares, maintenance spares and ancillary items. The Recommended Spare Parts List shall include no pricing information.

L.3.2.2 Volume II – Business

L.3.2.2.1 The Offer

The Price Proposal shall include a completed, signed copy of the entire solicitation (and all amendments) with all appropriate “fill-in” sections completed as follows:

1. Section A: An official having the authority to bind the Offeror contractually shall sign the SF-1449. If the individual is not an officer of the company, the proposal shall include written evidence of the individual’s authority to bind the Offeror under contract to a course of action, such as a written delegation of authority signed by an officer of the company.

1. Section B: Follow the below instructions for CLIN pricing:

1. CLIN 0001. Offerors shall enter the unit prices for each step-ladder quantity range in the description.

Quantity Breaks for CLIN 0001:

CLIN 0001 = 1-30 / 31-3,000 / 3,001-6,000 / 6,001-9,000 / 9,000+

1. CLIN 0002. Offerors shall provide a recommended spare parts list for CLIN 0002. The prices proposed per item will be good for all 5 years of the ordering period and will be incorporated into the contract award.

1. CLINs 0003 and 0004. Offerors shall provide the lot price for Training and Non-functional Units.

1. CLINs 0005, 0006, and 0007. Offerors shall provide a price for each Level of Repair; Minor Repair, Moderate Repair, and Major Repair.

1. CLIN 0008. Offerors shall provide the price of refurbishment for one Test Unit article.

1. CLIN 0009. Offerors shall submit copies of all CDRLs with the proposed price of the individual CDRL filled in block 18. If the CDRL is not separately priced, the offeror shall put $0 in CDRL block 18. Section B shall list the combined price of all CDRLs. In the event of a conflict between the sum of the prices on the individual CDRLs and the cumulative price shown in Section B, the sum of the prices on the individual CDRLs shall take precedence. The Government will order individual CDRLs throughout the 5-year ordering period, as necessary.

1. The pricing for each CLIN shall remain valid for the duration of the ordering period shown in B.1.3.

c. Section G: Complete all required fill-ins.

d. Section I: Complete all required fill-ins.

e. Section K: Complete all required certifications, representations, and acknowledgments for the prime Contractor and subcontractors, as applicable.

f. Amendments: Offerors shall acknowledge amendments to this solicitation with signature upon a completed SF30, from an official having the authority to bind the Offeror contractually.

L.3.2.2.2 Past Performance (Evaluated in Section M.5.4, Factor 3: Past Performance)

Offerors shall submit three past performance references on DoD contracts (at least two of which shall be as the prime Contractor) during the past five years. Past performance references shall be recent and relevant. Recency and relevancy are defined in Section M. Offerors with fewer than three DoD contracts shall provide references for other Government, including Federal, State, and local agency contracts.

Past performance information shall include:

1. Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format:

1. Offeror’s Narrative. Offerors shall provide a narrative explanation of each contract listed above in the Contract Descriptions section describing the objectives with specificity and detailing how the effort is relevant to the solicitation requirements.

1. Contract Performance:

1. For any contracts that failed to meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reasons for the shortcomings and any corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence.

1. The Offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters they received for any contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor.

1. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

1. The Offeror shall provide evidence of compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns,” and 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” in prior contracts containing the clause.

NOTICE: The Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, to include the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Because the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. While the Government may consider data it obtains from other sources, the Offeror maintains the burden of proving acceptable past performance.

L.3.2.2.3 Volume II – Small Business (SB) Utilization (Evaluated in Section M.5.5, Factor 4: SB Utilization)

The cover page for the Offeror’s SB Participation section shall summarize the Offeror’s SB Participation goals and SB Subcontracting percentage goals for the total requirement using the below format:

Table L4: Template for the Summary Table

SB Utilization Plan

All Offerors regardless of size shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan presenting percentages in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category, divided by the calculation of the highest step-ladder price multiplied by the highest step-ladder quantity.

The Offeror shall identify the extent and nature of participation of SB, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs, and SDVOSBs in the performance of the proposed contract. Participation includes subcontractors or material suppliers to the prime contractor or subcontractors. Offerors shall include in the percentages their own participation as an SB, WOSB, HUBZone SB or SDVOSB.

The plan shall include:

a. The name and DUNS number (or CAGE code) of each firm included in the plan;

b. A copy of the System for Award Management (SAM) profile for each firm included in the plan;

c. Discussion of the specific components or services each firm will deliver or perform;

d. Identification of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each firm’s size status;

e. The estimated total dollar value provided to each small business including the prime if they are a small business;

f. The percentage of total contract value provided to each small business including the prime if they are a small business;

g. Evidence of any enforceable commitments in place between the Offeror and the participating small businesses (i.e., detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments).

If applicable, for each category in which the Offeror’s SB Participation Plan contains goals below the Government’s SB Utilization Objectives, the offeror shall provide a detailed explanation as to how the Offeror will increase the percentages for performance under contract. Justifications adequately describing valid actions toward increasing percentage goals will receive an acceptable rating.

SB Utilization Objectives:

The Government’s SB Participation objectives for this acquisition are:

Small Business: 5% Small Disadvantaged Business: 1.25% Women-Owned Small Business: 1.25% HUBZone Small Business: 1.25% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 1.25%

L.3.2.3.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan - LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY (Evaluated in Section M.5.5.2, Factor 4: SB Subcontracting Plan)

The SB Subcontracting Plan is only required from large business Offerors (i.e., not a SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB or SDVOSB) and will be incorporated into any resultant contract. The SB Subcontracting Plan describes the Offeror’s approach to maximizing small businesses opportunities in this effort relative to the subcontracted portion’s value. The Offerors shall present their SB Subcontracting Plan percentages in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category divided by the total value of subcontracts.

FAR 52.219-9 sets forth the SB Subcontracting Plan’s required elements. Offerors should address their SB Subcontracting Plans’ elements in an order similar to the FAR order to demonstrate they meet each element of the SB Subcontracting Plan. The Offeror shall provide the CAGE code or DUNS number for each proposed subcontractor and include the NAICS code (appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each proposed subcontractor’s size status. The information in the Offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan must correlate with its SB Participation Plan.

The Government’s SB Subcontracting Plan objectives for this acquisition are:

Small Business: 33% Small Disadvantaged Business: 5% Women-Owned Small Business: 5% HUBZone Small Business: 3% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 3%

Offerors proposing a SB Subcontracting Plan with percentages below the Government’s subcontracting objectives shall, for each category below the objective, explain in detail why they are unable to meet the objectives and what measures, if any, they will take to meet the objectives.

L.4 Incorporation of Technical Proposal

The Government may incorporate all or part of the successful Offeror’s technical proposal in any contract resulting from this solicitation. Additionally, the Performance Specification in the awarded contract will reflect all above-minimum performance levels or capabilities for which the Government gave evaluation credit during source selection. Nothing contained in the successful Offeror’s technical proposal shall constitute a waiver to any other requirement within the contract. The Order of Precedence clause governs in instances of conflicts between the successful Offeror’s technical proposal and any other requirement of the contract. When the Offeror’s proposal exceeds the Government’s requirement, the Offeror’s proposed solution will become the new contract requirement.

L.5 Pre-Contract Costs

Pre-contract costs are NOT authorized.

L.6 Questions Regarding the Solicitation

Offerors shall carefully read this solicitation’s terms and conditions and refer any questions in writing to the Contract Specialist, Jaime Arias, via email at jaime.arias@usmc.mil with copy to Scott Bishop at scott.p.bishop@usmc.mil no later than 2:00PM Eastern Local Time on 27 Sep 2019. The Government may not address any questions, comments, concerns it receives after that time. The Government will post responses via published amendment to the solicitation.

L.7 Offer Acceptance Period

The Offerors proposal information shall be valid for a period of 180 days.

SECTION M

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

In accordance with FAR 52.212-2, the evaluation of Offeror’s proposals shall be conducted as follows:

M.1 Basis for Award

This acquisition uses best value tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) FAR 15.101-1. The Government will award one, five-year (consisting of one five-year ordering period), FFP, IDIQ contract for the SCO to an Offeror whose proposal complies with the solicitation’s terms and conditions, meets or exceeds the solicitation’s requirements, and is the most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors found in Table M1 below.

M.2 Evaluation Overview

The Government anticipates awarding one contract to a responsible Offeror whose proposal submission is the most advantageous to the Government and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The Government will determine Offeror responsibility in accordance with the applicable provisions in FAR 9.1.

Proposals that merely restate solicitation requirements without demonstrating a sound understanding of the requirement and without a clear, concise plan to meet the requirement will be evaluated as not meeting the requirement. General statements such as "the offeror understands," "the offeror can or will comply with the requirements," "standard procedures will be used," or statements which merely paraphrase the solicitation in whole or in part will not constitute compliance with the requirements for proposal content.

The Government will remove and not consider as part of the proposal any pages exceeding the specified page limit. That is, the Government will only read and evaluate the first 55 pages, regardless of the content in those first 55 pages, and will remove and NOT EVALUATE pages 56 and beyond. Technical evaluators will not review any information critical for evaluation beyond page 55, which will render a weakness, significant weakness, deficiency, or unacceptable proposal as applicable.

Exceptions Offerors annotate in their proposal may render the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable.

M.3 Relative Importance of the Factors

The technical performance factor is more important than price. The price factor is more important than past performance. The past performance factor is more important than small business utilization. When combined, the technical performance factor and the price factor are significantly more important than the past performance factor and the small business utilization factor. 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 utilization as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”

M.4 Evaluation Process

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 notify Offerors eliminated from the competitive range in writing in accordance with FAR 15.503.

The Government will evaluate offers using the following evaluation criteria:

Table M1: Evaluation Factors

Performance (PSPEC)

Management (SOW)

Production/Manufacturing Capability

Integrated Product Support (SOW)

The Government will evaluate requirements without a monetized or defined value based on the relative importance to other factors. There is no numerical weighting of evaluation factors.

M.5.1 Factor 1 – Technical Performance

For Factor 1, the Government will assess each Offeror’s proposal and document the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The SSEB Technical team members will render a consensus rating at the factor level. As part of the evaluation of the Technical Factor, the Government will assess the performance, management, production/manufacturing capability and integrated product support of the Offeror’s proposed solution. Each assessment will contain supporting narrative summarizing strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies establishing the basis for the assessment.

M.5.1.1 Performance

To assess performance, the Government will evaluate each Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the PSPEC requirements listed in the PSPEC Compliance Matrix. The Government’s evaluation of the proposed design pursuant to PSPEC requirements will be based on supporting information and data upholding performance claims provided in the solicitation. Performance claims alone for PSPEC requirements unsupported by information and data may receive a deficiency rendering the proposal unawardable.

The Government will also assess the offeror’s compliance with the weight parameters listed in PSPEC.

The Government will also assess the offeror’s Reticle Data Sheet to conform with PSPEC requirements.

The Government will also assess whether the hardware solution’s design elements that are extraneous to the PSPEC may hinder or provide exceptional benefit to Marine users as appropriate.

M.5.1.2 Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to building their proposed product. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cross Reference Matrix to assess adherence to the SOW.

The Government will also assess the offerors quality management system to ensure the offeror is able to produce a repeatable and quality product that conforms to PSPEC requirements.

The Government will use the information Offerors submit in response to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.1.2 Management, to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to deliver a consistent quality product on time.

M.5.1.3 Production/Manufacturing Capability

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s production rate and schedule is able to meet the time constraints delineated in this solicitation Delivery Schedule.

The Government will use the information Offerors submit in response to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.1.3 Production/Manufacturing Capability, to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to manufacture quality, Berry Amendment compliant products. If the Berry Amendment applies, failure to certify Berry Amendment compliance may cause a deficiency rendering a proposal unawardable.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to building their proposed product. The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability to increase their production rate for possible surge requirements as well as identify their maximum production rate.

M.5.1.4 Integrated Product Support

The Government will assess the degree the Offeror’s proposal supports the Marine Corps supportability and maintenance requirements IAW the SCO SOW and the information contained in the Offeror's Recommended Spare Parts List.

M.5.2 Adjectival Ratings

The Government will use Table M2 in the evaluation of Factor 1.

Table M2: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Description

M.5.2.1 Evaluation Definitions

In evaluating the technical factors as described above, the Government will evaluate and document strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks associated with each Offeror's proposal, as defined below:

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness means a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is 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.

M.5.3 Factor 2 – Price

Failing to provide a complete Volume II may result in the Government disqualifying an Offeror’s proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate but not rate Factor 2, Price. The Government will conduct a price analysis using one or more of the techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness. To evaluate price for CLIN 0001, which has step-ladder pricing, the Government will select a random quantity between 1 and 9001, and multiply the corresponding step-ladder price by the random quantity.

CLIN 0002 – The Government will evaluate the price of CLIN 0002 by adding together the price of all items on the recommended spare parts lists submitted at a quantity of 1 each.

CLINs 0003 and 0004 – The Government will evaluate the price of CLINs 0003 and 0004 at a quantity of 1 Lot.

CLINs 0005, 0006, and 0007 – The Government will evaluate the price of minor, moderate, and major repairs at a quantity of 1 each.

CLINs 0008 – The Government will evaluate the price of refurbishment at a quantity of 1 Test Unit article refurbishment.

CLIN 0009 – The Government will evaluate the total price of CDRLs by adding together the price of each CDRL at a quantity of 1 each.

The Government will calculate a total evaluated price by summing together the evaluated price of all CLINs described above.

M.5.4 Factor 3 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance factor as acceptable or unacceptable. 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 the Offeror provides and other sources available to the Government. The Government will only evaluate the three most recent citations in cases where Offerors submit more than three past performance citations and will evaluate Government contract past performance citations before non-Government contract past performance citations. To evaluate past performance, the Government will first determine whether each Offeror’s recent efforts are relevant.

Recency is defined as follows:

Recency: A time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Contracts completed within the past five years prior to the release of the solicitation.

Relevant and Not Relevant efforts are defined as follows:

Relevant: Past/present performance efforts with similar scope and magnitude of effort or similar scope and complexity required by this solicitation.

Not Relevant: Past/present performance effort involving little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort or little or none of the scope and complexity this solicitation requires. Contracts completed more than five 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 M3 below defines the ratings:

Table M3: Past Performance Ratings

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.

The Government will initially evaluate past performance efforts to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the solicitation requirements. Second, the Government will evaluate relevant present/past performance efforts to determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior/current contracts.

NOTE: 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 “acceptable.”

M.5.5 Factor 4: SB Utilization

The Government will evaluate the SB Utilization factor as acceptable or unacceptable based on SB Utilization Plan (applicable to both small and large businesses) and SB Subcontracting Plan (applicable to large businesses only). To be acceptable under this factor as a large business, BOTH the SB Utilization Plan and the SB Subcontracting Plan must meet or exceed the solicitation’s requirements.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s SB Utilization Plan and SB Subcontracting Plan (if required) demonstrates commitment to using SBs, SDBs, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs and SDVOSBs in performance of the contract.

M.5.5.1 SB Participation Plan

The Government will evaluate Offerors on the extent to which their proposals and other performance information available to the Government demonstrate the Offerors’ support of Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals for other than small businesses.

Proposals meeting or exceeding the percentage goals in Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to offerors, Section 4, Section L.3.2.2.3, will receive an acceptable rating.

Proposals not meeting or exceeding the goals stated in Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to offerors, Section 4, Section L.3.2.2.3, 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.

The Government will evaluate Offerors on the levels of small business participation proposed and the degree of commitment to use named sources using the ratings in Table M4.

Table M4: Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

M.5.5.2 SB Subcontracting Plan –– LARGE BUSINESSES ONLY

The Offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan must correlate with SB, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs, and Service SDVOSBs information in its SB Participation Plan. The Government will evaluate SB Subcontracting Plans against the goals in Section L.3.2.3.2. Proposals meeting or exceeding the percentage goals in Section L.3.2.3.2 will receive an acceptable rating.

Proposals not meeting or exceeding the percentage goals in Section L.3.2.3.2 will receive an unacceptable rating unless the proposal explains why and describes what the Offeror will do to increase the percentages for performance under the contract. Justifications describing valid actions toward increasing percentage goals will receive an acceptable rating.

Table M5: SB Subcontracting Ratings

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf