M67854-23-R-1007 AMENDMENT 004 RFP Mod.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 revise revise Section M, specif ically M.2.1.1 Element 1: Design and Workmanship, and to provide additional questions and answ ers.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Apr-2023

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 M6785423R1007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Nov-2022

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

17-Apr-2023

CODE

COMMANDER MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

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:

M6785423R1007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M.1 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 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.

The evaluation will be conducted in the following two phases:

Phase 1: Go/No Go Criteria Phase 2: Tradeoff Evaluation

Phase 1 - Go/No Go Criteria.

The Government will evaluate proposals based on one Go/No Go criteria. Offers failing to meet the Go/No Go criteria will not be further evaluated, and therefore, not eligible for award. The Government will remove from evaluation any proposal failing to meet the following Go/No Go criteria:

Criteria 1: Offeror’s providing source selection samples in accordance with Table 1 below will receive a “GO.” Offerors that do not provide the required source selection samples will receive a “NO GO,” and the proposal will not receive further evaluation.

Table 1: Source Selection Samples

PC Gen III Complete Systems (Coyote 498)

Subsystem Subsystem Components Size Quantity

Outer Vest Assembly outer front carrier, outer rear carrier, load bearing panel, cummerbund adapter, and two shoulder straps

X-Small Short 2 Medium 2

X-Large 2

Inner Vest Assembly inner front carrier and inner rear carrier

X-Small Short 2

PC Gen III Complete Systems (Coyote 498)

Subsystem Subsystem Components Size Quantity

X-Large 2

Outer Cummerbund

Assembly two outer cummerbund panels, and two tube adapters

Small 2

Large 2

Inner Cummerbund

Assembly two inner cummerbund panels

Small 2

Side Plate Pocket

Assembly two side plate pockets 6x6 2 6x8 4

Harness harness Small 2

Phase 2 – Tradeoff Evaluation When making the best value determination, the Government will evaluate offers using the following factors and elements:

Table 2: Evaluation Factors Factor 1 Technical Performance

- Element 1 - Design and Workmanship

- Element 2 - Manufacturing Factor 2 Past Performance Factor 3 Price

The Government will evaluate requirements without a monetized or defined value based on the relative importance to other factors. The Elements under Factor 1 are listed in descending order of importance. Technical performance is significantly 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 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 Table 3 below in the evaluation of Factor 1, Technical Performance, and assess deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses for the Elements under Factor 1. The Government will not rate the Elements. The Government will render a consensus rating at the factor level (i.e., Technical Performance).

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1 Factor 1: Technical Performance This factor consists of two Elements, which are listed below:

Element 1: Design and Workmanship Element 2: Manufacturing

M.2.1.1 Element 1: Design and Workmanship The Government will evaluate the source selection samples identified above in Table 1, using Table XXIII and XXIV from Paragraph 4.6 of the PC Gen III Detail Specification (Attachment J.1).

Each component part will be assessed to determine if any defects listed in Table XXIII or XXIV exist for each individual component. The grading on the Outer Vest - Back Plate Pocket, Inner Flap Hook and the X-Small Short Load Bearing Panel will be excluded from the overall evaluation of design and workmanship. The Government may disassemble the source selection samples for the evaluation as required.

If an Offeror submits a proposal and source selection samples made from alternative ("or equal") material not specified in the PC Gen III Detail Specification (Attachment J.1), the Offeror MUST provide supporting data for ALL characteristics contained in the PC Gen III Detail Specification (Attachment J.1) for that specific material requirement. Supporting data MUST be provided which complies with test methodologies outlined in the PC Gen III Detail Specification (Attachment J.1), paragraph 3 entitled "Requirements," and paragraph 4 entitled "Verification" for the specific material substitution. Submission of supporting data alone does not automatically make the alternative material technically acceptable. The Government will review the Offeror’s submitted supporting data and determine whether the alternative material itself is an acceptable alternative IAW with the PC Gen III Detail Specification. Determination that an alternative material is acceptable does not obviate the requirement for evaluation of source selection samples described above. Further, failure to provide the aforementioned supporting data for all submitted alternative (“or equal”) requirements contained in the PC Gen III Detail Specification (Attachment J.1) will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and the proposal will be not be further evaluated.

M.2.1.2 Element 2: Manufacturing The Government will use the information Offerors submit in response to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.1.2, to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to manufacture quality, Berry Amendment compliant products at a rate of at least 1,500 PC Gen III systems per month (threshold) 90 days after FAT approval and the ability to ramp up to 5,000 systems and 1,200 components per month within 120 days after FAT approval (objective).

M.2.2 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) using sources provided by the Offeror and other sources available to the Government.

If an offeror represents itself as a joint venture (JV), the Government may check the past performance of the JV as well as the parties to the JV. 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: 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 will be considered not relevant.

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

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.

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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered acceptable.

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 similar contracts.

M.2.3 Factor 3: Price The Government will assess the Offer 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 will include production quantities, spare and repair components, training materials, and associated reporting and the cost of any licensing fee to FirstSpear, LLC, for use of laser-cut PALS slits. The Offeror shall affirmatively state whether its total proposed price includes the cost of the licensing fee. The total proposed price is the sum of the evaluation quantities for CLINs 0001 through 0047 and is detailed in Section B. If the Offeror does not affirmatively state that its proposed price includes the licensing fee, the Government will add an evaluation factor to the Offeror’s total proposed price in the amount of $1,800,000.00 which represents an estimate of the cost to the Government to obtain a compulsory license with FirstSpear, LLC.

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)