14RJR04_0004.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 reason for this amendment is to amend Sections L & M to provide additional information and to add a clarif ication for the shipment of product samples. The rate of monthly production has also changed.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 12

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 11-Mar-2014

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 N00164-14-R-JR04

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Dec-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

11-Mar-2014

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

K. FRENTZ (812-854-5928)

BLDG 3422

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

N00164 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00164-14-R-JR04

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Clarifications:

1. Product Sample shipments will be accepted in fiberboard containers with appropriate shipping documentation. However, bid samples will be tested in the M2A1 can configuration as shown on drawing

8502213, with the exception that the number of units packaged in the M2A1 can is at the vendors discretion. Vendors shipping grenades in fiberboard containers shall submit foam inserts such that the

Government can repackage the grenades in M2A1 cans for testing. The Government shall not be held accountable for any issues related to repackaging units into M2A1 cans.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

The following have been modified:

52.211-8 TIME OF DELIVERY (JUN 1997)

(a) The Government requires delivery to be made according to the following schedule:

REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

First Production Lot: WILL NOT HAVE FIRST ARTICLE UNITS

First Production Lot Schedule is as follows:

110 days from order placement for First Production Lot.

15 days for Lot Acceptance Testing (LAT).

5 days for acceptance of LAT units and test report.

25 days for delivery of production units.

Total: 155 days for First Production Lot

Second Production Lot Schedule is as follows:

100 days from order placement for CLIN 0001 First Article units.

15 days for First Article Unit Testing.

15 days for acceptance of First Article Units/Report.

160 days for Second Lot Production.

15 days for LAT.

15 days for acceptance of LAT Units/Report.

30 days for delivery of production units.

Total: 350 days for Second Production Lot

Subsequent Production Delivery Orders:

30 days from order placement for lot production.

15 days for LAT.

15 days for acceptance of LAT Units/Report.

30 days for delivery of production units.

Total: 90 days for subsequent production orders

After Date of Order at a rate of 7,000 per month

Item No. Quantity of Contract CLIN 0002

CLIN 0003 will be delivered in accordance with DD 1423’s

The Government will evaluate equally, as regards time of delivery, offers that propose delivery of each quantity within the applicable delivery period specified above. Offers that propose delivery that will not clearly fall within the applicable required delivery period specified above, will be considered nonresponsive and rejected. The

Government reserves the right to award under either the required delivery schedule or the proposed delivery schedule, when an offeror offers an earlier delivery schedule than required above. If the offeror proposes no other delivery schedule, the required delivery schedule above will apply.

OFFEROR'S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Within Days

After Date

Item No. Quantity of Contract

(b) Attention is directed to the Contract Award provision of the solicitation that provides that a written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror, results in a binding contract. The

Government will mail or otherwise furnish to the offeror an award or notice of award not later than the day award is dated. Therefore, the offeror should compute the time available for performance beginning with the actual date of award, rather than the date the written notice of award is received from the Contracting Officer through the ordinary mails. However, the Government will evaluate an offer that proposes delivery based on the Contractor's date of receipt of the contract or notice of award by adding (1) five calendar days for delivery of the award through the ordinary mails, or (2) one working day if the solicitation states that the contract or notice of award will be transmitted electronically. (The term "working day" excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays.) If, as so computed, the offered delivery date is later than the required delivery date, the offer will be considered nonresponsive and rejected.

(End of clause)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

CNIN-L-0010 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The contractor’s proposal shall include the following:

Document / Information Volume Number

Technical Proposal Volume I

(35 page limit)

Small Business Participation Plan Volume I

(5 page limit)

Completed Solicitation Volume II

(No page limit)

Past Performance Summaries & Matrix (Min 3, Max 5 references)

Volume II

(5 page limit for summary)

(1 page limit for matrix)

Pricing Volume III

(No page limit)

I. General Information:

a) Offerors shall submit with their proposals a list of names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations.

b) Proposals shall not contain classified information.

c) Delivery & Submission Method

1) Mailed or Commercial Delivery of Proposals. Mailed or commercially delivered hard or soft copy proposals shall be sent to the address in Block 7 of SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation and are due by the date and time in block nine (9) on page one (1) of the solicitation. Please notify the Contract Specialist at keith.frentz@navy.mil if a hard copy is being sent and provide a copy of the shipping label.

2) Electronic Delivery of Proposals. Electronic submission to keith.frentz@navy.mil is acceptable.

Timeliness of proposals will be determined IAW 52.212-1(f) or 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A). Be advised that large electronic files are problematic due to limitations on Government email inbox. In addition .zip file are stripped from e-mails submitted and cannot be submitted. Utilization of AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx , is an acceptable transmission tool send early, and verify receipt. SAFE supports files sizes up to 2GB.

3) If a hard copy proposal is submitted, a soft copy of the proposal must also be provided on CD-

ROMs/DVDs, read-only memory. Microsoft Office, word, presentation and spreadsheet products are preferred. Changes, as a result of negotiations, will be conformed on CD-ROMs/DVDs and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the left margin.

4) NSWC Crane will NOT accept facsimile proposals or proposals submitted via NECO.

d) Proposal Format. Format of the proposal volumes shall be as follows:

1) Text size shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 10 point, uncompressed font.

2) Pages shall be single sided, one and one half spaced, with a minimum of one inch margins on all sides.

Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, “original” or copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name.

3) Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

mailto:keith.frentz@navy.mil mailto:keith.frentz@navy.mil https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx

4) Elaborate format, color representations, and bindings are not desirable. Three-ring binders are preferred. The pages in the binders shall be easily removed and replaced to facilitate page changes.

Any pages that are changed (as the result of negotiations) should be of a different color (as specified by the Contracting Officer) and have changed information clearly marked by a vertical line in the right margin of the page and/or circling if changing data in a chart. The offeror shall indicate the new date on revised pages.

5) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used when necessary to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as one page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics; not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point, Times New Roman.

II. Technical Proposals

a) The Technical of the proposal shall be submitted as Volume I, and shall be no more than 35 pages; plus an executive summary of no more than One (1) page.

b) The technical proposal shall not contain any pricing information.

c) Electronic or hard copy of the following Technical Documentation in response to the factors and subfactors described in the solicitation in such detail to allow the Government to evaluate the proposal. The Technical

Documentation shall be provided by offeror 14 days prior to the solicitation closing date and shall include three (3) inert models with proper inert certification paperwork of the grenade to be used for proving out test fixtures and setup for bid sample testing. Delivery of the Technical Documentation shall be to the following address:

NSWC Crane

Attn: Dan Sherfick

300 Highway 361 Building 2390

Crane, IN 47522

812-854-5479

Technical Documentation shall include:

Top level assembly drawing providing defined dimensions, weights, tolerances, and entire outer envelope of the grenade.

Top level assembly drawing providing defined dimensions, weights, tolerances, and entire outer envelope of the fuze.

Packaging drawings

List of chemical compositions and energetic materials used for the fuze and grenade including the weight of each material.

Interim Hazard Classification Documentation.

d) Offerors shall provide 40 product sample(s) for the Multi-Bang Flash Bang Grenade that is being solicited.

Delivery of the product samples shall be to the following address:

NSWC Crane

Attn: Dan Sherfick

300 Highway 361 Building 2390

Crane, IN 47522

812-854-5479

e) Each technical proposal shall enable Government evaluating personnel to make a thorough evaluation and arrive at a sound determination as to whether or not the proposal will meet the requirements of the government. Each technical proposal shall be specific, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements and has valid and practical solutions to technical problems. Statements that paraphrase the specifications/Statement of Work or attest that "standard procedures will be employed” are inadequate to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the requirements of the specification/Statement of Work.

f) Subcontract Participation Data

The Subcontract Participation Data portion of the proposal shall be submitted as a part of Volume

I, and shall be no more than a maximum of five (5) pages.

In accordance with FAR 15.304, it is the intent of the Government to encourage participation of small businesses whenever practicable. Describe the extent to which your company has identified and committed to provide for participation by small, small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB) , woman-owned businesses (WOB), veteran owned small business and service-disabled veteran owned small business, historically black colleges and universities, or other minority institutions for the performance of this effort. ALL offerors shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the tasks assigned the selected subcontractors are meaningful in the sense that they will be performing functions important to the overall success of the program and also broaden the subcontractor's technical capability. ALL Offerors shall describe their management approach for enhancing small business subcontractor's technical capability. Of special interest is the amount and type of work to be performed by the subcontractors. The offeror shall explain the reasons for and advantages of selecting particular subcontractors.

Submission shall be separate from subcontracting plans to be submitted by large businesses pursuant to

FAR 52.219 9.

III. Past Performance

a) The Past Performance portion of the proposal shall be submitted as a part of Volume II, and shall be no more than a maximum of five (5) pages for the narrative summary and 1 page for the matrix.

b) The offeror shall provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) past performance references.

The offeror shall contact past performance references directly and request that they complete and submit the Contractor Performance Data Sheet (Attachment 1 hereto) to the address in Block 7 of

SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation or to keith.frentz@navy.mil in accordance with the timeline set in

Block 9 of SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation. The completed data sheets shall be sent directly from the

POC to the contract specialist, Keith Frentz. Under no circumstances shall the questionnaires be returned to the offerors. Any information provided by the submitters’ referenced customers is subject to verification/validation by the Government during the evaluation process. In the event references are not received by the close of the solicitation, the Government may make contact and follow up with the listed references from the Contractor Performance Data Sheet.

c) Offeror shall provide a one (1) page matrix identifying the following information for each of the Past

Performance Data Sheets sent out:

1) Organization/Customer

2) Name of Contract

3) Brief Description

4) Contract Number

5) Telephone & E-mail of Organization/Customer Point of Contact (POC)

The offeror’s matrix shall contain a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references to contracts that are recent and relevant to this requirement. Proposals must prove PPQs have been sent to each POC; Failure to send the PPQ to each POC will be considered a proposal deficiency and may result in exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from consideration for award. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance

Questionnaire directly to the Government.

mailto:keith.frentz@navy.mil

d) Up to five (5) one page summaries of each contract reference identified in the past performance summary matrix may be submitted. Offerors should include a discussion of any significant achievements and explain any Past Performance problems that it considers relevant to the proposed efforts. Offerors should also discuss past and present efforts to identify and manage program risk.

e) For the purposes of this solicitation, current contracts are defined as those on which performance occurred during the last three (3) years. In determining relevancy, the offeror should consider the type and value of the contract, and the type of requirement compared to this solicited requirement. The offeror should also consider the level or amount of effort. Only past performance dealing with development and production hand held flash bang grenades and related technology will be considered relevant. The offeror must detail

(if using the “related technology” as a reference) how the “related technology” is applicable to the solicited effort. Should the offeror not explain how the related technology is applicable, the reference may not be considered relevant. If an offeror has no current or relevant past performance information, they should so state that in this volume.

f) Each offeror shall submit present and past performance information for itself on projects of similar size, scope, and technical complexity. The Offerors may choose to submit present and past performance information for major proposed subcontractors, team members, and/or joint venture partners that have experience in projects of similar size, scope, and technical complexity with its proposal. The total number of past performance references for each offeror shall not exceed five (including any references submitted by subcontractors, team members and/or joint ventures). This volume shall provide a list of current and relevant contracts on which the offeror has performed in the format requested in the Proposal Requirements portion of this document. This information, as well as other information the Government may obtain elsewhere via Government databases (CPARs, PPIRs etc.) and other government agencies (DCMA, DCAA etc.), will be used to evaluate the offeror's past performance. The Government reserves the right to solicit feedback beyond what is identified in the questionnaire. NO CLASSIFIED PAST PERFORMANCE

SUPPLEMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED. The offeror may submit performance on classified programs as long as that information can be verified. If the offeror intends to submit in this manner the information that is classified (customer, contract number, etc.) should be marked “reserved” and the description/write up of the work performed shall remain unclassified. If the offeror cannot describe what work was accomplished in an unclassified manner they cannot submit that program for evaluation. Offerors are notified that the

Government will use the data provided in this volume that is determined to be current and relevant to the effort at hand and data obtained from other sources in the development of performance risk assessments.

IV. Subcontract Participation Data

a) The Subcontract Participation Data portion of the proposal shall be submitted as a part of Volume I, and shall be no more than a maximum of five (5) pages.

b) In accordance with FAR 15.304, it is the intent of the Government to encourage participation of small businesses whenever practicable. Describe the extent to which your company has identified and committed to provide for participation by small, small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB) , woman-owned businesses (WOB), veteran owned small business and service-disabled veteran owned small business, historically black colleges and universities, or other minority institutions for the performance of this effort.

ALL offerors shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the tasks assigned the selected subcontractors are meaningful in the sense that they will be performing functions important to the overall success of the program and also broaden the subcontractor's technical capability. ALL Offerors shall describe their management approach for enhancing small business subcontractor's technical capability. Of special interest is the amount and type of work to be performed by the subcontractors. The offeror shall explain the reasons for and advantages of selecting particular subcontractors.

Submission shall be separate from subcontracting plans to be submitted by large businesses pursuant to

FAR 52.219-9.

V. Cost/Price Proposals

a) The offeror shall submit as volume III a cost/price proposal to include the following:

1) Offeror shall provide complete pricing tables for the five (5) year ordering period for the CLIN’s being proposed in accordance with the instructions provided within Section B of this solicitation.

2) All prices shall be stated in U.S. dollars only. No currency adjustment provisions will be contained in any resulting contract.

3) Offerors may propose different quantity/price breaks than the ones listed, and are encouraged to do so if it will facilitate optimal pricing. Any such proposal should cover a range that commences at the

Delivery Order Minimum and ends at the Delivery Order Maximum. Year 1 is the date of contract award through one year after contract award. This is a five-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contract.

EXCEPTIONS

Offerors are not encouraged to take exceptions to this solicitation, however, any exceptions taken to the specifications, statement of work, performance work statement or terms and conditions of this solicitation shall be explained in detail and set forth in a cover letter as well as in the cost proposal. Offerors are to detail the particular section, clause paragraph and page to which they are taking exception.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

CNIN-M-0002 GREATEST VALUE EVALUATION

a) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. The “best value” determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the offeror’s capability. The “best value” may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost, nor receiving the highest technical rating. As specified in the FAR 52.215-1 “Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition” provision, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. An offer must be acceptable for the offeror to be eligible for award. OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED

HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT

FURTHER EVALUATION.

b) Proposals will be rated on the evaluation factors listed below. It should be noted that cost/price is not a weighted factor for evaluation, but will be considered in determining the greatest value to the Government.

Evaluation factors (other than cost/price) are significantly more important than cost/price. However, cost is an important factor and should be considered when preparing proposals. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with a technically superior offer do not support any associated cost or price premium. In summary, cost/price/technical capability tradeoffs may be made.

NOTE: A finding of “Unacceptable” for any non-cost factor and/or subfactor thereof may result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable.

c) The offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in Section L. The order of relative importance for the evaluation factors is established as follows:

FACTOR I - TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

A. Product Sample Evaluation

B. Technical Proposal Evaluation

C. Technical Documentation Evaluation

D. Small Business Participation

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR III – PRICE

d) Factor I (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor II (Past Performance). Factor II (Past

Performance) is significantly more important than Factor III (Price). Factors I and II, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor III (Price). The price factor becomes more important as the degree of equality of Factors Other Than Price increases, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

e) Under Factor I, Subfactor A is significantly more important than Subfactor B, C, and D individually or combined. Subfactors B, C, and D are listed in descending order of importance. Factor III, Price will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the “best value” to the Government.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

The technical evaluation will be an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the technical data package, to include but not be limited to the specification and drawings. The evaluation will also consider the successful application of Government and industry standards and best practices and innovative approaches that added value to the project/program and benefitted the Government. The objective of the evaluation is to:

1. develop insight into the offeror’s relative capability and the relative risk associated with the offeror’s proposed approach; and

2. determine the degree to which the offeror has previously encountered the kinds of work, uncertainties, challenges, and risks that it is likely to encounter under the prospective contract.

SUBFACTOR A – PRODUCT SAMPLE EVALUATION

Offerors shall provide 40 product sample(s) for the Multi-Bang Flash Bang Grenade that is being solicited. Product samples will be evaluated by Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane personnel against the performance specification identified in the solicitation. Evaluation of the product sample(s) will evaluate performance against the following critical performance parameters of Specification OES-PRF-0016:

3.5.1.2.1 Pull

3.5.1.2.2 Time Delay

3.5.1.2.3 Output Pressure

3.5.1.3 Fragmentation

3.5.1.4 Luminosity

3.5.1.5 1.5 Meter Drop

3.5.1.6 Smoke Output

3.5.1.7 Sound Output Level

3.5.2.1 Transportation Vibration

3.5.2.2 Temperature and Humidity

3.5.2.3 Water Immersion

3.6 Examination and Workmanship

3.6.2 Radiographic Inspection

SUBFACTOR B – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Offeror’s shall provide a written technical proposal that includes a completed matrix to summarize compliance with the technical requirements to the paragraph in the Offeror’s written technical proposal that demonstrates the

Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements listed below:

Performance Specification OES-PRF-0125

Compliance/design details to meet the requirements of MIL-STD-2105 (test results, energetics used, etc)

Quality program plan in accordance with DI-QCIC-81722

SUBFACTOR C – TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION EVALUATION

Offerors shall provide the following Technical Documentation:

Top level assembly drawing providing defined dimensions, weights, tolerances, and entire outer envelope of the grenade.

Top level assembly drawing providing defined dimensions, weights, tolerances, and entire outer envelope of the fuze.

Packaging drawings

List of chemical compositions and energetic materials used for the fuze and grenade including the weight of each material.

Interim Hazard Classification Documentation.

The Technical Documentation shall be provided by offeror 14 days prior to the solicitation closing date and shall include three (3) inert models with proper inert certification paperwork of the grenade to be used for proving out test fixtures and setup for bid sample testing.

The Government shall review the technical documentation and evaluate the physical requirements of the Multi-Bang

Flash Bang Grenade for the following Performance Specification OES-PRF-0125 Go/No Go criteria:

3.5.1.1.1 Output Effects (Number of bangs threshold/objective requirement)

3.5.3.2 Diameter

3.5.3.4 Output Design

3.5.3.5 Weight

Offerors that fail to meet the requirements of the technical documentation evaluation shall have the product samples destroyed prior to Product Sample Evaluation and will not be further evaluated or considered for award. Offerors that have successfully passed the requirements of the technical documentation evaluation will continue to the

Product Sample Evaluation.

The Technical Documentation will be further evaluated to determine the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements.

SUBFACTOR D – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Standard 1:

Offerors shall include information on Small Business Participation in the Technical Proposal that identifies and details the offerors’ proposed approach for Small Business Participation. Describe the extent to which your company has identified and committed to provide for participation by small, small and disadvantaged businesses (SDB), woman owned businesses (WOB), HUBZone businesses, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), or other minority institutions (MI) for the performance of this effort. The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the tasks assigned the selected small, SDB, WOB, HUBZone, HBCU, and/or MI subcontractors are meaningful in the sense that they will be performing functions important to the overall success of the program and also broaden the subcontractor's technical capability. The offeror shall describe its management approach for enhancing proposed subcontractors’ technical capability. Of special interest is the amount and type of work to be performed by the subcontractors. The offeror shall explain the reasons for and advantages of selecting particular subcontractors. If there are no subcontracting possibilities, so state. Large business offerors shall submit a

Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II (Oct 2001)

FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will assess each offeror’s and proposed significant subcontractor’s past performance. The assessment will be an unbiased judgment about the quality of an offeror’s past performance. The Government will use its subjective assessment to make a comparative assessment of an offeror’s capability. Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with the Specification, Drawings, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, contract schedule and contract terms and conditions.

Past performance is also a measure of the risk of performance associated with the offeror.

Standard 1:

Describe your ability to meet the specification requirements for same or similar systems provided under other contracts.

Standard 2:

Have you requested relief from system specification requirements on any of your same or similar to the proposed systems? If yes, please describe the areas and the ultimate impact on system performance, cost and schedule for each request.

Standard 3:

Describe solutions to corporate/customer differences and/or contract problems/disputes for the past three years.

The Government may solicit information from an offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local government agencies and databases; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror. The evaluation will take in account the same type of information regarding significant subcontractors proposed in the offeror’s proposal.

The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any information not furnished with the offer.

The SSA/Contracting Officer may, however, utilize all available information, including information not provided by the offeror, in the past performance evaluation. The Government reserves the right to review less than all information submitted, and to only analyze sufficient information to make a reasonable determination of each offeror’s past performance rating. If insufficient information regarding the offeror’s corporate history is available, the offeror is encouraged to submit for evaluation, evidence of relevant past performance on the part of the offeror’s key/principal employees, as either a prime- or sub-contractor.

Past performance is assessed by the SSA/Contracting Officer and is assigned adjectival ratings in the evaluation.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Each offeror will be given an adjectival rating on past performance relevance: relevant, not relevant.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each offeror will be given an adjectival rating on past performance confidence: substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, unknown confidence. Offerors who do not have recent/relevant performance record available to the Contracting Officer will be rated Unknown Confidence (Neutral).

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offer submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the offeror’s past performance, that offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide reference information that is deemed not relevant and current as defined in Section

L, the offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

FACTOR III: COST/PRICE

A Cost/Price Proposal shall be submitted for the supplies/services set forth in Section B of this solicitation.

Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include Defense

Contract Audit Agency office, Defense Contract Management Command, other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor, etc. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost/price, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity of risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the business proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance. Subjective judgment on the part of the government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Cost/Price evaluation will be based on the total cost offered for all line items. Price will be evaluated by finding the total evaluated price (TEP) for each CLIN.

The TEP for each CLIN will be determined by applying proposed unit prices against estimated ordering quantities for each item over the five year ordering period. The total evaluated prices for each CLIN will then be added to the First Article totals to determine an overall evaluated price for the proposal. The First

Article units included in the evaluation will be destroyed during testing and are not considered part of the production quantity. Estimated ordering quantities will be used to develop an evaluated total price for the comparison to the government estimate, when applicable, and other offers in the competitive range. Contract

Data is “Not Separately Priced”.

(End of Summary of Changes)