15RJQ23_0001.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 provide answ ers to industry questions, clarify w here the product samples should be sent, incorporate revised Performance Specification (Attachment 1), incorporate administrative changes in clause 52.212-1 ADDENDUM (Proposal Requirements), incorporate administrative changes in clause 52.212-2 (Evaluation -Commercial Items), and update the NSWC Crane point of contact. The RFP response date for offers is not extended. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Oct-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 N00164-15-R-JQ23

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Oct-2014

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

21-Oct-2014

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

E. FLEETWOOD (812-854-1557)

BLDG 3373

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:

N00164-15-R-JQ23

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 4.0 - CLAUSES & OTHER FULL TEXT INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 1.0 - SCHEDULE/INSPECTION & ACCEPTANCE/DELIVERY

The DPAS code has changed from DO-C9 to DO-A7.

The Issued By organization has changed from

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

CRANE DIVISION

300 HWY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

to

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

E. FLEETWOOD (812-854-1557)

BLDG 3373

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

The 'issued by' organization has changed from

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

L. SANDY (812-854-8792)

BLG. 3373

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

to

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

E. FLEETWOOD (812-854-1557)

BLDG 3373

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

CLIN 0001

The PROG code has changed from C9E to A70.

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A CDRLS 12 29-MAY-2014 Attachment 1 PERFORMANCE SPEC 19 29-MAY-2014 Attachment 2 SOW 6 29-MAY-2014 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A CDRLS 12 29-MAY-2014 Attachment 1 Performance

Specification 10-15-14

18 15-OCT-2014

Attachment 2 SOW 6 29-MAY-2014

The following have been modified:

CNIN-NOTICE-0001 SECTION B NOTES (JUL 2014)

1. Section K herein will be incorporated by reference and made a material part of the contract in accordance with

FAR 15.204-1(b).

2. The System for Award Management (SAM) has replaced Central Contracting Registration (CCR). Offers may obtain information on SAM registration and annual confirmation at the website https://www.sam.gov , or https://www.acquisition.gov and by phone at 1-866-606-8220.

3. Data Item Descriptions (DIDS) referenced in the attached Contract Data Requirements List(s) (CDRLs) are available at the following website: http://www.assistdocs.com

4. The technical data package may contain information that is export controlled. Only those companies that have completed DD Form 2345 and are certified under the Joint Certification Program (JCP) in an active status are authorized to receive export controlled information. Additional information is available at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp/.

5. Technical questions concerning this procurement shall be submitted in writing to arrive at NSWC Crane no later than 2:00 PM EST on the seventh calendar day preceding the closing date shown on page 1 addressed as follows:

COMMANDER

CONTRACTING OFFICER/SPECIALIST: LYNN FLEETWOOD

NSWC CRANE DIVISION

300 HWY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5000

or E-mail questions to elizabeth.fleetwood@navy.mil

6. Any amendments to the subject solicitation will be posted to FedBizOpps (http://www.fbo.gov). The complete solicitation package, including all amendments, should be received and reviewed prior to submitting a response.

It is the responsibility of the offeror to obtain all amendments and/or other applicable documents prior to submission of the offer. Under these circumstances, offerors are reminded to include acknowledgement of acceptance of these amendments in their offer.

Will be added upon award if applicable:

7. “Contractor XYZ’s” Subcontracting Plan is hereby incorporated and made a material part of this contract IAW FAR 19.705-5(a)(5). The subcontracting plan is an attachment set forth in Section J.

8. The contractor’s warranty provided in response to the solicitation is incorporated by reference and made a material part of the contract.

SECTION 4.0 - CLAUSES & OTHER FULL TEXT INFORMATION

The following have been added by full text:

INDUSTRY Q & A

Industry Questions and Government Responses Question 1: How will delivery schedules / delivery lead times be established and agreed upon between the Contractor and the Government for delivery orders issued IAW 52.216-19 (Order Limitations), 52.216- 22 (Indefinite Quantity) & 252.216-7006 (Ordering)?

Response 1: Lead times will be established by the basic contract. If the offeror has quantity limitations on how many units can be delivered within a specific time period, those limitation should be clearly articulated in the proposal. For planning purposes, the Government is anticipating a 90 day delivery period.

Question 2: Is there a special pricing formula that will be used to evaluate price?

Response 2: Price will be evaluated based upon both an examination of the unit pricing proposed and total evaluated price based on a calculation of the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed.

Question 3: Objective MTTF requirement (10,000 hrs) conflicts with the accelerated MTTF (2500 hrs).

Should the accelerated MTTF be 2000 hrs (as it is usually 1/5 of the actual MTTF requirement)? (Ref:

PS/14/JXQR/128, para. 3.5.18, Reliability)

Response 3: Objective MTTF requirement should be 12,500 hours which correlates to an accelerated MTTF of 2,500 hours. Please refer to revised Performance Specification as an attachment to this solicitation amendment.

Question 4: Are attachments/addendums to be included in the proposal section page counts?

Response 4: The Written Technical Proposal must not exceed 30 pages and must include: Performance Specifications Compliance Matrix & narrative and Statement of Work Compliance Matrix & narrative

Question 5: Are past performance efforts relevant ONLY if they are related to AN/PVS-15A or AN/PVS- 18? (Ref: Section 5.0. (III) (e))

Response 5: Yes, per the RFP: Only past performance dealing with High Performance Image Intensifier Tube assembly, 18mm Micro-Channel Wafer, MX10160 Series for currently fielded AN/PVS-15A and AN/PVS-18 night vision devices will be considered relevant.

Question 6: What is the meaning behind having sections 3.4.6 (System interface) and 3.5.17 (EMI) in red? Also, the words "AN/PVS-15A systems" in section 5.1 (Intended use) at the very end. Are these just the sections that were changed from a previous version of the spec?

Response 6: Just sections that were changed from a previous version.

Question 7: In Para. 3.5.17 of PS/14/JXQR/128, was it intentional to specify an aviation EMI specification (MIL-PRF-49425) for the AN/PVS-15A ground system

Response 7: Revised Performance Specification (attachment to this solicitation amendment) omits MIL- PRF-49425 from the performance specification. Reference to MIL-PRF-A3279453 (NVI) 03 May 2002 titled "Performance Specification Image Intensifier Assembly, 18mm Microchannel Wafer Night Vision MX-10160C/AVS-6" is added to the Performance Specification. Please refer to revised Performance Specification as an attachment to this solicitation amendment.

Question 8: Specification PS/14/JXQR/128, paragraphs 2.1.2 and 3.4 do not identify the applicable government drawing defining the mechanical configuration. Previous contract H92222-10-D-0012 in specification PS/09/JXQR/078 cited NVESD drawing A3256389. Is the intent to invoke the same mechanical requirements under this contract, thereby ensure interchangeability with the AN/PVS-15A systems?

Response 8: Yes, it is the Government's intent to invoke the same mechanical requirements under this contract, thereby ensuring interchangeability with the AN/PVS-15A systems. Refer to Response #7.

Question 9: Specification PS/14/JXQR/128 paragraph 3.4.7 and SOW paragraph 3.7.5 require NSN marking on each unit. However, to date this product has not been assigned an NSN. Will the contracting office be pursuing codification?

Response 9: Once we receive a SOCOM specific Part Number for the image intensifier tubes from the Vendor, then we will have a NSN assigned and the NSN marking will be required on each unit.

Question 10: Specification PS/14/JXQR/128 paragraph 3.5.18 does not specify disposition of completed reliability samples if such completed assemblies remain compliant with all required Group A test requirements.

Response 10: Disposition means would remain with the Vendor.

OTHER: Clarification clause 52.212-1 ADDENDUM, Proposal Requirements:

All proposal requirements, including the product samples, are to be addressed to NWSC Crane, Attn: Elizabeth Fleetwood (812-854-1557); Bldg 3373; 300 Hwy 361; Crane, IN 47522-5001.

Electronic submission of written proposal requirements is acceptable in accordance with I. General Information:

c) Delivery & Submission Method.

SECTION 5.0 - INSTRUCTIONS & PROVISIONS

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS – BEST VALUE (JAN 2014)

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The contractor’s proposal shall include the following:

Document / Information Volume Number 1 Four (4) individual Image Tube Product Samples representative of production units being solicited (See BLOCK 9 of SF1449 for delivery address of product samples) n/a

2 Written Technical Proposal – must include:

- Performance Specifications Compliance Matrix & narrative

- Statement of Work Compliance Matrix & narrative

Volume I (30 page limit)

3 Completed, signed, and dated Solicitation (SF1449) Volume II

(No page limit) 4 Small Business Participation

(Large Businesses must also include Subcontracting Plan) Volume II

(5 page limit) 5 Past Performance Summaries & Matrix

- Min 3, Max 5 references

- Performance must have occurred within past 3 years

Volume II (5 page limit for summary)

(1 page limit for matrix)

6 Pricing Volume III (No page limit)

I. General Information:

a) Offerors shall submit 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 9 on Page 1 of the solicitation. Please notify the Contract Specialist at elizabeth.fleetwood@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 elizabeth.fleetwood@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 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. AMRDEC 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) Product Samples shall be shipped to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division; Attn: Elizabeth

Fleetwood; Bldg. 3373; 300 Highway 361; Crane, IN 47522-5001. (SEE BLOCK 9)

5) NSWC Crane will NOT accept facsimile proposals or proposals submitted via NECO/FEDBIZOPPS.

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.

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 proposal shall be submitted as Volume I, and shall be no more than thirty (30) 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. This shall include:

Written Performance Specification compliance matrix & narrative Written Statement of Work compliance matrix & narrative

d) 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.

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 Questionnaire (attached hereto) to the address in Block 7 of SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation or to elizabeth.fleetwood@navy.mil in accordance with the timeline set in Block 9 of SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation. The completed questionnaires shall be sent directly from the POC to the contract specialist, elizabeth.fleetwood@navy.mil. Under no circumstances shall the questionnaires be returned to the offerors. Any information provided by the offeror’s references 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 identified on the Contractor Past Performance Data matrix.

c) Offeror shall provide a one (1) page matrix identifying the following information for each of the Past Performance Questionnaires sent out:

1) Organization/Customer

2) Brief Description

3) Contract Number

4) 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.

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 High Performance Image Intensifier Tube assembly, 18mm Micro-Channel Wafer, MX10160 Series for currently fielded AN/PVS-15A and AN/PVS-18 night vision devices 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.), may 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. Small Business Participation

a) The Small Business Participation data 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.

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) Contractors shall complete the stepladder pricing matrix provided in the solicitation, Section “1.0”, for all five years at quantity ranges of 10-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-100, 101-200, 201-300, 301-500, and 501-1,000.

2) Data is NOT SEPARATELY PRICED (NSP) – therefore, contractors should NOT provide separate pricing for the Data CLIN.

EACH FACTOR WITHIN THE WRITTEN PROPOSAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN SEPARATE

SECTIONS IAW ABOVE VOLUME NUMBER REQUIREMENTS. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS. (SEE FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 FOR RELATIVE ORDER OF

IMPORTANCE)

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL/RISK CAPABILITY

Subfactor A: Product Sample Evaluation Submit Four (4) individual Image Tube Product Samples representative of production units IAW

Proposal Requirements contained in this clause Go/No-Go evaluation criteria are defined at Image Tube Performance Spec as follows:

1) paragraph 3.1; Description: The High Performance White Phosphor Image Intensifier Tube Assembly, 18mm Micro-Channel Wafer, MX-10160 Series, herein referred to as the Assembly, shall employ a group III-V compound, semi-transparent photocathode sealed to a glass faceplate forming the input window to the assembly. The assembly shall contain a fiber optic inverter screen. The assembly shall include an integral power supply and be encapsulated within a hard surface insulating metallized envelope as per NVESD Drawing A3256389; and,

2) paragraph 3.4.3; Phosphor Screen: The phosphor screen shall be type P-45.

As part of the technical evaluation, laboratory measurements and field tests may or may not be used to determine product compliance with the performance specifications. An offeror whose product sample fails* to meet the Go/ No Go requirements will be rejected and both the product samples and the written technical proposals will not be further evaluated or considered for award. The proposal(s) whose product samples pass all Go/No-Go requirements tests will be subjected to an evaluation of the entire proposal in accordance with (IAW) the requirements of the solicitation. Four (4) product samples will be used during the technical evaluation. In the event of product sample failure, the remaining product samples will be discontinued from further testing and the offerors written proposal will not be evaluated.

*Go/No-Go failure is defined as: more than two (2) product samples failing.

Subfactor B: Written Performance & Specifications Compliance Matrix Submit Performance Specification Compliance Matrix and Narrative IAW Proposal Requirements contained in this clause.

Subfactor C: Statement of Work Compliance Matrix

Submit Statement of Work Compliance Matrix and Narrative IAW Proposal Requirements contained in this clause.

Subfactor D: Small Business Participation Submit Small Business Participation data IAW Proposal Requirements contained in this clause.

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.

FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Submit Past Performance Summaries and Matrix IAW Proposal Requirements contained in this clause.

The Government will assess the offeror's past performance in the areas of:

Subfactor A: Quality

Subfactor B: Schedule/Timeliness

Subfactor C: Customer Satisfaction

FACTOR III: PRICE

Pricing will be evaluated based upon both an examination of the unit pricing proposed and total evaluated price based on a calculation of the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed. Contract Data is “Not Separately Priced”.

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.

ALTERNATE PROPOSALS

Offers may submit more than one proposal, each of which must satisfy the mandatory requirements of the solicitation, including any Benchmark Tests, in order to be considered. As a minimum, one of the proposals submitted must be complete. The alternate proposal(s) may be in an abbreviated form following the same section format, but providing only those sections which differ in any way from those contained in the original proposal.

Each proposal will include cost tables indicating the complete range of pricing options. In the case of price/cost options for a given configuration, an alternate proposal will not be required. If alternate proposals are submitted, such alternatives will be clearly labeled and identified on the cover page of each separate document. The reason for each alternate and its comparative benefits shall be explained. Each proposal submitted will be evaluated on its own merits.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Name of Company Proposing:

ENTER OFFEROR’S COMPANY NAME

Past Performance Reference Contract Information

Name Of Entity Providing Reference: ___________ Contract Number:

Contract Title: Contract Value:

Reference POC: _______________________________ Phone Number: ___________________

Type of Contract: FFP/CPFF/IDIQ/DEF. QTY Period of Performance:

Description of Supply or Service:

The ratings below are supplied by the contractor reference identified above, NOT the offeror.

N/A - Not Applicable

5 - Exceptional- Performance met contract requirements and significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government’s/ industry’s benefit. For example, the contractor implemented innovative or business process reengineering techniques, which resulted in added value to the Government/Industry. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

4 - Very Good- Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s/ industry’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

3 - Satisfactory- Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which proposed corrective actions taken by the contractor appear satisfactory, or completed corrective actions were satisfactory.

2 - Marginal- Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has submitted minimal corrective actions, if any. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

1 - Unsatisfactory- Performance did not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely or cost effective manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Performance Elements 5 4 3 2 1

1. Quality of Product or Service

2. Timeliness of Deliveries

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction

Remarks on exceptional performance:

Provide data supporting this observation; you may continue on a separate sheet if needed.

Remarks on unsatisfactory or below performance:

Provide data supporting this observation; you may continue on a separate sheet if needed.

Please identify any corporate affiliations with the offeror.

Would you do business with this company again?

Information provided by:

Name:

Title:

Mailing Address:

City, State and Zip Code:

Telephone Number:

Fax Number:

Time of Call:

Date Information provided:

INSTRUCTIONS: Submit this Questionnaire in accordance with the timeline set in Block 9 of SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation to NSWC Crane Division, Contracting Office via e-mail to the NSWC Crane Division, Contracting Office POC: Lynn Fleetwood at elizabeth.fleetwood@navy.mil

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

BEST VALUE EVALUATION

i. 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.

ii. Proposals will be rated and ranked on the evaluation factors listed below. It should be noted that cost/price does not have a finite numerical weight. 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 will be made.

NOTE: A finding of “Unacceptable” in one technical factor and/or subfactor may result in the entire proposal being determined unacceptable.

iii. 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/Risk Capability SUBFACTORS

A. Product Sample Evaluation B. Written Performance & Specifications Compliance Matrix C. Statement of Work Compliance D. Small Business Participation

FACTOR II - Past Performance SUBFACTORS

A. Quality B. Schedule/Timeliness C. Customer Satisfaction

FACTOR III – Price

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

The evaluation factors and associated subfactors for the award decision are listed in descending order of importance below. Factor I is significantly more important than Factor II, and Factor I is significantly more important than Factor III. Factor II is significantly more important than Factor III. Factor I and Factor 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.

Under Factor I, Technical/Risk Capability, Subfactor A is significantly more important than Subfactors B, C, and D individually. Subfactors B, C, and D are listed in descending order of importance. Under Factor II, Past Performance, Subfactors A, B, and C are listed in descending order of importance.

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL/RISK CAPABILITY

Subfactor A: Product Sample Evaluation

Go/No-Go evaluation criteria are defined at Image Tube Performance Spec as follows:

1) paragraph 3.1; Description: The High Performance White Phosphor Image Intensifier Tube Assembly, 18mm Micro-Channel Wafer, MX-10160 Series, herein referred to as the Assembly, shall employ a group III-V compound, semi-transparent photocathode sealed to a glass faceplate forming the input window to the assembly. The assembly shall contain a fiber optic inverter screen. The assembly shall include an integral power supply and be encapsulated within a hard surface insulating metallized envelope as per NVESD Drawing A3256389; and,

2) paragraph 3.4.3; Phosphor Screen: The phosphor screen shall be type P-45.

As part of the technical evaluation, laboratory measurements and field tests may or may not be used to determine product compliance with the performance specifications. An offeror whose product sample fails* to meet the Go/ No Go requirements will be rejected and both the product samples and the written technical proposals will not be further evaluated or considered for award. The proposal(s) whose product samples pass all Go/No-Go requirements tests will be subjected to an evaluation of the entire proposal in accordance with (IAW) the requirements of the solicitation. Four (4) product samples will be used during the technical evaluation. In the event of product sample failure, the remaining product samples will be discontinued from further testing and the offerors written proposal will not be evaluated.

*Go/No-Go failure is defined as: more than two (2) product samples failing.

Subfactor B: Written Performance & Specifications Compliance Matrix, Subfactor C: Statement of Work Compliance Matrix, and Subfactor D: Small Business Participation –

The technical evaluation will be a subjective 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 statement of work. 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 contracting with the offeror; 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.

A small business participation plan shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in 52.212-1 ADDENDUM in Section 5. Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be based on the information presented concerning the amount of participation of firms designated as part of the socio-economic programs as described in FAR Part 19. Ratings shall be assigned based on the amount of participation when subcontracting opportunities exist.

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.

The Government will assess the offeror's past performance in the areas of:

Subfactor A: Quality Subfactor B: Schedule/Timeliness Subfactor C: Customer Satisfaction

The Government may base its judgment about the quality of an offeror’s past performance on:

(1) Records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and

(2) Statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an offeror’s overall performance.

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 or 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: PRICE

Pricing will be evaluated based upon both an examination of the unit pricing proposed and total evaluated price based on a calculation of the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed. Contract Data is “Not Separately Priced”.

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but will be considered in determining the “best value” to the Government. Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

(b) Options. (RESERVED - N/A)

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

(End of Summary of Changes)