17RJN54_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 purpose for this amendment is to add additional clauses. See the follow ing page for details.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 23-May-2017

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 N00164-17-R-JN54

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Apr-2017

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 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

24-May-2017

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

K. ALCORN (812-854-6019)

BLDG 3373

300 HWY 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:

N00164-17-R-JN54

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SECTION 4.0 - CLAUSES & OTHER FULL TEXT INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 4.0 - CLAUSES & OTHER FULL TEXT INFORMATION

The following have been added by full text:

52.246-11 HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENT (DEC 2014)

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the higher-level quality standard(s) listed below.

ISO-9001-2008 or equivalent

(b) The Contractor shall include applicable requirements of the higher-level quality standard(s) listed in paragraph

(a) of this clause and the requirement to flow down such standards, as applicable, to lower-tier subcontracts, in--

(1) Any subcontract for critical and complex items (see 46.203(b) and (c)); or

(2) When the technical requirements of a subcontract require--

(i) Control of such things as design, work operations, in-process control, testing, and inspection; or

(ii) Attention to such factors as organization, planning, work instructions, documentation control, and advanced metrology.

(End of clause)

HQ E-2-0015 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (NAVSEA) (APR 2017)

Quality Management System Requirements. The Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality management system that, as a minimum, adheres to the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001-2015 Quality Management Systems and supplemental requirements imposed by this contract. The quality management system procedures, planning, and all other documentation and data that comprise the quality management system shall be made available to the Government for review. Existing quality documents that meet the requirements of this contract may continue to be used. The Government may perform any necessary inspections, verifications, and evaluations to ascertain conformance to requirements and the adequacy of the implementing procedures. The Contractor shall require of subcontractors a quality management system achieving control of the quality of the services and/or supplies provided. The Government reserves the right to disapprove the quality management system or portions thereof when it fails to meet the contractual requirements.

SECTION 5.0 - INSTRUCTIONS & PROVISIONS

The following have been modified:

CNIN-L-0002 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS – BEST VALUE (JAN 2014)

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

The contractor’s proposal shall include the following:

Document / Information Volume Number Technical Proposal (Drawing, Specifications, written Statement of Work compliance, Quality Management Plan (QMP), Cover letter, and delivery schedule)

Volume I (35 page limit does not inlcude QMP) Technical Product Sample N/A Past Performance Summaries & Matrix (Max 5 references) Volume II

(No page limit)

Pricing & Completed Solicitation Volume III (No page limit)

I.

General Information:

a) For proposal purposes, the estimated date of contract award is 12 December 2017.

b) COVER LETTER: The proposal shall include a cover letter signed by an individual authorized to commit the company to the proposal. The cover letter shall be submitted with Volume I. The cover letter shall identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of the proposal. The letter shall reference the solicitation number and acknowledge that it transmits an offer in response to the solicitation. It shall state

Solicitation Number (N00164-17-R-JN54) Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number, Duns Number, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Name, address and telephone number of the cognizant DCMA Office (can be found at http://www.dcma.mil/ ) Proposal validity through 12 December 2017.

Names, telephone numbers and email addresses of persons authorized to conduct negotiations, as well as the names of the official authorized to bind the offeror’s organization shall be clearly identified, Any exceptions taken to any requirements of the solicitation, to include but not be limited to technical exceptions, clauses and or provisions. The cover letter shall indicate in which volume and on what page of the offeror’s proposal the exception is addressed.

A copy of the offerors SAM registration information from the SAM website.

Offerors shall provide details of latest production run of 5.56mm RRLP ammunition, as well as date of manufacture..

c) Proposals shall not contain classified information.

d) Solicitation information and amendments will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website at www.fbo.gov. Offerors may e-mail written questions requesting clarification of the RFP to the Government via the Contract Specialist, Kyle Alcorn, at: kyle.alcorn@navy.mil. The Government will answer questions received up to 14 days prior to the closing date of the RFP and will provide responses to interested parties via an amendment to the solicitation. Questions received after this date may not be answered. All amendments to the solicitation should be signed and included in Volume IV Pricing of your proposal.

e) 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:

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

Kyle Alcorn (812-854-6019)

BLDG 3373 ROOM 223C103

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

Proposals are due by the date and time in Block 9 on Page 1 of the solicitation. Please notify the Contract Specialist at kyle.alcorn@navy.mil if a hard copy is being sent and provide a copy of the shipping label.

2) If a hard copy proposal is submitted, an electronic 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.

3) Electronic Delivery of Proposals. Electronic submission to kyle.alcorn@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 files are stripped from e-mails and cannot be submitted. Utilization of AMRDEC SAFE at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx is encouraged. AMRDEC SAFE supports file sizes up to 2GB. If offers are submitted to AMRDEC SAFE instead of directly to the contracting officer, AMRDEC SAFE will send an email to the contracting officer once the offer files are uploaded notifying the contracting officer that the files have been received. For an offer to be timely that is uploaded to AMRDEC SAFE, the notification email must be received by the contracting officer by the due date/time set for receipt of offers. Offerors who upload their offers to AMRDEC SAFE are encouraged to do so in sufficient time to allow for verification with the contracting officer that notice of receipt of the proposal has been received. Electronic proposals will not be viewed until after the closing period.

4) Electronic files submitted with hard copy proposals shall be submitted on CD-ROMs formatted for Microsoft® Windows Office 2010™; text shall be prepared using Microsoft® Word ™ compatible applications; and spreadsheets, worksheets, or workbooks shall be prepared using Microsoft® Excel ™ compatible applications. The outside of the CD-ROM shall be clearly marked with the following:

Solicitation number Offeror’s name Contents of disk (Volume #).

All files shall conform to DOS™ naming conventions (e.g., no more than eight characters and a four character extensions); only the following extensions shall be used:

.docx for Microsoft® Word 2010™ files

.xlsx for Microsoft® Excel 2010™ files

.pdf for Adobe® Acrobat™ 6.0 files

.mpx for Microsoft® Project 2010™ files

Offeror shall not embed sound or video files into the electronic files. The disks shall be labeled to indicate the Offeror’s name, the solicitation number, date of submission, appropriate security classification markings, and associated volume number. Graphics, tables, photographs, and other data beyond the capability of Microsoft® Word ™, Microsoft® PowerPoint ™, Microsoft® Excel ™, or not in currently NMCI- supported applications may be submitted in Adobe Acrobat format. Electronic cost data must be submitted in Excel™ with formulas.

When submitting a proposal on electronic media, the offeror must ensure that the submission is readable, in the format specified in the solicitation, and has been verified as free of computer viruses.

Prior to any evaluation, the Government will check all files for viruses and ensure that all information is readable. In the event that any files are defective (unreadable), the Government may only evaluate the readable electronic files. Further, if defective (unreadable) media results in a significant deficiency in the offeror's proposal, the Government may consider the proposal incomplete and not consider such proposal for further evaluation.

The offeror must ensure that:

(i) The electronic and paper copies of its proposal submitted in response to the solicitation are identical;

(ii) It has verified that its electronic proposal is readable on the hardware and software operating system format specified below:

Windows 7 Enterprise

(iii) It has verified that the electronic proposals are free of computer viruses using standard commercial anti-virus software.

A proposal that fails to conform to the requirements above may be subject to interception or delay at Governmental electronic communications portals. This interception or delay may result in the proposal being lost, deleted, destroyed, or forwarded in such a manner that the proposal arrives at the target destination past the time and date of the deadline for submission established in the solicitation. In the event that a proposal is lost, deleted, or destroyed due to the offeror's failure to conform to the requirements above, such proposal will be considered to have never been delivered to the Government.

In the event that a proposal is delayed due to the offeror's failure to conform to the requirements above, the proposal will be treated as late in accordance with the provision of this solicitation entitled Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Proposals.

5) NSWC Crane will NOT accept facsimile proposals or proposals submitted via Navy Electronic

Business Opportunities via Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO).

6) Hand delivered proposals will NOT be accepted. All offers must be mailed via USPS or by overnight courier. If using an overnight courier, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the courier service has access to NSWC Crane.

f) Restriction of Disclosure/Proprietary Information

1) If the offeror wishes to restrict the disclosure or use of its proposal, a proper legend must be included on materials provider. Individual subcontractor/vendor proprietary information may be submitted via separate binders/CDs. The information contained in these binders/CDs must be referenced (by binder title, page and section number as appropriate) within the main proposal where the information would have been included if it were not subcontractor/vendor proprietary. The information in these separate binders/CDs is subject to all other requirements of the RFP and must be well-marked to clearly indicate any special handling instructions.

g) Proposal Format

1) Format of the proposal volumes shall be as follows:

i. Text size shall be no smaller than what is equivalent to Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 11 point, uncompressed font.

ii. 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. The cover sheet will NOT be included in the page count for each volume.

iii. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each that will NOT be included in the page count for each volume.

iv. 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.

v. 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. These items WILL be included in the page count for each volume.

h) Use of Navy Support Contractors

1) Government support contractors may assist the Source Selection Organization with administrative support only. The Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Cost/Price Analysis Team (CPAT) will be composed of Government employees.

The following firm(s) may provide administrative support to the source selection process, but will not evaluate proposals or have voting authority:

Design to Delivery/ The Mayvin Consulting Group / G5S / LLC, Logistics Support, Inc.

The Navy has both hardware and information exclusion clauses as well as proprietary data protection clauses in Navy contracts with the above listed firms. Offeror shall provide written notification to the PCO no later than ten (10) days after issuance of the RFP if Offeror does not consent to the use of any firm listed above in the proposal evaluation process. Otherwise, submission of a proposal will be considered consent to use of any firm listed above.

i) Proposal General Guidance

1) Offerors should assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offerors' proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to consider other information as part of the evaluation of the past performance factor. The Contractor should not presume that data previously submitted, or presumed to be known (e.g., data or services previously submitted or performed for the Government), will be considered as part of the evaluation if it is not submitted in the proposal. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. Failure to conform to requirements of this solicitation may form the basis for rejection of the proposal.

General statements such as “the Offeror understands the method for performing the efforts (or any portion thereof) and can or will comply with the requirements of the solicitation” will not be considered sufficient. Generic statements such as "straight forward engineering techniques" and the "highest quality control procedures” will not be considered to be sufficient to demonstrate that the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

The Offeror’s proposal must contain a precise description of all terms and conditions of the services and supplies offered and must address all topics described below. The information provided in the proposal shall appear in the same order as outlined herein.

In the event that any portion of the proposal is written by anyone who is not a bona fide employee of the firm submitting the proposal, a certificate to this effect shall be furnished which must be signed by an authorized official of the Offeror and shall indicate the person’s name, employment capacity, firm name, relationship of that firm to the Offeror, and which portion of the proposal was written by that person. This certificate requirement applies to both the prime and any subcontractors. The certification shall be provided in Volume I.

FACTOR I – TECHNICAL

A. Product Sample Evaluation (Volume I)

Offerors shall provide 2,500 product samples, that are of identifical configuration, for the 5.56mm RRLP cartridge that are being solicited. Product Samples will be evaluated by Government personnel against performance specification DTL-JXNN-F17-0020 and the Statement of Work (SOW). The Government may or may not choose to fully evaluate the product samples against all the requirements identified in the Performance Specifications. All product samples will be tested to the same drawing specifications and SOW requirements. The Government requires the product samples to be representative of the production units.

Product samples will first be evaluated by NSWC Crane against Performance Specification DTL-JXNN- F17-0020, Go/No Go criteria Go/No Go criteria listed in 3.3.1 (Projectile material and type), 3.3.4 (Propellant), 3.4.2 (primer seating depth above flush), 3.5.2 (chamber pressure), and 3.5.10 (bullet integrity).. The Government will evaluate the rounds for conformance to the Accuracy (Dispersion) criteria and Ballistic Match Criteria of Performance Specification DTL-JXNN-F17. If the product samples do not meet the Accuracy (Dispersion) pass criteria the corresponding written technical proposals may not be evaluated and the offeror may not be eligible for contract award. Any product sample, provided as part of the proposal, that fails to meet any of the Go/No Go requirements, as defined herein, will cause the proposal to be given no further consideration for award.

Proposed product samples passing all Go/No Go criteria requirements tests will then be subjected to further product sample evaluation in accordance with (IAW) the factor and subfactor requirements of this solicitation.

1.) PRODUCT SAMPLE TEST & EVALUATION

Refer to specification DTL-JXNN-F17-0020

2.) Product samples shall be sent to the address below:

Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division UIC N00164 Bldg. 2390, Sung Kim, JXNN 300 Highway 361 Crane, IN 47522-5001 812-854-5807

*Product samples will not be returned to the offeror after evaluation.

B.) Written Technical Proposal (Volume I)

1.) The Technical proposal volume of the proposal shall be submitted as Volume I, and shall be no more than 35 pages in total (excluding coversheet, glossary of terms and Table of Contents (TOC)).

2.) No pricing information shall be contained in the Technical proposal.

3.) 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 Statement of Work or attest that "standard procedures will be employed” are inadequate to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the requirements of the Statement of Work. Unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must contain supporting rationale for any statements relating to proposed performance. No assumptions will be made by evaluators regarding areas that are not addressed in the Offeror’s written proposal.

An electronic or hard copy of the following documentation in response to the factors and subfactors described in the solicitation shall be provided in such detail as to allow the Government to evaluate the proposal.

Written Performance Specification and Drawing Compliance. Each offeror shall provide the following:

1. The Offeror shall provide its depth and breadth of technical expertise in the production of 5.56mm Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration Ammunition by describing the primary processes and procedures the Offeror typically uses. A detailed description of how the prime contractor will meet the requirements of the specifications shall be provided. The Offeror may provide examples of tasks performed in the functional areas to illustrate technical expertise by the Offeror or a proposed subcontractor (if so CLEARLY IDENTIFY

WHETHER THE OFFEROR PERFORMED THE TASK OR IDENTIFY WHICH

SUBCONTRACTOR PERFORMED THE TASK).

The Offeror shall provide Attachment (01)- Written Technical Proposal Requirements Compliance Matrix to cross-reference 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 in the Performance Specification. This will facilitate Government verification that all items have been addressed. The attachment will NOT be included in the page count.

2. The Offeror shall provide a drawings attachment available test data showing capability of meeting the Performance Specifications. The attachment (Test Data) will NOT be included in the page count. If actual test data is not available, modeling data should be submitted, if available.

Statement of Work Compliance

1. A detailed description of how the prime contractor will meet the requirements of the statement of work shall be provided. The Offeror may provide examples of tasks performed in the functional areas to illustrate technical expertise by the Offeror or a proposed subcontractor (if so CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHETHER THE OFFEROR PERFORMED

THE TASK OR IDENTIFY WHICH SUBCONTRACTOR PERFORMED THE TASK).

The Offeror shall provide as an attachment a 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 in the Statement of Work.

The matrix shall be cross referenced to the Statement of Work by paragraph number and title to facilitate Government verification that all items have been addressed. The attachment (Statement of Work Compliance Matrix) will NOT be included in the page count.

2. The Offeror shall discuss how it will implement a Configuration Management (CM) Program that complies with Section 3.5, Configuration Management, of the Statement of Work (SOW).

The Offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the CM requirements for this acquisition and describe how it will implement a CM Program that will help manage baseline configuration and design changes. The Offeror shall address an ECP process, and how this will be implemented through its CM Program. The Offeror shall describe its experience implementing CM programs and provide examples of how it has successfully initiated CM on a previous program of similar complexity.

3. Offeror shall provide an overview of its quality management approach and define how it intends to ensure the production quality of the production systems. The Offeror shall describe how its quality management approach meets the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 if not certified. Contractors shall submit a copy of their Quality Management Plan for the Government to review. The Quality Management Plan is not included in the page count.

4. Offeror shall demonstrate the capability to manage changes or deviations to the provided Technical Data Package (TDP) that may be submitted via the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process.

5. The Offeror shall describe its management information system for acquisition of material, material control, and monitoring delivery status of material previously ordered. The Offeror shall explain the automated qualities of its management information systems. This explanation shall include a discussion of the notification of problems, delay in material ordering/deliveries and how those problems and delays will be handled once they are identified by the system.

6. The Offeror shall identify key cost, schedule, performance and technical risks and why these were identified as risks. The Contractor shall discuss the risks, including dependencies and mitigation of each identified risk.

C.) Delivery/Production Schedule (Volume I)

1. Offeror shall demonstrate the capability to manufacture, assemble, test, and deliver production of 5.56mm Reduced Ricochet Limited Penetration Ammunition which will meet the specified performance requirements within the required delivery schedule.

2. Offeror shall provide production lead time for delivery of the ammunition ordered under delivery orders and delivery schedules for subsequent remaining units and rate of delivery per month thereafter.

a. * Each * calendar days from the effective date of funded delivery order with * Each every 30 calendar days thereafter until complete.

NOTE: A proposed accelerated delivery schedule is advantageous to the Government. See Section F – Deliveries or Performance for the Government minimum required delivery schedule for all line items.

FACTOR II - Past Performance-Volume II- No page limit

a) The Past Performance portion of the proposal shall be submitted as a part of Volume IV, and shall be no more than a maximum of fifteen (15) pages for the narrative not including the matrix (Attachment (04) – Past Performance Matrix).

b) The offeror shall provide a maximum of five (5) past performance references on prior contracts that are recent and relevant to this requirement. See below for what constitutes a “recent” and “relevant” prior contract for purposes of this solicitation. The offeror shall contact past performance references directly and request that they complete and submit directly to the agency, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment (05) – Past Performance Questionnaire) to the address in Block 7 of SF33, Page 1 of the Solicitation or to kyle.alcorn@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 reference POC to the contract specialist, Kyle Alcorn. 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. The Government may make contact and follow up with the listed references identified on the Contractor Past Performance Data matrix. The Offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts as well as the Offeror’s corrective actions.

c) Offeror shall provide a matrix (Attachment (04) – Past Performance Matrix) for each of the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment (05) – Past Performance Questionnaire) sent out listing the following:

1) Organization/Customer

2) Brief Description

3) Contract Number

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

5) Date PPQ being sent to POC and transmission method utilized

The offeror’s matrix shall contain a maximum of five (5) references to contracts that are recent and relevant to this requirement. Proposals must acknowledge PPQs have been sent to each POC listed in the Matrix.

Failure to send the PPQ to each POC will be considered a proposal concern and may result in exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from consideration for award. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that the POC for each relevant contract submits a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government.

The offeror shall submit a description of a maximum of five (5) past performance references that are prime contracts or major subcontracts received, or in performance, during the past three (3) years which are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. Commercial and state/local contracts may be included, if necessary.

The description shall include the following information in the following format:

1. Identify in specific detail for each contract listed, why or how you consider that effort relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation.

2. Your (and/or your subcontractor's) CAGE and DUNS numbers

3. Government or commercial contracting activity, address, and telephone number

4. Procuring Contracting Officer's (PCO's) name and telephone number

5. Government or commercial contracting activity technical representative, or COR; and telephone numbers

6. Government or commercial contract administration activity, and the name and telephone number of the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)

7. Contract number

8. Contract award date

9. Contract type

10. Awarded price/cost

11. Final, or projected final, price/cost

12. Original delivery schedule

13. Final or projected final, delivery schedule

14. A narrative explanation on each previous contract listed describing the objectives achieved and any cost growth or schedule delays encountered and any revised delivery schedules as well as the reason(s) the delivery schedule was revised. For any contracts which did not or do not meet original requirements with regard to cost, schedule, or technical performance, a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. The offeror shall also provide as an attachment a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each previous contract listed and a description of any corrective action by the offeror or proposed subcontractor.

15. The reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. The offeror shall also provide a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each previous contract listed and a description of any corrective action by the offeror or proposed subcontractor.

The offeror shall also provide the above required information for any and all contracts under which it has been terminated in whole or in part, for default or cause during the past 10 years, to include those currently in the process of such termination as well as those which are not similar to the proposed effort.

New corporate entities which lack past performance information, or for which such information is not available, shall submit the above required past performance data on its predecessor companies and its key personnel that will perform this contract who have relevant experience, which shall serve as the basis for the Government’s past performance evaluation of such Offerors. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited.

Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the contractor's corporate entity and among proposed subcontractors. Information required in the above paragraphs shall be provided for each proposed subcontractor who will perform a significant portion of the effort. "Significant" is defined for these purposes in terms of criticality of the subcontracted work to the whole. With regard to prime contract assignments that will be performed by the Offeror and not a proposed subcontractor, the Offeror shall indicate:

1) what internal corporate bodies/divisions will accomplish which portions of the effort,

2) whether or not those divisions were responsible for performance under the previous contracts for which the Offeror is providing information under the instant proposal, and

3) if those divisions have relocated since the accomplishment of previous cited contract efforts, a description of any changes arising from that relocation in terms of key personnel, processes, facilities and equipment.

Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed significant subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor's past performance assessment with the offeror during negotiations.

Note: Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used to assess offeror past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance source data remains with the offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection or high performance risk assessment by the Government.

d) For the purposes of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined as those on which performance occurred during the last three (3) years. In determining relevancy, the offeror should consider the size, content, and complexity 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. The offeror must provide details (if its Past Performance reference is based upon “related technology” as a reference) including 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 for itself, its predecessor companies, or its key personnel who will perform this contract, the Offeror should so state that in this volume and explain.

e) 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 team members, 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 the offeror cannot submit that program for Past Performance evaluation. Offerors are notified that the Government will evaluate the data provided in this volume and data obtained from other sources that is determined to be current and relevant to the effort at hand in the development of its performance risk assessments.

Factor III -- Price –Volume III

a) The Signed RFP with Amendments,cover letter, and completed pricing matrices shall be submitted as

Volume IV. Each Offeror is required to submit the price volume separate from the other volumes, in the required number of copies and paper/electronic media format. Electronic copies of this volume shall be submitted on separate media, using MS Word or MS Excel, including all formulas. Electronic copies of any tables must be capable of being edited (i.e. not embedded pictures or screenshots) within MS Word or MS Excel. Excel files shall not include macros or pivot tables. In addition, all formulas and numerical relationships shall be retained and accessible in the MS Excel files. MS Excel or MS Word shall be used for supporting documentation, and failure to follow this instruction may result in rejection of the proposal.

b) Offerors shall specify break points for quantity discounts that would be more advantageous to the Government. if available. Pricing matrix provided on page 7 must be used for submission.

Note: The maximum total dollar value of the prospective contract(s) is anticipated Not-to Exceed $17 Million over a ten-year period across all line items.

NOTE: OFFERORS SHALL COMPLETE PRICING MATRICES IN SECTION B IN ITS ENTIRETY

EXCEPTIONS

Offerors are not encouraged to take exceptions to this solicitation, however, any exceptions taken to the specifications, statement of work, 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/price proposal. Offerors are to detail the particular section, clause paragraph and page to which they are taking exception. This information shall be submitted as a part of Volume I.

The Government is not required to concur with any exceptions, and offerors are placed on notice that exceptions, depending on their significance, may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

CNIN-M-0002 BEST VALUE EVALUATION (JAN 2014)

a) As specified in the FAR 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items” provision, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary.

b) The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this RFP to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Multiple awards as addressed in FAR 52.212-1(h) are not anticipated.

c) Best value proposals will be selected using a tradeoff process, as defined in FAR 15.101-1, which permits tradeoffs between cost and non-cost factors as allowed by FAR 12.203. Accordingly, the Government may accept other than the lowest cost proposal where the additional benefits of the higher cost proposal merit the additional cost. Conversely, the Government may select a lower-cost, lower rated proposal if the Government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified. In making the best value determination, the Government will consider technical merit (e.g. all non-cost factors) to be significantly more important than the Government Total Evaluated Price. However, the importance of Total Evaluated Price calculated by the Government as an evaluation factor will increase with the increase in degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals, under the non-price factors.

d) A proposal must be acceptable for the offeror to be eligible for award. To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications and to provide all information required by clause 52.212-1 Addendum of this solicitation.

Failure to comply with all the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS

STATED HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED

WITHOUT FURTHER EVALUATION.

e) If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

f) Offerors must meet the standard in FAR 9.105 for responsibility to be eligible for award. The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey as part of this source selection. Results of any survey will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Any such survey may also be used to verify statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal. The purpose of a preaward survey is to obtain information not available to the contracting officer to make a responsibility determination prior to contract award.

g) 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 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors—Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items and 52.212-2 Evaluation of Commercial Items” 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.

h) Proposals will be rated 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.

i) The offeror’s proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in 52.212-1 Addendum. The order of relative importance for the evaluation factors is established as follows:

FACTOR I - TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

A. Product Sample B. Written Technical Proposal C. Delivery / Production Schedule

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR III – PRICE

EVALUATION FACTORS:

Factor I is significantly more important than Factor II and Factor III, and Factor II is significantly more important than Factor III. Factor I and Factor II (factors other than price), 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, Subfactor A is equal to Subfactor B, and Subfactors A and B are significantly more important than Subfactors C. Factor III, Price will not be rated, 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.

Pricing will be evaluated based upon both an examination of the unit pricing proposed and the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed, to arrive at an evaluated total to include options.

Price will not be rated, 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. The best value determination may result in the Government being willing to pay more for higher technical capability.

Factor I - Technical. Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Under Factor II, Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the new solicitation. The best value determination may result in the Government being willing to pay more for higher technical capability.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION:

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

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, statement of work, 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 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.

Adjectival Ratings for Factor I and Associated Subfactors A-C

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

For evaluation and award purposes, the Government will favorably consider proposed rounds that exceed the dispersion requirements listed in Specification Section 3.5.4, Ballistic Match requirements listed in Specification Section 3.5.5, gelatin penetration listed in Specification Section 3.5.8 and steel plate penetration listed in Specification Section 3.5.9 . This may entail, as part of the best value award decision, a price premium for the superior dispersion and ballistic match.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weakness…