N0017418R0031_Amendment_01_Summary.docx

N0017418R0031

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following have been added by ful text:

AMENDMENT 1

Important Information for All Offerors The following questions were posed to NSWC-IHEODTD Contract Department. The answers are provided here for use by all offerors in the preparation of proposals for soliciation N00174-18-R-0031.

1. Ref FedBizOpps SOL N0017418R0031: Please confirm that the solicitation posting on FedBizOpps.GOV indicates “Draft” and the solicitation is in fact not a draft but the final, official version.

This is not a draft the field is not editable.

2. Ref Section H, page 55: Please consider removal of Clause 52.234-4 “Earned Value Management” as it is assumed this is a Firm-Fixed Price effort.

The clause is removed.

3. Ref Section I, page 59: Please consider removal of Clauses 52.215-10, 52.215-11, 52.215-12, and 52.215-13 as it is assumed this effort is Firm-Fixed Price.

The clause is removed.

4. Ref Section K, page 85: Please consider removal of Clauses 52.230-2; 52.230-3; and 52.230-6 as it is assumed this effort is Firm-Fixed Price.

The clause is removed.

5. Ref Section K, page 103: Please re-consider inclusion of 252.215-7009 and accompanying checklist as this is assumed as a firm-fixed price, competitive solicitation where certified cost and pricing data would not normally be requested as part of original submittal.

Deleted.

6. Ref Section L.4.1, page 113, Recommend adding language to allow 11x17 page size for charts and graphs which count as two pages on each side.

11” x 17” format page size may be used for charts and graphs if ncessary and shall count as two pages per each side.

7. Ref Section L.5, page 115: Please consider 12 point Font size limitation be made only applicable to text narrative and not figures and tables. It is recommended that figure and table text have a requirement of “clearly legible”.

text in figures and tables is required to be clearly legible, inclusion of smaller text is at offerors risk.

8. Ref Section L.5, Volume I Technical, Sub-Factor 3, item b Instructions, page 116, and Section M, page 125 evaluation factor 1 sub-factor 3: Ballistic testing capabilities, equipment, instrumentation, and facilities description is required which appears to be in conflict with SOW Section C, 3.6.4 where Function and Casualty tests of the HE-PD Cartridges, as required by specification PRF WS35805, shall be conducted by the Government at Government facilities. Please clarify if there is an expectation by the Government that contractors have necessary facilities and equipment to conduct ballistic testing at other than USG range.

Function & Casualty is a single test that will be conducted by the USG. The Sections of the RFP referenced refer to capabilities, equipment, instrumentation, and facilities for all ballistic, non-ballistic destructive, and non-destructive testing and inspections.

9. Ref Section L.5, Volume III Price Instructions, page 116: Please confirm the instructions that appear to request Cost Or Pricing Data as this is assumed as a firm-fixed price, competitive solicitation and pricing data would not normally be requested as part of original submittal. Additionally, Section M.3.4 Factor 3 – Price includes the following language which does not appear to be applicable to this competitive procurement: “The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data…..direct labor, overhead, G&A, and three years of historical information to substantiate the proposal as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of most probable cost to be incurred for the performance of this contract. “ Section adjusted.

10. Ref Section L.5, Volume IV Instructions, page 118: “Past Performance Questionnaires (as listed in Section J)” do not appear to be listed in Section J and the questionnaire attachment does not appear to be listed on the FedBizOpps.GOV web page for download.

Attached.

11. Section L, 3.1.3 (i)4 When will the contractors be provided with the Past Performance Matrix format and the Past Performance Questionnaires?

Attached.

12. 3.2 Offer Expiration Date. What is the expected award date of the contract? It is noted that the offer must be valid for 270 calendar days.

The Intent is First or Second Quarter FY19.

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Jun-2018 04:00 PM to 09-Aug-2018 04:00 PM.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been deleted:

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

HQ J-2-0002 CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR SECTION J

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) form a part of this contract:

Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423 – Exhibits A001-A024, page(s);

Shipping Instruction Data, NAVSEA Form 4336/1 – Attachment 1.1 Special Shipping Instructions, Scheduled Government Furnished Property Form 38 – Attachment 1.2

Past Performance Matrix & Past Performance Questionnaire – Attached FBO

DRAWINGS

SPECS

MIL-DTL-11195

MIL-DTL-5002

MIL-S-901

MIL-S-22698

ADLS

STANDARDS

TT-C-490

A-A-59383

STANAG 4157

NATO AOP 20

STANAG 4526

DOD-STD-2101

MIL-STD-129

MIL-STD-130

MIL-STD-331

MIL-STD-464

MIL-STD-644

MIL-STD-810

MIL-STD-889

MIL-STD-1168

MIL-STD-1916

MIL-STD-2105

MIL-STD-7179

ASTM B209

PUBLICATIONS

SW010-AG-ORD-010

SCATP-20

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. OVERVIEW

The purpose of this requirement is the acquisition of 57mm High Explosive – Point Detonating (HE-PD) Cartridges. The 57mm HE-PD Cartridge is a 57mm/70, electrically-primed cartridge designed to function in the 57mm MK 110 Gun Mount (GM). The MK 110 GM is employed on the U.S. Navy (USN) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class and the U.S. Coast Guard Legend-class (WMSL) National Security Cutters. 57mm HE-PD Cartridges are intended for combating surface and ground targets. The cartridge consists of a high explosive projectile with the ability to point detonate, a brass cartridge case loaded with propellant charge, and an electric primer.

0. Contract Award

0. The Government intends to award a single-year firm-fixed price contract as a result of this solicitation in accordance with Section M, to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government, utilizing a trade-off process in accordance with the Factors and Sub-factors set forth in the solicitation.

0. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest.

0. The Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract based on initial offers, without holding discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions at the Government's discretion; therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

0. The Government may conduct price analysis on the price proposal.

1. NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Each Offeror must (1) submit an offer, (2) submit information that addresses the evaluation factors, and (3) submit supporting price data. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. It is the Offeror's responsibility to provide information and evidence that clearly demonstrates its ability to meet the solicitation requirements. Unless otherwise allowed, all questions shall be submitted by 4:30PM EST no later than 10 calendar days after solicitation posting.

This procurement includes drawings or technical documents assigned a restricted distribution statement and an export control warning. To receive this controlled technical data, an Offeror must be currently certified through the United States/Canada Joint Certification Program.

To become certified for receipt of the technical documents, a U.S. Offeror must submit a completed DD Form 2345 to the U.S./Canada Joint Certification Office. Additional information on the Joint Certification Program and a checklist for completion of the DD Form 2345 is available at the following website: http://www.dla.mil/HQ/InformationOperations/Offers/Products/LogisticsApplications/JCP.aspx Offerors are encouraged to apply for certification as early as possible in order for processing to be completed in sufficient time to prepare a proposal before solicitation closing. DoD Directive 5230.25.

1. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

2. Submission

0. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details (i.e. drawings, test data) to permit a complete and accurate technical evaluation. Offerors shall provide a proposal that addresses those evaluation Factors and Sub-factors required in Section M of the solicitation. The proposal shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional clarifications. The Offeror shall provide detailed narrative discussions that address both the SOW and the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) of the solicitation. The narrative discussions within the proposal shall also be traceable to the applicable SOW paragraph by placing the appropriate SOW number at the beginning of the discussion text. All information and data provided shall be specific to the 57mm ammunition, components and assemblies, except for the area of Past Performance. In the response to the Request for Proposal, the Offeror must address the following Factors and Sub-factors:

Factor 1 – Technical

Factor 2 – Schedule Factor 3 – Price Factor 4 – Past Performance

0. The proposal shall be submitted with each factor addressed in a separate Volume. Each proposal shall include all volumes and shall be submitted by the closing date and time of the solicitation. Failure to provide any volume may result in the proposal being given an Unacceptable rating.

0. Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals

(i) The Offeror shall submit the following information in both hard copy and electronic copy format; failure to do so will render an offer ineligible for award:

1. Four (4) copies of the Technical Volume I.

1. One (1) copy of the Schedule Volume II.

1. One (1) copy of the Price Volume III, containing the completed and signed RFP package, with all representation certifications executed, and with prices in Section B.

1. Two (2) copies of Past Performance Volume IV, including Past Performance Matrix, and Past Performance Questionnaire.

(ii) Any proposal modification or revision not received/submitted by the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and the modification or revision will not be considered. The solicitation will close at the exact date and time specified in the solicitation and Offerors will be unable to submit their proposal after that time. Failure to submit a complete proposal prior to the solicitation closing date and time may render the proposal unacceptable.

(iii) Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice to the Contracting Officer provided such notice is received prior to contract award. Withdrawals are effective upon receipt of notice by the Contracting Officer.

(iv)

2. Offer Expiration Date Proposals in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 270 calendar days from the closing of the proposal submission period.

1. PROPOSAL FORMAT

3. General Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may be considered non-responsive and may render the Offeror ineligible for award. Format shall comply with the following information:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer – 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” Font - 12-point Times New Roman Offerors are instructed to clearly label all files with Volume number, company name and a unique identifying name which is reflective of the contents of the file (i.e., VOL. III, ABC COMPANY, PRIME COST PROPOSAL). Each volume shall begin at the top of a page. A Table of Contents shall be included in each volume. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Please keep the file names consistent for all volumes. 11” x 17” format page size may be used for charts and graphs if ncessary and shall count as two pages per each side.

The Offeror shall submit proposals in hard copy to:

NSWC IHEODTD

Contracts Department 4081 North Jackson Road Indian Head, MD 20640-5115 Code 02RC Attn: Robert Cook The Offeror shall also submit one proposal in electronic copy to:

Robert.G.Cook2@navy.mil

0. Page Numbering The Offeror shall use a standard page numbering system to facilitate proposal references. Number consecutive pages within sections. Charts, graphs and other insert materials shall be numbered

0. Page Limitations Each volume shall be as brief as possible. Page limitations are identified for each volume/section of the proposal, as described in paragraph 5.0 below and will be treated as maximums. If exceeded, excess pages will not be read or considered in proposal evaluation. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Graphs, charts, and tables are included in the page count. Annexes, documentation and attachments that are submitted by the Offeror, which are not required as part of the RFP, will count against the page limitations. The following are not included in the page limitations:

1. Title/Cover pages

1. Tables of contents

1. Glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms

1. Subcontracting agreements, letters of intent, resumes, and subcontract agreements

1. Proposal Cross-Reference Tables

1. Indices

1. Acronym lists

1. Page dividers (used to separate proposal sections)

3. A cover letter shall be provided as a separate file and must contain the following information:

· Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Certification/Mitigation Plan: The Offeror shall state compliance with the OCI clause HQ L-2-0005 - Notification Of Potential Organizational Conflict(s) Of Interest (NAVSEA) (JUN 1994). If a potential conflict of interest exists at any tier, each potential prime Offeror is requested to notify the Contracting Officer within 14 days of the date of this solicitation and present an acceptable plan to neutralize any potential organizational conflict of interest. Those Offerors deemed to have a conflict of interest may be ineligible for award.

3. Cover Page, Table of Contents, Proposal Cross-Reference Table Each proposal volume must include a Cover Page and a Table of Contents. The Cover Page shall identify the solicitation number, amendment number, proposal volume and title, and the Offeror’s name. Volume I shall include a Master Table of Contents and a Proposal Cross-Reference Table. The Proposal Cross-Reference Table shall indicate the required proposal content by solicitation section/page number and the section/page number where this content appears in the proposal.

3. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms Each volume shall contain a glossary which includes all abbreviations, acronyms and their corresponding definitions.

3. Price Information Pricing information of any kind shall only be included in Volume III, Price Proposal. Cost summary and back-up spreadsheets must be submitted in an unlocked MS Excel format including formulas.

1. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Volume I - TECHNICAL (Factor 1) (Not to Exceed 75 pages) The Offeror shall address each sub-factor listed below, which are of equal importance. Offerors are to ensure that only Technical information is contained within Volume I. The technical proposal shall not exceed 75 single sided pages, not less than 12 point Times New Roman, text in figures and tables is required to be clearly legible, inclusion of smaller text is at offerors risk. The technical proposal shall not contain any hyperlinks or electronically embedded links or cost/price information. If the technical proposal exceeds 75 single-sided pages, only the first 75 pages will be evaluated. The Offeror’s technical proposal must demonstrate an understanding of all requirements covered in the Statement of Work (SOW) and RFP terms and conditions. The resultant Offeror’s proposal will be incorporated into the contract by reference and the Offeror shall perform in accordance with the technical proposal presented with its proposal.

The technical proposal shall contain information/documentation in sufficient detail to enable evaluation based on the Factors/Sub-factors listed in Section M and as detailed below. To this end, 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 for technical problems. Statements that paraphrase the specifications or attest that standard procedures will be employed are inadequate to demonstrate how the Offeror will comply with the requirements of the specifications, and this clause.

The Offeror shall describe how it plans to accomplish the tasks associated with the following sub-factors:

SUB-FACTOR 1: Production/Manufacturing The offeror shall include details of manufacturing capabilities related to production of 57mm ammunition. The Offeror shall describe the technical approach proposed to meet the requirements described in the performance specification PRF WS35805 and the SOW. The Offeror shall provide a detailed analysis of the design to determine the specific manufacturing processes that will be required to successfully produce an acceptable end item. The Offeror shall address the nature, difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with performing the kind of work that will be required.

The Offeror shall provide a detailed manufacturing plan for producing and testing 57mm HE-PD Cartridges. The description shall be for the complete cartridge, including assemblies, explosive loading, and the fuze. At a minimum, proposals shall address the following:

1. Identification of essential manufacturing facilities, equipment, and tooling.

1. Facilities and equipment are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and indicate plans for obtaining the facilities and equipment.

1. A listing of the proposed sub-contractors and their involvement in the manufacture of the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge.

SUB-FACTOR 2: Quality Assurance The Offeror shall provide a description of the quality assurance capabilities, facilities, and relevant experience to meet the quality assurance requirements as defined in the solicitation, statement of work, and specification PRF WS35805. The Offeror shall describe in detail the plan that is to be used for the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge. At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide in their plan:

1. Process to control Critical Characteristics at the prime and subcontract level.

1. Identification of the Quality Management System and whether or not it is certified to and compliant with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008, or an equivalent quality program acceptable to the Government.

1. Description of the quality plan for the manufacture, inspection, and acceptance of the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge. Also describe the process that will be used to flow down all quality requirements to subcontractors and suppliers.

SUB-FACTOR 3: Testing Facilities and Capabilities The offeror shall include a detailed description of testing facilities and capabilities related to the testing of 57mm ammunition. The Offeror shall describe in detail their test equipment and facilities for destructive and non-destructive testing required per PRF WS35805. At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide in their proposal:

1. Description of the destructive and non-destructive test equipment, instrumentation, and facilities.

1. Description of the ballistic testing capabilities, equipment, instrumentation, and facilities.

SUB-FACTOR 4: Management The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart that identifies key individuals and their skills and experience relevant to this acquisition. The technical and management personnel should possess at a minimum, three years of experience in their areas of responsibility. The Offeror shall describe the proposed plan for liaison with the Government, including schedule control processes that maintain visibility of the work progress and reporting of problems and schedule slippages. The Offeror shall provide a description of the Configuration Management System that would be used for the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge. This should include a description of how engineering changes, deviations and waivers to drawings and specifications are processed, reviewed, and acted upon.

Volume II - SCHEDULE (Factor 2) (Not to exceed 50 pages) The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Schedule showing the schedule of events, inclusive of qualification and all requirements specified by the statement of work, specification, and solicitation. The Integrated Master Schedule shall encompass qualification, production and delivery of the 57mm HE-PD Cartridges required by the solicitation indicating at a minimum:

1. Design Qualification

1. First Article Manufacturing

1. First Article Testing

1. Material acquisition, including long lead items

1. Production

1. Lot Acceptance Inspection and Testing

1. Delivery The Offeror, if currently executing a qualification effort, shall not commence production in response to this solicitation prior to completion and approval of all qualification activities and finalization of the qualified design.

Volume III - PRICE (Factor 3) (No Page Limit) This volume is the only volume that shall contain price information. There is no limitation on the number of pages or print size for the price proposal. All Attachments submitted under Volume III (Factor 3) shall be clearly identified.

The Price Volume shall include the completed RFP document, with Section B, pricing filled in.

The price information shall include data regarding the general financial condition of the Offeror and specific plans for financing the proposed contract. The Government has no plans to provide any financial assistance.

The Price Volume shall also include all executed representation certifications.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (For Other Than Small Businesses Only) Not subject to merit evaluation; only for determining Responsibility.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals – (10 Page Limit) (Applies to and is for other than small business Offerors only) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals shall be provided concurrent with submission of the Offeror's proposal and will be incorporated into the contract. The Plan shall contain a summary and a breakdown that contains the following:

A. Total Proposed Value of Offer B. Total Amount to be Subcontracted C. Breakdown by Business Type ($ and %) D. Large Business/other than Small Business E. Small Business

· Small Disadvantaged Business

· HUBZone Small Business

· Women-Owned Small Business

· Veteran-Owned Small Business

· Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business F. Major types of services/items to be subcontracted to small business and which type of small business.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan Goals will be evaluated as part of the FAR Part 9.1 Responsibility Determination.

To assist the Contract Specialist in making the Responsibility Determination, Offerors are also to submit, if available, their two (2) most recent Subcontracting Report(s) and/or a recent DCMA Subcontracting Compliance Review that reflects their past history of achieving small business subcontracting goals. This documentation does not count against the 10 page limit.

Volume IV - PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor 4) (No Page Limit) Past performance information shall be provided for the Prime and all subcontractors in order to develop an Offeror's past performance rating.

Past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s (to include prime and subcontractors) ability to perform the contract successfully. In the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, the Government reserves the right to use relevant performance within the past five years. Relevant and timely past performance information in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (http://www.ppirs.gov/) including the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) will be considered during the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

Using the Past Performance Matrix (as listed in Section J), the Offeror and all subcontractors shall provide a separate list of relevant contracts that were performed within the last five years. Contracts that are listed in PPIRS are preferred. The list for the Prime shall contain no more than seven relevant contracts. In addition, each subcontractor shall complete a separate matrix and provide no more than seven relevant contracts. The identified relevant contracts shall focus on performance that is relevant to the current solicitation requirement (i.e., Conventional ammunition production) cited in the Scope of this solicitation. Relevancy includes similarity of item, complexity and dollar value. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. If the Offeror has no relevant past performance within the last five years or cannot provide a list of relevant contracts, then the Offeror must provide an explanation.

Past Performance Questionnaires (as listed in Section J) only apply to relevant contracts for which performance information is not available through PPIRS. The Offeror and subcontractors shall submit the Past Performance Questionnaire to all of their references listed on the Past Performance Matrix that have NO PPIRS contracts, and shall request the references to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire and return it directly to:

NSWC IHEODTD

Contracts Department 4081 North Jackson Road Building 841, Robert Cook, Code 02RC Indian Head, MD 20640-5115 Past Performance Questionnaires may also be emailed to Robert.G.Cook2@navy.mil which is the preferred method of delivery. All questionnaires must be received by the closing date and time of the solicitation.

REMINDER: It is imperative that Offerors label all cost or price files with Volume III, company name and a unique identifying name which is reflective of the contents of the file.

In order to facilitate the evaluation of Past Performance the Offeror must complete the required information below:

(a) Pursuant to FAR 42.1502, this contract is subject to DoD's Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS). CPARS is an automated centralized information system accessible via the Internet that maintains reports of contractor performance for each contract. CPARS is located at https://www.cpars.gov. Further information on CPARS is available at that web-site.

(b) Under CPARS, the Government will conduct annual evaluations of the contractor's performance. The contractor has fourteen (14) days after the Government's evaluation is completed to comment on the evaluation. Day 15 after the evaluation sent to the contractor the evaluation is available in PPIRS with or without the contractor comments. The evaluation is marked “Pending”. Contractor may send comments on days 15-60 if not previously provided. If contractor sends comments, PPIRS is updated to reflect contractor comments and “Pending” marking removed. Day 61 evaluation sent to Assessing Official (AO) and contractor may no longer send comments. The opportunity to review and comment is limited to this time period and will not be extended. Failure to review the report at this time will not prevent the Government from using the report.

(c) The contractor may request a meeting to discuss the CPAR. The meeting is to be requested via e-mail to the CPARS Program Manager no later than seven days following receipt of the CPAR. A meeting will then be held during the contractor’s 60-day review period.

(d) The CPARS system requires the Government to assign the contractor a UserID and password in order to view and comment on the evaluation. Provide the name(s) of at least one individual (not more than two) that will be assigned as your Defense Contractor Representative for CPARS.

Name Phone E-mail Address (optional)

(e) Any changes in designated contractor personnel shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to notify the contract specialist, AO and the CPARS Focal Point when changes occur.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M BEST VALUE EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD (FEB 2000) (NAVSEA/IHD)

1. GENERAL

0. It is the intention of the Navy to award a single one-year Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

0. Award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this Section M. Offerors are required to follow specific instructions in submitting their proposal. Each Offeror’s submission will be screened upon receipt by the Contracting Officer or a designee of the Contracting Officer to ensure compliance with the RFP instructions and requirements. Elimination of an Offeror due to failure to comply with the submission requirements of the RFP is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

0. As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a single contract based on initial offers without holding discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions at the Government’s discretion. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. In accordance with FAR 15.306 -- Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. IAW FAR: “Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors.”

0. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers. The factors are listed in descending order of importance. All non-cost factors, when combined, are more important than cost; however, cost becomes the deciding factor of importance when Offerors receive similar ratings for the other factors. Factors 1, 2, and 4 will be used for a tradeoff process. Factor 3 will be pass/fail only.

1. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Schedule Factor 3: Price Factor 4: Past Performance

1. The Technical Factor has four sub-Factors which are listed below:

Sub-Factor 1: Production/Manufacturing

Of the four (4) Technical sub-Factors, Production/Manufacturing, Quality Assurance, and Testing Facilities and Capabilities are of equal importance and more important than Management.

1. EVALUATION APPROACH

2. The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non-cost/price evaluation Factors except Past Performance.

7. Risk – The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

7. Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

7. Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

7. Significant Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

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

2. Factor 1 – Technical (Volume I) The Government has established the page limit for each technical sub-factor in Section L of the RFP. Offerors are advised that excess pages will not be evaluated. The Government will assess whether or not the Offeror has simply restated the SOW, which is unacceptable.

1. Technical Evaluation Approach Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the RFP. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal relative to the Factors and Sub-factors. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost for additional merit.

1. Technical Ratings The Government will use the following combined technical/risk rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

Within the Technical Factor, each sub-Factor will be rated separately using the adjectival ratings. Each sub-Factor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each sub-Factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of the sub-Factor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/sub-Factor level are ineligible for award.

1. Technical Evaluations SUB-FACTOR 1: Production/Manufacturing The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed manufacturing capabilities and relevant experience related to the production of 57mm ammunition. The Offeror shall describe the technical approach proposed to meet the requirements described in the performance specification PRF WS35805 and the SOW. The Government will evaluate the detailed analysis of the design to determine the specific manufacturing processes that will be required to successfully produce an acceptable end item. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed difficulties, uncertainties, and risks associated with performing the kind of work that will be required.

The Government will evaluate a detailed manufacturing plan for producing and testing 57mm HE-PD Cartridges. The Government will assess the Offeror’s description for manufacturing of the complete cartridge, including assemblies, explosive loading, and the fuze. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

1. The capability of the manufacturing facilities, equipment and tooling to meet the Government requirements and schedule.

1. Facilities and equipment that are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and their plans for obtaining the facilities and equipment.

1. The proposed sub-contractors and their involvement in the manufacture of 57mm HE-PD Cartridges.

SUB-FACTOR 2: Quality Assurance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of their quality assurance capabilities, facilities, and relevant experience to meet the requirements as defined in the solicitation, statement of work and specification PRF WS35805. The Government will assess the Offeror’s plan that is to be used for the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

1. The adequacy of the process to control Critical Characteristics at the subcontract level.

1. The adequacy of the Quality Management System and whether or not it is certified to or compliant with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008, or an equivalent quality program acceptable to the Government.

1. The adequacy and completeness of the quality plan for the manufacture, inspection and acceptance of the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge. The Government will also evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s process that will be used to flow down all quality requirements to subcontractors and suppliers.

SUB-FACTOR 3: Testing Facilities and Capabilities The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of testing facilities and capabilities related to the testing of 57mm ammunition. The Government will evaluate the test equipment and facilities for destructive and non-destructive testing required per PRF WS35805. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

1. The adequacy and readiness of the destructive and non-destructive test equipment, instrumentation, and facilities.

1. The adequacy and readiness of the Ballistic testing capabilities, equipment, instrumentation, and facilities.

SUB-FACTOR 4: Management The Government will evaluate the organizational chart that identifies key individuals and their skills and experience relevant to this acquisition. Government will evaluate the proposed plan for liaison with the Government, including schedule control processes that maintain visibility of the work progress and reporting of problems and schedule slippages. Government will evaluate the description of the Configuration Management System that would be used for the 57mm HE-PD Cartridge including a description of how engineering changes, deviations and waivers to drawings and specifications are processed, reviewed, and acted upon.

2. Factor 2 – Schedule (Volume II)

2. Schedule Ratings The Government will use the following combined schedule/risk rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and that qualification of the item is complete prior to contract award. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of inability to meet the contract period of performance is very low.

Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and that qualification of the item is complete soon after production contract award. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of inability to meet the contract period of performance is low.

Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and that qualification will be completed during the first half of the contract period of performance. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of inability to meet the contract period of performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and that qualification will be completed at some point during the contract period of performance. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of inability to meet the contract period of performance is less than high.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

2. Schedule Evaluation The Government shall evaluate an Integrated Master Schedule showing the schedule of events, inclusive of qualification and all requirements specified by the statement of work, specification, and solicitation. The Integrated Master Schedule shall encompass qualification, production and delivery of the 57mm HE-PD Cartridges required by the solicitation indicating at a minimum:

1. Design Qualification

1. First Article Manufacturing

1. First Article Testing

1. Material acquisition, including long lead items

1. Production

1. Lot Acceptance Inspection and Testing

1. Delivery

2. Factor 3 – Price (Volume III) If deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, the Government may conduct price analysis, cost analysis, and/or cost realism analysis on the cost/price proposal in an effort to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism.

The Government may limit the breadth of the cost realism analyses to those Offeror proposals that represent the most likely candidates for award based on information derived from the technical evaluation and relative cost comparison. If an Offeror has a lower technical rating than competing Offerors and a higher proposed cost, the Government may elect not to perform a cost realism analysis on said Offeror's proposed cost as the cost realism analysis will only result in upward adjustments to the proposed cost thereby further removing the Offeror's proposal from the most likely candidates for award.

Price may be used as a deciding factor of importance when Offerors receive similar ratings for the other factors.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (For Other Than Small Businesses Only) Not subject to merit evaluation; only for determining Responsibility.

Subcontractors Providing Cost Data Separately: Cost data provided separately by a subcontractor or consultant should be received by the time and date specified for receipt of proposals. Failure of the subcontractor’s cost data to be timely may result in the Prime Offeror being late.

2. Factor 4 – Past Performance (Volume IV) The Government will evaluate the Prime’s and Subcontractors’ past performance to develop the Offeror’s past performance rating. Past Performance will be evaluated by the Contract Specialist.

Past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s and subcontractors’ ability to complete the contract successfully. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s and subcontractors’ demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and subcontractors’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the current solicitation requirement (i.e., Conventional ammunition production) and to determine how well the contractor performed on those previous contracts. Relevancy includes similarity of service/support, complexity and dollar value. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and its relevancy.

The reference information must be current to facilitate the evaluation process. If the Offeror and/or subcontractors has no relevant past performance within the last five years or cannot provide a list of relevant contracts, then the Offeror must provide an explanation.

In the evaluation of an Offeror’s and subcontractors’ past performance, the Government reserves the right to use relevant performance only within the past five years. The Government will not evaluate past performance information outside of the five year timeframe which begins at the date of solicitation issuance. Relevant and timely past performance information including, but not limited to, information in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (http://www.ppirs.gov/) including the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) will be considered during the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. Other sources of information available to the Government may also be used in the evaluation of Past Performance.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used to assign a rating for each effort for the Relevancy of the Past Performance obtained by the Government:

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used to assign one rating for the Performance Confidence Assessment to each Prime Offeror. This rating shall be based on the Prime’s and its subcontractors’ Past Performance Information.

Substantial Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has any expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.0 METHODOLOGY

Proposals will be evaluated for the degree of understanding demonstrated, the technical excellence or lack thereof within the factors, and the level of competence proposed within each factor, as appropriate. Risk assessments will be performed as to the risk of unsuccessful performance within each factor. Each factor will be reviewed based on the merits of the information contained in the Offeror’s submission.