N0017419R0131_Amendment_0003.docx

N0017419R0131

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 10-Jul-2019 04:30 PM to 17-Jul-2019 04:30 PM.

The number of offeror copies required has decreased by 3 from 4 to 1.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1.0 OVERVIEW

The purpose of this acquisition is to determine the “best value” Offeror to provide for the MK 38 Coax Kit Parts. The parts include Chute Assembly, Corrosion Resistant Utility Box Assembly, Axle Mount Assembly, Box Assembly, Ammo Can Mounting Components, Coaxial Gun Control Unit Mounting Components, Harness Assembly W39, Harness Assembly W46, Cable Pass Thru, Jumper Plug, Containers Shipping and Storage MK 52 Coax, and First Article Test of each listed item. This procurement will procure the machine shop portion of the MK 38 Coax Kits and will not include the MK 52 MOD 0 7.62mm Automatic Gun, the Coaxial Gun Control Unit, the Laser Rangefinder or the Control Unit. The requirement involves manufacture, assemble, inspect, preserve, package and shipment of the required items meeting or exceeding the government provided specifications.

1.1 Contract Award

1.1.1 The Government intends to award a single 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.

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

1.1.3 The Government reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers and 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.

1.1.4 The Government will conduct price analysis on the proposal.

2.0 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 of solicitation posting.

3.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

3.1 Submission

3.1.1 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. One (1) copy of the Technical Volume I.

2. One (1) copy of Past Performance Volume II, including Past Performance Matrix, and Past Performance Questionnaire.

3. One (1) copy of the Price Volume III, containing the completed and signed Request for Proposal (RFP) package, with all representation certifications executed, and with prices for all quantities within each line item in Section B.

(ii) Any proposal modification or revision not received/submitted by the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and may 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.

(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.

3.1.2 Offerors responding to this solicitation may submit their quote in accordance with their standard commercial practices (e.g. on company letterhead, formal quotes form, etc.), but must include the following information:

1.) Company’s complete mailing and remittance addresses, discounts for prompt payment, if any (e.g. 1% 10 days), ability to meet delivery requirement and unit price of product;

2.) The company’s CAGE code, Dun and Bradstreet Number, Taxpayer ID number;

3.) For a quote on a comparable commercial item, product literature must be included;

4.) Point of Contract Information for the Offeror;

5.) Point of Contact Information for Person(s) Authorized to Negotiate; and 6.) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

Failure to submit a complete proposal prior to the solicitation closing date and time may render the proposal unacceptable.

3.2 Offer Expiration Date

Proposals in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 270 calendar days.

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.

4.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

4.1 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. 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.

Format shall comply with the following information:

8.5 x 11 inch paper Single-spaced typed lines 1 inch margins 12-point Times New Roman Font text

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). Please keep the file names consistent for all volumes.

The electronic proposal shall be prepared so that when printed, the proposal meets the following format requirements:

8.5 x 11 inch paper Single-spaced typed lines 1 inch margins 12-point Times New Roman Font text No hyperlinks Microsoft Office 2016 or earlier (Word, Excel, Power Point)

Any other attached documents requested herein shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2016 or earlier format. Compression tools are limited to PKZip or WinZip. The font size for text contained in embedded graphics (tables and illustrations) shall be no smaller than 10 point Times New Roman font.

Offerors shall have all subcontractors submit proposal information in a uniform format consistent with the above instructions.

The Offeror shall submit proposals in hard copy to:

NSWC IHEODTD

Contracts Department 4081 North Jackson Road Indian Head, MD 20640-5115 Code 022RC ATTN: Robert Cook

The Offeror shall also submit one proposal in electronic copy to:

Robert.G.Cook2@navy.mil

4.1.1 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 page-numbered as part of the page numbering system.

4.1.2 Page Limitations

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. The following are not included in the page limitations:

(i) Title/Cover pages

(ii) Tables of contents

(iii) Glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms

(iv) Subcontracting agreements, letters of intent, resumes, and subcontract agreements

(v) Proposal Cross-Reference Tables

4.2 Cover letter, provided as a separate file, of the proposal must provide the following:

(i) The solicitation number;

(ii) Cage Code;

(iii) The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone and facsimile numbers of points of contact for the Offeror and teaming subcontractors;

(iv) Names, titles, and telephone and facsimile numbers (and electronic addresses if available) of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(v) Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal.

(vi) A statement that the Offeror consents, meets and agrees with all terms, conditions, requirements, provisions, and amendments included in the solicitation. Offerors must meet all requirements at the time of proposal submission; or provide with their cover letter an acceptable plan to meet the requirements by the start date of the contract performance. Failure to meet all requirements at the time of proposal submission or provide an acceptable plan to meet the requirements by the start date of the contract performance may remove the Offeror from consideration of award. The following elements of the technical proposal shall be addressed in the cover letter:

· Limitations on Subcontracting Plan Information, total small business set-aside, per FAR 52.219-14.

4.3 Cover Page, Table of Contents, Proposal Cross-Reference Table

Each proposal volume must be a separate volume to 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.

4.4 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary which includes all abbreviations, acronyms and their corresponding definitions.

4.5 Pricing Information

Pricing information of any kind shall only be included in Volume III, Proposal. Cost summary and back-up spreadsheets must be submitted in MS Excel format.

5.0 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

Factors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance.

Volume I - TECHNICAL (Factor 1) (Not to Exceed 50 pages)

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.

The Offeror shall describe how it plans to accomplish the tasks associated with the following subfactors:

Factors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance. All non-price factors, when combined, are more important than price; however, price becomes more of a deciding factor of importance when Offerors receive similar ratings for the other factors. Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be used for a tradeoff process. Factor 4 will be pass/fail only. Of the three (3) Technical Sub-Factors Production/Manufacturing Processes and Quality Assurance are of equal importance and more important than Management.

SUB-FACTOR 1: PRODUCTION/MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

The Offeror shall describe the overall manufacturing plan and approach including production processes, procedures, material handling and controls for the fabrication of MK 38 Coax Kits including, but not limited to, packaging, essential manufacturing facilities, equipment and tooling required during the manufacturing process, and production rate capabilities.

The Offeror shall indicate which of the facilities and equipment are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and indicate plans for obtaining the facilities and equipment.

The Offeror shall address the requirements of the Technical Data Package (TDP), Statement of Work (SOW), and drawings EC0R-0105.

The Offeror shall provide a manufacturing plan for the production of the Coax Kits that includes a description of each operation and procedure and the Offeror’s production rate capabilities.

The Offeror shall identify all subcontractors (if any) by company name and any subcontracted work, such as any portion of manufacture of the supplies, and shall be discussed in the same level of detail as the in-house production.

The Offeror shall identify any problem areas or risks of the manufacturing process operations shown in the proposal and include the strategy to mitigate these risks.

SUB-FACTOR 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PLAN (Not included in the page limit)

The Offeror shall provide a copy of their Company’s Quality Management Plan (QMP) (not included in the page limited count). The plan should be sufficient in detail to allow the Government to ascertain if the contractor’s quality systems meet the requirement of ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001-2015 Quality Management Systems or an equivalent quality program acceptable to the Government.

The Offeror shall provide a description of the quality assurance capabilities, facilities, and relevant experience to meet the quality assurance requirements of the solicitation, statement of work, and technical data package.

SUB-FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT

The Offeror shall provide individuals and their qualifications, including subcontractor personnel, who shall be responsible for executing the proposed manufacturing/fabrication plan.

The Offeror shall demonstrate in its proposal that it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any proposal that on its face, fails to demonstrate that the Offeror’s personnel or a similarly situated entitiy will be performing at least 50% of the contract work, will be deemed to be technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (Jan 2019)(DEVIATION 2019-O0003).

FACTOR 2: SCHEDULE

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 production schedule for manufacturing of the MK 38 Coax Kits by the solicitation including major tasks and risks indicating at a minimum:

a. Facility set up (the arrangement of tooling, machinery, input and control of supplies and materials that efficiently support the manufacturing process);

b. Tooling and equipment designs/procurement;

c. First Article Testing

d. Material acquisition, including long lead items;

e. Fabrication;

f. Inspection and testing;

g. Delivery of hardware in accordance with Government Schedule;

h. Preparation and delivery of Data Items in accordance with Government schedule.

Volume II - PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor 3) (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, Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) 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., Machine shop manufacturing and assembly) 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 022RC 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.

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.

Volume III - PRICE (Factor 4) (No Page Limit)

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

This volume is the only volume that shall contain cost or price information. There is no limitation on the number of pages or print size for the cost 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. Proposed prices shall be provided for all quantities for all contract line items (CLINs), to include any delivery charges to destination in accordance with the solicitation term “FOB – Destination”.

The Price Volume shall include any available pricing information to facilitate the price analysis that will be performed in evaluating the proposal (i.e., price breakdown, catalog pricing, past pricing history, etc.).

The price information shall include data regarding the general financial condition of the Offeror. The Government may provide financial assistance through progress payments.

The Price Volume shall also include all executed representation certifications.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

The entire completed and signed solicitation shall be returned as part of the offer. Be sure to complete all representations and certifications in the solicitation. If using the System for Award Management (SAM), complete any representations and certifications for provisions in the solicitation that are not included in SAM.

As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a single contract based on initial offers and 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.

Failure to address any of the instructions within this solicitation may result in a proposal being excluded from considered for award.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M

1.0 General:

1.5 The following factors will be used to evaluate offers. Factors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance. All non-price factors, when combined, are more important than price; however, price becomes more of a deciding factor of importance when Offerors receive similar ratings for the other factors. Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be used for a tradeoff process. Factor 4 will be pass/fail only. Of the three (3) Technical Sub-Factors Production/Manufacturing Processes and Quality Assurance are of equal importance and more important than Management.

2.0 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

2.1 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:

Volume I: Factor 1: Technical:

Sub-Factor 1: Production/Manufacturing Processes Sub-Factor 2: Quality Assurance (QA)

Volume II: Factor 3: Past Performance

Volume III: Factor 4: Price

3.0 EVALUATION APPROACH

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

a. 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.

b. 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.

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

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

e. 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.

3.2 Factor 1 – Technical (Volume 1) (Not to Exceed 50 pages)

The Government has established the page limit for each technical subfactor 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.

3.2.1 Technical Evaluation Approach

Evaluation of this factor is a subjective evaluation of the Offeror’s capabilities, skills to perform the overall requirements as outlined in Section L Factor 1 Technical Capabilities. The Government will evaluate if the Offeror has proposed a plan, methods, procedures and resources that are capable of accomplishing the requirements of the project. 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.

3.2.2 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 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.

3.2.3 Technical Evaluations (Volume I)

Within the Technical Factor, each sub-Factor will be rated separately using the adjectival ratings. Each sub-Factor will be assessed for 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 “Unacceptable” at any Technical Factor/sub-Factor level are ineligible for award.

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

Sub-Factor 1: Production/Manufacturing Processes

The Government will evaluate the Offerors overall manufacturing plan and approach including the production processes, procedures, material handling and controls for fabrication of MK 38 Coax Kits. The evaluation will include packaging, essential manufacturing facilities, equipment and tooling requirements, and production rate capabilities. The Offerors detailed submission adequately addressing the requirements of the Technical Data Package (TDP), Statement of Work (SOW), and drawings EC0R-0105. The Offerors plan for obtaining facilities and equipment not currently owned or leased by the Offeror will be evaluated for feasibility. The subcontracted work will be evaluated at the same level as the Offerors in-house production. The manufacturing risk mitigation plan and identified problem areas of the manufacturing process will be evaluated to the strategy and mitigation of risks.

Sub-Factor 2: Quality Assurance (QA) Plan (Not included in the page limit)

The Government will review and evaluate the Offerors provided Quality Management Plan (QMP). The evaluation will determine if the Offerors QMP meets or exceeds the requirements of the ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001-2015 Quality Management Systems and acceptability to the Government. The Quality Assurance capabilities, facilities, and relevant experience to meet the QA requirements of the solicitation, statement of work, and technical data package, will be evaluated.

Sub-Factor 3: Management

The Offerors provided list of individuals, including their qualifications and subcontractor personnel, responsible for executing the proposed manufacturing/fabrication plan will be evaluated. The Offeror shall demonstrate in its proposal that it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any proposal that on its face, fails to demonstrate that the Offeror’s personnel or a similarly situated entitiy will be performing at least 50% of the contract work, will be deemed to be technically unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award in accordance with FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (Jan 2019)(DEVIATION 2019-O0003).

Factor 2 – Schedule (Volume I)

The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposed plan for liaison with the Government, including schedule control processes that maintain visibility of the work progress and reporting of problems and schedule slippage.

The evaluation of the production schedule for manufacturing the MK 38 Coax Kits will at a minimum be evaluating major tasks and risks areas such as:

a. Facility set up (the arrangement of tooling, machinery, input and control of supplies and materials that efficiently support the manufacturing process);

b. Tooling and equipment designs/procurement;

c. First Article Testing

d. Material acquisition, including long lead items;

e. Fabrication;

f. Inspection and testing;

g. Delivery of hardware in accordance with Government Schedule;

h. Preparation and delivery of Data Items in accordance with Government schedule.

Offerors that receive a final rating of “Unacceptable” at the Schedule Factor are ineligible for award.

Factor 3 – Past Performance (Volume II)

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 perform the contract successfully. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s and subcontractors’ probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. 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., machine manufacturing shop and assembly) 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), PDREP, SPRS 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.

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.

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 no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors that receive a final rating of “No Confidence” at the Past Performance Factor are ineligible for award.

Factor 3 – Price (Volume III)

Although Price is the least important factor, the degree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of the offers in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be made. Price will be evaluated by the Contracts personnel to determine fairness, completeness and reasonableness through the most appropriate method available in accordance with FAR Part 15.4.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

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. Evaluators will not allow any prior knowledge of the Offeror to affect the evaluation of Factors 1 and 2, but relevant and timely past performance information will be considered during the evaluation of Factor 3.

At the conclusion of the Technical evaluations, the Government will reach a consensus rating for the Technical factor for each Offeror. If an Offeror receives a Technical rating of “Unacceptable” the Government may decide to not evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance as that Offeror will not be considered for award. The decision whether to evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance is entirely at the discretion of the Government. Only Offerors receiving a Technical rating of “Marginal” or better, a Schedule rating of “Marginal” or better, and a Past Performance rating other than “No Confidence” will be eligible for award.

The Government will not assign a rating to the Price factor, but will determine the evaluated price for each Offeror based on information provided, for the Offerors that represent the most likely candidates for award. If an Offeror receives a Technical rating of “Unacceptable” the Government may decide to not evaluate the Offeror’s Price as that Offeror will not be considered for award. The remaining Offerors will then be compared using tradeoffs between the Technical factor, Schedule factor, Past Performance factor and Price. Offerors are advised that the Government seeks proposals that demonstrate the greatest technical ability at a fair and reasonable price. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf